EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Originally published May 5, 2010, it comes several months after another piece raised hackles among conservatives, in part, because of it’s headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. Even if you disagree with Paul, this piece will make you think long and hard.
Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama. Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya? Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967? If so, when did he repatriate? Where did he spend the summer of 1981? Did he actually attend classes at Columbia? Did he write Dreams from My Father? These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones. The most critical question relates to his eligibility. Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze only what Obama tells us about his background and origins.
First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
We know that Obama was not alive at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he admits to being at least 35 years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we have sufficient eyewitness evidence that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years. But is he a “natural born” U.S. citizen? What is a “natural born” Citizen, and how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from ever becoming president or vice president?
To answer these questions we must first examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term “natural born;” we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama’s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible or otherwise corrupt person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.
What is a “Natural Born” Citizen?
In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel. In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defines the term “natural born Citizen” as follows:
“… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country (emphasis added).”
When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy? Not likely. It is a preposterous notion on its face. To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.
In a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States, addressed to George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of foreign allegiance to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy. He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
Further expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a draft Constitution under which only two jobs in the entire United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.
Accordingly, support for Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States begs the question: precisely what is it that differentiates a “citizen” from a “natural born” citizen? Those who agree that the two terms are mutually exclusive, not synonymous, but who also argue that Obama is “natural born,” are obligated to support their argument with facts and reason.
What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1 so as to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen. That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
At the time the Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who… having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor… became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.
To fully understand the importance of the words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates. Those dates are: 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date after which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration July 4, 1776… became 35 years of age.
The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least 35 years of age. However, the only “natural born” citizens available June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age. To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted US citizens… all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least 35 years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed… to serve as president. This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age 35.
George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Va., Feb. 22, 1732, 44 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.
John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Mass., Oct. 30, 1735, 41 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.
Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Va., April 13, 1743, 33 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.
James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia March 16, 1751, 25 years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia April 28, 1758, 18 years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.
However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, N.Y., Dec. 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least 35 years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776. All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation. It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are “natural born” citizens and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. There can be no exceptions.
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)
Today, many thousands of babies are born each year to U.S. citizens on foreign soil. In cases where both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth, those children are “natural born” citizens under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Conversely, many thousands of children are born each year on American soil to parents, both of whom are not U.S. citizens. Under the 14th Amendment, those children become U.S. “citizens” at birth, but they can never consider themselves to be “natural born.”
Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?
In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and few observers were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Sen. John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008, memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008, statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
This was followed by an April 30, 2008, Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining). The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution.
It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.
While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court concluded in Minor that, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.” For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced H.J.R. 104 Sept. 15, 2004. The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:
“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”
H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress. Then, early in the 109th Congress, Feb. 1, 2005, Representative Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress. And while it is understandable that Representative Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained.
For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”
On Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Representative Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress. And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.
All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.
Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, what distinguishes Representative Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear; he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency. The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a complete mystery; they only serve to raise major questions.
In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, born with dual US-British citizenship, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?
So the question arises, what did Representatives Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives? More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?
U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship
The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship…
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law… However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries…(emphasis added).”
It is inconceivable to think that any person who holds citizenship in a foreign nation… such as Barack Obama, who currently holds dual US-Kenyan citizenship… should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.
Barack Obama’s Citizenship Status
Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii August 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., of Kenya, a British crown colony.
Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”
Obama’s father, a Kenyan citizen, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution provided as follows:
(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. [FYI: Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.]
(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship, presumably giving him at least temporarily, dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father. And since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Chapter VI, Section 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution Aug. 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.
However, to further complicate matters, the revised constitution adopted by the people of Kenya Aug. 4, 2010, brought Obama back into the fold by creating a category of Kenyan citizenship called “citizen by birth.”
During fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration spent some $24 million in USAID funds in Kenya in support of a “yes” vote on a new Kenyan Constitution. Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).” The constitution was adopted Aug. 4, 2010 (Obama’s 49th birthday), reinstating Obama, a U.S. citizen, as also a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
To properly evaluate Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, and to more completely understand the motivations of the Founding Fathers, it might be instructive to compare Barack Obama’s qualifications with those of a known individual whom the American people would be certain to reject as president.
For example, if it is true, as some Obama apologists claim, that his dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship should not disqualify him from serving as president of the United States, then the burden of proof is upon them to also show how the radical al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, killed in Yemen Sept. 30, 2011, by an American drone strike, was not also eligible to serve as president of the United States.
Like Obama, al-Awlaki was a native-born U.S. citizen. He was born at Las Cruces, N.M., to Yemini parents April 21, 1971. He was at least 35 years of age at the time of his death and he had resided in the United States for 17 years. In other words, Anwar Al-Awlaki, a central figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the man who recruited Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bomber of Northwest Airlines Flight 253; and the spiritual mentor of Fort Hood assassin, Major Nidal Malik Hasan; had precisely the same qualifications for President of the United States as Barack Obama.
The only discernible difference between Obama and Al-Awlaki’s qualifications for the U.S. presidency is the fact that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. However, that lone distinction is not sufficient to alter the fact that both men were born with dual citizenship “by descent” from one or both of their non-U.S. citizen parents.
The Vetting Process for President and Vice President
The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities. The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.
All of the documents provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:
“We do hereby certify that (at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”
The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.
However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform. The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the following affirmation:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”
Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.
The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted. Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.
This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer J.B. Williams in a Sept. 10, 2009 article, titled, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie. Immediately upon publication of Williams’ article, Obama-doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats’ deception was exposed.
So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?” Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?
However, apparently operating under the assumption that his first four years in the White House has legitimized him, the officers of the 2012 Democratic National Convention included eligibility language in the certifications sent to the state election boards. The 2012 certification, dated Sept. 6, 2012, reads as follows:
“As Chair and Secretary respectively of the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, having assembled in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 4 through 6, 2012, WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the following are the nominees of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following are legally qualified to serve as President and Vice President of the United States respectively under the applicable provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The certification then lists the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The documents are signed by Antonio Villaraigosa and Alice Travis Germond, the Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Monica C. Cole. Both Villaraigosa and Germond were advised prior to signing the certifications that they would be swearing to a fraud if they signed the certification documents. The certifications represent a second consecutive failure by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention to properly vet their candidates for president and vice president.
It should also be noted that, in his Declaration of Candidacy for President of the United States, filed with the Oklahoma State Board of Elections… and presumably 49 other state election boards… Barack Obama swore the following under penalty of perjury:
“I, the undersigned, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that the abovementioned facts (his name and home address) are true and correct and that I am fully qualified to become a candidate for the office of President of the United States and that I will be fully qualified to hold said office, if elected. I further swear or affirm that I have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for said office.”
The document is signed by Barack Obama and is notarized under date of Nov. 9, 2011. By signing that document, Obama is guilty of the crime of perjury, and perhaps other offenses.
The second vetting opportunity occurs on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December when the Electoral College meets to elect a president and vice president. Between Nov. 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and Dec. 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility. However, none of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College.
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. As the final failsafe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College.
So if, in fact, the Democratic National Committee knowingly certified a candidate for the November ballot who was ineligible to serve, the Democrat members of the Electoral College failed to vet the men they elected, and no member of Congress questioned his qualifications, what are the possible alternatives? Is it possible, as some suggest, that we simply ignore the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1 when considering Obama’s eligibility?
In a Dec. 8, 2008, discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.
“Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting what lawyers refer to as the ‘best available evidence,’ (Obama’s published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate).”
But what if the members of Congress fail in their responsibility? Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’(emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.
When members of Congress are sworn into office they solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” So, one might ask, why have members of Congress not questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president when they were obligated to do so and when he clearly does not meet the “natural born” standard?
In the days following the joint session of Congress Jan. 8, 2009, when not a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, chose to honor their oath of office, the members were inundated with demands by constituents that they justify that dereliction. A great many members sought guidance from the Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, drew the “short straw” and was assigned the task of drafting a response. His April 3, 2009, memorandum, provided to all members of Congress, read, in part, as follows:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
It is that memorandum, the now infamous Maskell Memorandum, that members of Congress have been hiding behind since April 3, 2009. In conducting his legal research for preparation of his opinion, Haskell failed to consult the March 19, 2008, legal research conducted by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, regarding Senator John McCain’s status as a natural born citizen.
In their March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution (emphasis added).”
What Dr. Viera asserts, and what any schoolchild would understand, is that it is not within the power of Congress to waive the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 by simply ignoring them… as they have attempted to do since Jan. 8, 2009, the Maskell Memorandum notwithstanding. Nor is it within the power of the people, the states, or the courts to waive the eligibility requirements… short of a constitutional amendment.
That being the case, and assuming that Obama could not be convinced to voluntarily evacuate the White House, what are the alternatives? Is it possible to impeach a usurper president or vice president when the impeachment process is designed to apply only to individuals who are fully qualified, legally elected, and officially inaugurated? And if the House of Representatives did proceed to impeach him, would that action automatically provide legitimacy to all acts and appointments of his illegitimate presidency?
The most likely answer lies in the Nixon model, in which leaders of his own party went to the White House to demand his resignation. In Obama’s case… he being less of a gentleman and less of a patriot than Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon… that is unlikely to occur until a substantial majority of Americans become convinced that he is a usurper and his approval rating drops below 20 percent. Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of salvaging their own political careers, to demand that he leave.
With each passing day, the damage that Obama does makes the future of our constitutional republic more and more problematic. What cannot wait for the judgment of history are answers to the following questions:
1. Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first 14 weeks in the U.S. Senate?
2. Since the Chairman and Secretary of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, purposely dropped language from certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifying that Barack Obama was eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution, when was Pelosi first made aware that Obama was ineligible to serve, how widely was that known within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, and who participated in the conspiracy?
Since the foregoing questions are critically important, is there a direct relationship between them? And, if so, what is the connection and who are the co-conspirators? The American people deserve to know. A great fraud was perpetrated on the American people in 2008. That fraud must be corrected in 2012.
The U.S. Electoral College is scheduled to meet Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, to elect a president and vice president of the United States. It is unlikely that the Democratic members of the Electoral College will have the courage to fulfill their constitutional obligations by properly vetting Barack Hussein Obama. Consequently, it will become the duty of Republican members of the Congress to address the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve. Let us pray that they will have the courage to do what must be done.
UPDATE 3/27/2015 at 6:55 a.m. Central: Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized 221 years later when a usurper named Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.
SEE ALSO: The Founders’ Worst Fears Coming True.
For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter. Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!by