Barack Obama: The Illegitimate President

The Constitution of the United States explicitly establishes the minimum requirements for holding federal government offices. For the President of the United States, the minimum eligibility requirements are stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

“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 that Office of President…”

What is a natural-born citizen? Our Constitution does not define the term, but our citizenship laws and the principles adopted by the founding generation point to a very specific meaning for it.

At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, there was only one well-known definition of natural-born citizen that was also consistent with the principles of a free society and a republican government. This definition was a result of several generations of natural law theory and international scholarship concerning the rights of man and the legitimate powers of government. The man who wrote this definition was one of the most respected and well-known authorities on national law during the creation of our federal government. His name was Emerich de Vattel and his work was The Law of Nations – a work that is one of the most quoted treatises by American legal authorities concerning national law.

According to Vattel, natural-born citizens are “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” This meaning has been reiterated by other government authorities, including the author of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, Representative John Bingham, and the Supreme Court in the case Minor v. Happersett.

Vattel’s reason for adopting this definition was explained later in the same paragraph.

“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.” – The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter XIX, § 212

Vattel’s interpretation was very well understood by the founding generation, which was heavily influenced by natural law theorists and scholars of international law. The constitutional meaning of the term natural-born citizen has not changed since it was first written and adopted by our founding statesmen. Consequently, it cannot change without a constitutional amendment adjusting or repealing the language – which has never happened.

Since there is in fact a specific and recognized meaning of natural-born citizen, we can know whether or not someone meets the criteria to be such a citizen. But before that determination is made, it would be prudent to understand the minimum criteria that need to be met in order to be a citizen, let alone natural-born.

The 14th Amendment to our Constitution defines who shall be citizens of the United States. That definition is limited to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” means that a person must be subject to all the laws that govern those who are already citizens of the United States. That is the minimum requirement to be eligible for citizenship in this country. If an individual does not meet those conditions, then they cannot be a citizen of the United States and they certainly cannot be a “natural-born” citizen of the United States. One must at least qualify for the former in order to be the latter.

Therefore, a natural-born citizen – and naturally, both parents – must be subject to the laws of the United States to which all existing citizens are subjected.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was born on August 4, 1961, according to the document that has so far been presented to the public. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was a citizen of the United Kingdom, born under and governed by the jurisdiction of the British Empire. At the time of his birth, Obama Jr. was governed by the same citizenship laws that conferred citizenship unto his father. This fact has been publicly admitted and acknowledged and the laws are on the books to confirm it. One of Obama’s presidential campaign websites affirms the jurisdiction that he was subject to at the time of his birth.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.” – FightTheSmears.com, quoted from FactCheck.org

The British Nationality Act of 1948 states the following:

“5.—(1) 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.”

It has long been a recognized fact that Barack Obama Sr. was a native Kenyan and therefore subject to the laws of this Act. Being a citizen of the United Kingdom, the laws of the British Empire governed the citizenship status of his children as well – also an acknowledged fact admitted by Obama Jr.

Barack Obama Jr. was, at the time of his birth, born to a British citizen governed by British law and consequently became a British citizen himself. This has been conceded, but the underlying ramifications have been ignored or severely downplayed. If he was governed by British law, then he cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth and certainly is not a “natural born citizen” according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States – which is one of three basic requirements to hold the office of the President of the United States.

The argument being made to try to circumvent this constitutional requirement is that Barack Obama is a “dual citizen” by birth, so he was both a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Assuming that he was born in the United States – which has yet to be empirically proven – and ignoring the original intent of the 14th Amendment, this would appear to be true on its face. But there’s a problem: The 14th Amendment confers no such citizenship and the United States government does not grant dual citizenship.

One is either a citizen of the United States or not a citizen of the United States. There is no law that grants dual citizenship. It’s merely a concept that originates from the conflicts of national laws. Dual citizenship at birth can only result from a situation where a child is subject to competing jurisdictions. If one is subject to the laws of two different nations, then one cannot be subject completely to one or the other. A natural-born citizen is subject to no other laws than those of his native country and those that govern his parents.

Barack Obama was subject to British citizenship laws through his father, so he could not have been under the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth and, therefore, could not have been a natural-born citizen according to the proper definition of the term.

These facts should have disqualified Barack Obama from being eligible for the presidency. Unfortunately, no government authority has challenged his citizenship claims. Not only has our government not challenged them, but they have failed to even consider or acknowledge that there may be a problem. Whether this is due to the fact that they are either ignorant of our citizenship laws or simply uninterested in the matter altogether, it is rather troublesome.

There have been a multitude of lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency, but the Supreme Court has yet to deliberate on the merits of any of the cases. Many other lower courts have dismissed the suits due to a lack of “standing,” which means that the plaintiffs have no right to bring the suit before the courts. Essentially, the judges have claimed that a citizen of the United States cannot challenge the eligibility of the president who will run the executive branch of the federal government that governs them.

The notion that a citizen of the United States does not have the legal right to challenge the eligibility of a potential government employee undermines the authority of the Constitution in its entirety. The concept of self-government and representative republicanism, in which the laws establishing how that government is to function and the rights that government has are set forth in a constitution, depends on the very existence of public inquiry and assertive enforcement of the guiding principles detailed in that constitution. The consent of the governed – as the preamble to our Constitution acknowledges with the opening words, “We the People” – is the only concept that makes any government legitimate.

The cases we have thus far seen in various courts are being dismissed based on the assumption that citizens do not have the authority to question the eligibility of the government employees that will govern them. In essence, these government officials are not held to the principles that lead to the understanding and acceptance of the phrase, “consent of the governed.”

The burden of proof for eligibility for public office rests with the person seeking that office. If they do not fulfill the requirements set forth by constitutional law, which was written and adopted by the People, then they cannot serve in the capacity of the office they seek. If there are genuine concerns that a prospective office-holder does not meet the constitutional requirements, then it is up to that potential office-holder to satisfy those public concerns. And it is the right of the People to challenge anyone who does not provide the necessary proof that validates their eligibility. To deny the right of the People to challenge the elected officials that will govern them is to deny the very notion of self-government.

To this day we have yet to receive any proof or validation that Barack Obama meets the constitutional criteria for presidential eligibility. He must prove that he is a natural-born citizen; otherwise he cannot be the legitimate president of the United States. Unfortunately for him, he cannot prove this. Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

The courts are keeping the People from challenging Obama’s eligibility by adhering to policies of standing and precedent. Neither of these are constitutional duties of the courts and they are not constitutionally mandated. When a constitutional matter is brought before the federal courts it is the duty of the federal courts to hear it.

Standing relies on a fictitious concept that forces a plaintiff to prove an “injury in fact” and that such an injury is particularized – that it is specific to the plaintiff. Federal courts often rely on this for lawsuits concerning constitutional matters despite the fact that it is the duty of the federal courts to hear “all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” There is no law that limits constitutional challenges to any predetermined set of requirements for a plaintiff to prove an individual and particularized injury.

Precedent is another policy of the courts, but just like standing, it is not a constitutional limitation. No court must rely on the previous ruling of another in order to construct and deliver their opinion. Precedents can be useful, but there is no law that binds a current court to adopt the exact same opinions of a former one, especially if the previous court erred in their interpretation of constitutional law.

In the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court case Berg v. Obama, the judge, R. Barclay Surrick, delivered a poorly-reasoned opinion. His opinion relied on the “particularized injury” argument. Judge Surrick claimed that Berg did not have standing to challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility primarily because the alleged injury would affect everyone, not Berg alone. This argument defies logic for obvious reasons. If everyone is injured by a constitutional violation, then anyone should have the right to bring suit. Instead, Surrick makes the assertion that because everyone is injured, nobody has that right.

This leaves one wondering: How can the situation ever be remedied? If we are all being injured by our government and not one person can bring suit because we’re all affected, how do we stop the continued injury? This demonstrates the absolute absurdity of the Berg decision and the reliance on precedent, which was the basis for making this determination.

If any of the various judges and courts are relying on precedent and the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to compose their dismissal orders, then they are gravely mistaken in their assumptions and they are committing a legal error. There is no precedent from any court regarding natural-born citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. And there are no legal restrictions that prevent any federal court from hearing any case regarding a federal constitutional matter.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” – Article VI of the Constitution of the United States

The judiciary, by means of their oath upon taking their seat in any United States court, is bound to support the Constitution – which means it is their right and duty to ensure that the Constitution is being adhered to by those in question who are to execute the powers of it. It is the right of the citizenry to ensure that the laws established by them are carried out according to their just demands. Government officials need to adhere to the law, because it is the law. If there is a question as to whether or not the law is being undermined, the People – through the jurisdiction of the courts as established – have the right to make a legal challenge; otherwise, the laws restricting the powers of government, which were constructed to protect the citizenry, are rendered unenforceable and moot.

When the courts decide that the People cannot challenge their government, then the People cannot be protected from their government. At this point, absolute subjection to a government of oppressors is practically complete. But that is a digression.

It would be hard to imagine that a person not constitutionally eligible to attain the Office of the President could “faithfully execute” his duties and defend the very Constitution that was purposely undermined in order to gain that office. In other words, the presidency would be in the hands of a usurper. It is the constitutional obligation of the federal courts to hear any case formulated on this premise. The notion that the branch of government responsible for upholding the law could refuse the right of the People to challenge someone egregiously violating that law and undermining the Constitution is fallacious and wholly absurd.

The federal courts must hear these suits. The judges must deliberate on the merits of these cases. This is their constitutional duty.

The merits are candid and clear-cut. Barack Obama became a citizen of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. This is an undisputed fact. He may have also become a United States citizen at the time of his birth because of the misinterpretation of our laws, but that would depend on when and where he was born. This has not been adequately settled and further obfuscation on the part of the Obama team of lawyers raises questions as to their purpose for not releasing relative documentation that can resolve the dilemma. However, that documentation will not make him eligible for the presidency – it will only determine whether or not he is a citizen of this country eligible for any federal office.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. cannot rightfully hold the Office of the President of the United States according to the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

The only remedy to make Obama the legitimate 44th President of the United States is to adopt a retroactive constitutional amendment which removes the term “natural-born Citizen” from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and to demand proper documentation that proves his status as a United States citizen.

Unless this remedy is sought and achieved, Barack Obama will remain a usurper of the federal executive powers of the United States. His presidency will remain illegitimate and the laws signed by him will remain unconstitutional. It is imperative that the courts hear the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility and make their determinations based on constitutional law. All delays will result in further damage to the authority of the federal government and the country in general.

__________________________________________________________________