Barack Hussein Obama: Presidential Usurper

Barack Hussein Obama has usurped the Office of President of the United States – a fact that many of our fellow citizens refuse to acknowledge. While our politicians, our judiciary, most of the media, and a large segment of the general public ignore this treachery, the charlatan acting as President of the United States continues to degrade and deform our political system, our economy, our fellow citizens, and our way of life. Of course, these opinions are based on the fact that Obama is not a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency in the United States of America. But why should we let constitutional law impede the progress of hope and change?

Perhaps most people never truly learned about constitutional law and the principles and theories that influenced it. Perhaps most people don’t fully comprehend the ramifications of a presidential usurper. Perhaps most people are too apprehensive to speak out about our president being an absolute fraud, and considering the actions taken by the statists in both our government and the media to silence critics, destroy careers, and deride their opposition, they certainly shouldn’t be blamed for their hesitance.

Claiming that Barack Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen is not an unsubstantiated allegation. Despite how some people may attempt to define the term today, at the time the Constitution was written, natural-born citizen had a specific meaning in both our language and our law. This original version was and is the adopted meaning used in our Constitution.

But what exactly does “natural-born” mean?

According to natural law theory – which heavily influenced the statesmen during the American Revolution and was the driving philosophy throughout it – there are certain moral truths and principles common to all of mankind. They are capable of being entirely recognized and understood by reason alone. Natural law is an unwritten law that requires no positive acts of government, or positive law, to exist or to take effect on mankind. It is immutable.

If a law is natural, then it exists outside the realm of positive law. Natural law may be codified and protected by positive laws, but the latter cannot create the former. If the source of a law is an agreement between nations or governments, then it cannot be natural.

With regards to citizenship, if there is more than one nation that can claim either the parent or child as a citizen – by virtue of either the place of birth or the different citizenships of the parents, or both – then the citizenship of the child cannot be determined by entirely natural conditions, or natural law. In such circumstances, it is the national, or positive laws of the competing nations that confer citizenship unto the child. As a matter of theory, it would be erroneous to claim that a child in this circumstance would be a natural-born citizen of any country according to the laws of nature alone.

As a matter of language, it should come as no surprise that natural-born citizenship refers to something derived from nature. If citizenship is understood to be “natural,” then it is also outside the scope of positive law – meaning that with or without a national government regulating it, citizenship can be transferred from parent to child.

Natural-born simply refers to the way citizenship is acquired: at birth.

So, strictly as a matter of language, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship was acquired at the time of birth and by natural means. A dictionary would be more than sufficient to comprehend this meaning.

However, we have much more than a mere dictionary to define the term in question. Despite what many so-called “scholars” agree upon in regards to the term natural-born citizen, the writings of Emerich de Vattel point to a very specific meaning – and his definition of the term is the only explicit one known today. Vattel’s 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, was based on the reasoning and literature of past natural law theorists and his work was greatly accepted and cited by our Founders and other jurists and statesmen for well over a century.

In the chapter titled, “Of Our Native Country and Several Things That Relate to It,” Vattel explains the concept of countries, citizenship, expatriation, and rights, among other things. This was his description of citizenship and how it is acquired:

Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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

From this one clause we can recognize several key points.

Vattel makes it clear that citizens are obligated to perform certain duties within the society of which they are members. They are also subject to its jurisdiction and can enjoy certain privileges as citizens, such as political participation and property ownership. Foreigners are not obligated, but also do not enjoy those rights and privileges that citizens do. These have always been well-recognized maxims in natural law theory, which Vattel simply reiterated as matter of fact.

The phrase natural-born citizen is defined as one being “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The word citizens has been obviously pluralized. Furthermore, citizen was defined in the previous sentence, so the meaning of that word is not in dispute. From these points, we can logically deduce the meaning of “natural-born citizen” as one born in the country of two parents who are obligated to perform duties as members of the society, who are subject to the authority or jurisdiction of the society’s government, and who enjoy the privileges of such a citizenship and can participate in the political construct. If both parents do not fit that description, then they are not citizens of the country and their children cannot inherit that condition at birth.

Natural-born citizenship is inherited naturally from citizen parents and does not require a positive law to confer it. In other words, as previously stated, it is outside the realm of national law. Each citizen has the inherent and immutable right to pass their citizenship along to their children. Foreigners can only pass their citizenship to their children – the one derived from their nation of origin – not the citizenship of the nation in which they temporarily reside.

Not only is Vattel’s term explicitly defined, but it is also the exact same term found in our Constitution.

“No Person, except a natural-born Citizen…shall be eligible to that Office of President….” – Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

If there is another meaning of natural-born citizen that the Founders adopted, where is the literature to support it? Unless and until another definition of the term is identified and can be linked to the term used in the Constitution, this meaning is the only one available and it is the only one that we can reasonably conclude was adopted by the statesmen at the constitutional convention. As long as this remains true, Vattel’s definition of natural-born citizen is the only definition that can be used for legal construction. All other meanings are merely conjecture and have no factual or legal basis.

As concerned as the Founders were of foreign influence, it is laughable that they accidentally adopted the identical term used by Vattel to explain how a society must preserve itself through inherited citizenship of the “native” population. It is no more a “term of art” – as some people suggest – than “Vice-President” or “Republican Form of Government.” Vattel’s treatise largely influenced the Founders, especially Alexander Hamilton, one of the most prolific political writers and possibly the greatest lawyer in our nation’s history. He was also a key figure at the constitutional convention, where The Law of Nations was widely circulated and lauded by many of the statesmen in attendance. Vattel’s influence during the process of creating our Constitution and federal government is undeniable.

There is no need for going into elaborate detail on the different types of national and international laws and how citizenship would play into them – it is wholly unnecessary. The only law that requires contemplation is found in Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution. The term natural-born citizen has a meaning and it is indeed explicit. The same meaning adopted by our Founders is the one we must use today when interpreting constitutional law. The meanings of the words in our Constitution cannot be any different today than at the time they were written during the constitutional convention and adopted by the States. There is no exception to that longstanding and judicially recognized rule of construction.

The Constitution is a contract between the citizens of the United States, the several States, and our federal government. It is the law by which the federal government must abide. It is not arbitrary, as governments may only justifiably govern by consent. Our Constitution represents the consent of the governed in the United States and it grants our federal government specific powers and duties. Therefore, it is not up to that government to decide which constitutional laws they will or will not adhere to or enforce. If the federal government fails to abide by the Constitution, then their actions are, by definition, unconstitutional. If the federal government ignores their obligation to uphold constitutional law, then it is an illegitimate one and the authority granted to them in the Constitution, by the People, is revoked.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States expresses who shall be eligible for the office of the President of the United States.

“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; 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.”

This clause explicitly states that only natural-born citizens may be eligible for the presidency – the solitary exception being those citizens who were already alive at the time of our founding. Why was this exception necessary? It was plainly recognized that persons born before the United States was founded were born under the jurisdiction of the British Crown, and therefore, they could not be natural-born citizens of the new nation even though it was the same geographical territory. They were British subjects at birth and were only naturalized citizens by virtue of the adoption of the new Constitution of the United States.

The clause also implicitly states that eligibility must be verified prior to a vote or to taking office. The term used is “eligible,” which means that a person first must be qualified in order to be considered for the presidency. If there is doubt as to whether or not a candidate is eligible, then it is up to that candidate to provide proof of his or her claim that he or she is indeed qualified by constitutional law. That was and is the contract negotiated between the People and our federal government.

The People cannot enforce these laws if we are refused the opportunity to determine whether or not a presidential candidate – before taking office – is a natural-born citizen, thirty-five years old, and a resident for fourteen years. The evidence supporting these claims of qualification must necessarily and obviously be presented prior to an election, and certainly before taking office, in order to make such a determination on eligibility. If this does not happen, then the rights of the People – as defined in the contractual agreement between the citizens and our government – have been violated and, consequently, the presidency has in fact been usurped.

Even if a candidate were able to slip past the eligibility issue, if elected, he or she would not be able to legitimately hold the office of president simply by the will of the majority of voters. The Constitution is the governing law by which all government personnel and entities must abide, regardless of the whims of the majority. Without the compliance of our constitutional laws by the federal government, the authority of that government is essentially nullified. Our Constitution is a contractual obligation that, if breached, is no longer valid.

Barack Obama was reportedly born on August 4, 1961 to a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was a British citizen. At this point, any other information is immaterial. With regards to the relevant constitutional law, his mother’s citizenship and his place of birth become inconsequential once it is known that his citizenship was governed by British law through his father.

“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.” – British Nationality Act of 1948

Obama could not have been a natural-born citizen of the United States because the British government had a legitimate legal claim of citizenship to the children of its citizens.

Barack Hussein Obama, the alleged current president of the United States, was born a British citizen.

In light of this fact, Obama is not a natural-born citizen according to both the meaning of the term and the principles and theories that gave way to that meaning. He may still be a citizen of the United States, as long as other specific criteria were met, but he was not and is not natural-born.

When the charge is made that Obama is not eligible for the presidency, the assertion goes far beyond mere political rhetoric and partisanship. It is a serious indictment that merits an extraordinarily critical examination and immediate action. If one is not a natural-born citizen, as in Obama’s case, then one cannot legitimately be the President of the United States – this, according to our Constitution. If the person presumed to be the president cannot lawfully hold that office, then anything done in the capacity of that office by the usurper is null and void, ab initio, under the same law.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of laws and actions that would necessarily be revoked or otherwise invalid:

• Any laws passed by Congress and signed by the usurper, such as the budget, the “stimulus,” and S-CHIP
• Any executive orders signed by the usurper, such as the closing of Guantanamo Bay’s detention facility
• Any military orders issued by the usurper, such as troop surges and withdrawals
• Any appointments made by the usurper, such as his entire cabinet, ambassadors, and judges
• Any ratified treaties or other international obligations agreed to by the usurper

Essentially, the entire presidency would be null and void, as if it had never happened. Ironically, most of Obama’s past is as if it had never happened due to the concealment of a vast amount of personal records, so it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to see a similar result in this instance. Unfortunately, the consequences of a situation like this can be catastrophic to our security, the economy, and the rule of law.

As for Obama, the consequences of being a usurper can be quite disastrous. Immediate removal from office would certainly not be the only penalty. He may also be liable for crimes under the United States Criminal Codes for many of his actions, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, multiple counts of fraud and making false statements, perjury and subornation of perjury, misuse of evidence of citizenship, false personation, and even espionage. The cumulative punishment for offenses committed by Obama and any possible co-conspirators could be quite severe – which may be why he and his cohorts are doing everything in their power to make eligibility a non-issue, to conceal his personal records and prevent their release, and to deride anyone who seeks real answers from this dishonest and hypocritically opaque administration.

The legal chaos that could ensue from the removal of Obama and the invalidation of every law, order, or other action approved, enacted, or initiated by him may be overwhelming. Equally so, civil disorder may prove to be too much to handle by local and state law enforcement. This type of societal disarray is exactly why usurpation is to be avoided at all costs – and precisely why presidential qualifications must be proven beyond doubt before an election takes place.

The rest of our politicians and judges should not be exempt from any fallout resulting from the usurpation. All those in the federal and state governments and judiciaries ought to have taken a constitutional oath according to Article VI, Section 3, to support our Constitution. Their refusal to enforce the eligibility clause is a direct violation of that oath. They may also be complicit in the usurpation by negligence or an outright refusal to take any appropriate actions once they became aware of the issue.

The aforementioned truths are both rational and virtually undeniable. No reasonable person can dismiss these facts out of hand or continue to ignore what has been candidly presented.

Those who choose to look past the eligibility issue for alleged reasons of safety and security, because they don’t want to be mocked by those who are ignorant and irrational, or because they believe nothing will be done about it, are only doing themselves and their fellow citizens a great disservice. They have chosen to live not as free individuals in a constitutional republic, but as subjects to an illegitimate government. There is no honor whatsoever in dismissing constitutional law for fear of ridicule or civil unrest. And there is no logic behind the forsaking of the law because of the misperception that it will never be applied correctly. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that it is. If we ignore that duty, then it will become nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those United States citizens, who ridicule any person seeking answers from the administration, the federal and state legislatures, or the courts, are nothing more than incompetent and utterly worthless to the political process and system. Their rebuttals to the question of eligibility and citizenship are vacuous; their derision is insolent and nearly insufferable; their labels – such as “birthers,” “tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists,” or “racists” – are juvenile and, quite frankly, downright pathetic. The colossal ignorance of these people, and quite ironically, their condescension, knows no bounds.

Despite the attempts by these political hacks to distract the unwitting and belittle their opponents, they neither refute the facts nor do they answer the charges.

Barack Hussein Obama is, as a matter of fact, a presidential usurper. This charge has been made and will continue to be made until the issue is resolved. No documents will change that fact, unless it is proven that Obama’s father is not who we have been told he is and was indeed a citizen of the United States at the time of his son’s birth. Unless or until that happens, the United States as a whole will continue to be in serious jeopardy.

As for the intellectually feeble and those with a lack of fortitude: If you’re not going to take this seriously or if you don’t want to be bothered with upholding constitutional law, then kindly step aside, keep quiet, and wait for your government to tell you “the truth.”

*See also: Thoughts on United States Citizenship, Barack Obama: The Illegitimate President, and One Hundred Days of Illegitimacy

 Copyright © 2009 by RationalLiberty.com

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author.

_______________________________________________________________________________________