The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part IV

Some new facts have come to my attention concerning the Obama Birth Certificate controversy. These facts stem from the meaning of the phrase "natural-born citizen" as understood by our Founding Fathers at the time of the writing of our United States Constitution. They used as their guide Vattel's Law of Nations (1758).

Quoting from that source on the subject of "Citizens and natives":


VATTEL: THE LAW OF NATIONS

BOOK I.
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

§ 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.
________________________________________________

So, the question must be asked: Is the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution still in effect? The Naturalization Act is not a formal Constitutional Amendment, though it is the law of record concerning the subject of citizenship.

The Founders would not have considered Obama a "natural-born citizen", therefore, today should we, or should we not? This seems like a conundrum only the Supreme Court can finally decide... and they have not, to date, ruled on it.


Oh, and as a further point, why is Obama's father's race listed as "African" on Obama's Birth Certificate? According to Vital Statistics Of The United States  1961  Volume I--Natality, Page 231:

Race and color

Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite." The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part III

Part III -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

The section of the 1940 Naturalization Act quoted in Part II is what is referenced to prove the argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. However, the 1940 Naturalization Act was revised by the 1952 Naturalization Act, page 285, (g) to its present form as found in the current United States Code:

              

     (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
________________________________________________

So there it is. The intriguing argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and his birth certificate will prove it has struck out. The assertion that both of his parents must be United States citizens is incorrect all the way around, according to any version of the Naturalization Act (strike one). The argument that he was actually born in Kenya doesn't matter, as it wouldn't necessarily prevent Obama from being a valid natural-born citizen of the United States (strike two). Finally, the more convoluted argument that his mother who, although a United States citizen, was not old enough to qualify her son as also being a citizen, is taken from an out-dated version of the Naturalization Act (from 1940) that is no longer valid (strike three).

According to the Naturalization Act as it has existed from 1952 until current, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother fulfilled the requirements to grant natural-born citizenship to her son. Only if she renounced her American citizenship before Obama was born would he not be a legal citizen of the United States.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy -- Part II

Part II -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

The text from Part I is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.

Now here is where the controversy starts to get very muddled, people seem to have glommed onto the text of the 1940 Naturalization Act, Chapter II--Nationality At Birth, which read differently:

     (g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That, in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.
________________________________________________

The final blow to the Birth Certificate controversy is covered in Part III.

The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part I

Part I -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]

[CITE: 8USC1401]

[Page 396-398]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

[...]

     (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:[...]

________________________________________________

The above is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.

This is too long for my blog-site to handle all at once, so read the other two parts. Parts II and III will show additional research that clears up any doubt...

"We will bury you!"

I remember a lot of presidents, the first one I truly paid attention to was Eisenhower, he convinced me I was a Republican at the ripe old age of 11. I've seen a lot of lousy governing, but I've seen how well it can be done, too. Reagan proved that firm but reasonable is what works.

We are a nation of different ideologies, and all should have their place. What's wrong today is that somewhere along the line a tiny minority of radicals usurped our universities and entertainment industry, and then our government, and convinced the people that the government should do it for them, rather than that they should do it for themselves.

Do you remember Kruschev pounding his shoe on a podium and yelling "We will bury you!"? Even as a kid, that sight made a lasting impression. It was evident I was looking at a mortal enemy.

The USSR's plan was to destroy us from within. From former KGB officers who worked in covert operations who defected, we've learned that one of their tactics was to infiltrate the faculties of institutions of higher learning, and subvert personalities from the entertainment and news media. They called such people in influential positions "useful idiots". They wined-and-dined those useful idiots, preening their egos, telling them how "special" and "enlightened" they were.

Of course, after they'd served their purpose, those same useful idiots were the first to be imprisoned or killed, after the Communists had taken over their country and things started going very bad for the people... as they always did. In fact, it was imperative they remove them, because of the very fact those useful idiots *were* influential, and could as easily stir the people to rebellion when they discovered Communism was very much *not* the utopia they had been convinced it was.

The first thing they would attack was God, since religion, especially Christianity, is the antithesis of Communism, then they would break down the family, then they would destroy the moral backbone of the society.

Look around. Does any of that seem chillingly familiar?
__________________________________________

Watch the following YouTube video of an in-depth interview with a former Soviet agent, Yuri Bezmenov, who defected to the U.S... this could keep you up at night worrying:

Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press
(Run-time: 1:21:29)

.