The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘Article Two of the United States Constitution

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data.

with 8 comments


Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of...

Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

2012 VP Prospects

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP, By Retired Navy Commander Charles Kerchner

A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens who were Citizens of the United States either by birth or naturalization at the time of the birth of the child. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a child born with sole allegiance to the United States, a person born without Citizenship in any other country other than the USA at the time of their birth. A natural born Citizen has no foreign influence or claim on them by another country at the time of their birth under U.S. law and the Law of Nations. That is why the founders and framers chose the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” for the eligibility clause for the singular most powerful office in our form of government, the President and Commander in Chief of our military. They did not wish command of our military forces to ever devolve to a person born with dual allegiances.

Senator Marco Rubio of FL has been evasive and not been forthcoming about his exact citizenship status upon his birth in the United States in May 1971. Phone calls, emails, and letters to his office by various volunteers over the last year have gone unanswered on the question of whether his parents (who were immigrants from Cuba) had become naturalized citizens of the USA by the time of Marco’s birth in the USA.

We have given Senator Rubio long enough to be voluntarily forthcoming on this information. A phone call last week by a volunteer researcher assisting my efforts to learn more about Senator Marco Rubio’s exact birth citizenship status was made to the National Archives (NARA) to learn the facts about Senator Marco Rubio and certain other individuals who are mentioned in the media as potential candidates for President or Vice President. That is, are they constitutionally eligible, i.e., “natural born Citizens of the United States” as is required in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the information conveyed to the volunteer during the phone calls to NARA about Senator Marco Rubio of FL, his father did not petition to become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Sep 1975, a full four years after Marco Rubio was born. A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens at the time of the birth. Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States. He is a native born Citizen under the 14th Amendment and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision which grants basic citizenship to individuals born in the USA. But Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1. Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, and the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. Senator Marco Rubio has obviously known this for a long time. His silence in response to the American electorate and avoidance to answering the questions put to him over the last year about this issue says a lot about Marco Rubio and indicates that when it comes to his own personal political objectives he is in the progressive school of thought about following the fundamental law of the land, our U.S. Constitution. To people of the progressive school of thinking the Constitution says and means whatever one wants it to mean to allow one to achieve their personal political power and goals, i.e., what John McCain did in the 2008 presidential election cycle in making a deal with Senator Obama and the U.S. Senate so that McCain could run unmolested about questions by the Democrat Party operatives and their allies in the major media as to his natural born Citizenship status.

Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen. He was born with dual allegiance. One to the USA by location of birth and the other to Cuba via gaining Cuban citizenship at birth via his father since his father had not yet naturalized to the USA and renounced his Cuban citizenship by doing so. This is similar to the situation with Obama gaining British citizenship at birth from his Kenyan British Subject father. Senator Marco Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP. He should be a protector of the U.S. Constitution, the document that gave his parents the freedom and liberty they sought when they naturalized in this country. He should put his personal ambitions for higher office aside. He should tell the RNC and people in the media the facts and stand up like a statesman should and support the Constitution and not allow them to continue their musing and aspirations to run him for Prez and VP some day. To allow such discussions to continue in the major media is allowing them to continue to undermine the true meaning and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to clarifying his own constitutional citizenship status, Senator Marco Rubio of FL should also say that Obama is not eligible either and should be investigated for election fraud and criminal activities such as SSN fraud and draft registration fraud and be removed from office. We not only have a constitutionally ineligible person in the Oval Office but we also have a grifter and criminal in that office.

The leadership of the Republican Party and the RNC is also complicit in this usurpation of the founders and framers intent with the eligiblity clause in Article II Section 1. The Republican Party leadership has ENABLED Obama to get away with what he’s done to illegally usurp national power in order that the Republican Party can do the same thing too, i.e., ignore the Constitution when it suits their own political power objectives. It’s time for a change in the Republican Party leadership … a major change. We need dedicated constitutionalists to take over the party and fight the righteous battle to restore the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution to full force and effect in Washington DC and throughout our great land and to investigate Obama and have him removed for the fraud and criminal he is, and to thence begin a purge in Washington DC of all the enablers of this usurpation and cover up. We the People demand it.

Copies of the naturalization petition for U.S. Citizenship filed in Sep 1975 for Mario Rubio, the father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, were mailed to me from the National Archives and will be published here upon receipt.

UPDATE 27 May 2011: Copy of Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than 4 years after his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971

CDR Kerchner (Ret) http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com http://www.protectourliberty.org

Naturalization Petition Filed in Sep 1975 for Mario Rubio, the father of Senator Marco Rubio born May 1971

If the NBC issue encapsulates Obama then it must also encapsulate Rubio as well.  Only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America may serve as President or Vice President of these United States as per Article II Section I Clause IV of the United States Constitution.

The Good News: Rubio’s Eligible ?

with 14 comments


The Good News: Rubio’s Eligible

Posted on January 29, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of...

Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

The Founders were serious about American identity and the integrity of republican principles.  It was an incredible blessing to us that George and Martha Washington had no children of their marriage.  Washington had referred to this fact in the first draft of his Inaugural Address.  There would be no danger of monarchy here, he said, because he had “no child for whom I could wish to make provision — no family to build in greatness upon my country’s ruin.”

Now, consider Marco Rubio.  His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “all persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.”  This “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause shows why Rubio is — and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not — a “natural born citizen of the United States.”

We should be very careful in discussions of the Constitution to avoid the impression that we are an anti-immigrant party.  To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future.  Surely, that is not what we want.

The Obama Hustle’s response to the Conservative Byte article:

I and many of me fellow American Citizens feel that the literal wording of the U.S. Constitution as it pertains to an individuals eligibility to hold Presidential and or the Vice Presidential office needs to be exact as expressed in Article II – Section I – Clause IV of the United States Constitution:

Clause 5: Qualifications for office

“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.”
 

The Obama Eligibility Question Analyzed

with 2 comments


Seal of the President of the United States

 

The Obama Eligibility Question

Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze what we know to be true.
By Paul R. Hollrah @ Canada Free Press
 

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? 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 what we know to be true.

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 a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years. But is he a “natural born” 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 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 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 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 Founding Fathers 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 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 or vice president of the United States? Not likely.

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that gripped the hearts of 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 (a “Manchurian candidate?”) to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

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 adopted 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 on July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on 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 on June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized citizens by act of law, requiring a loyalty oath and renunciation of all foreign allegiances, and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

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 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 on which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776… became thirty-five years of age. (It was not until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration that the first natural born citizens became eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.)

Since the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president… excluding naturalized citizens and those with a history of dual nationality… it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those who were born prior to July 4, 1776. For example, presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson were all “citizens,” but not “natural born” citizens because they were 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…” Martin Van Buren, born to U.S. citizens on December 5, 1782, became the first “natural born” U.S. president.

It was the simplest and easiest way of creating a body of candidates during the earliest years of the republic, unconstrained by the requirement that they be “natural born” citizens, at least 35 year of age. Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

The Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to “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… not even for Barack Obama.

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.)

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 only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator 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, Sen. 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.”
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, in large part, 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 House Joint Resolution 104 on September 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, on February 1, 2005, 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 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 on September 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 January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, 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 Rep. 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 mystery; they only serve to raise important 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, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?

So the question arises, what did Congressmen 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: CONTINUED HERE: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42350

Cry and Howl

Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. Proverbs 19:27

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors's Blog

Frederick and Tudor Genealogy

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

The Surf Report

Triangulating "Truth" Beyond the 24/7 Spin Cycle

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If you are LEFT, you just ain't RIGHT

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

To find out, I hold a finger in the breeze.

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Real News World Wide

News World Wide, Real News Worldwide, News World Wide, Verified News, Infowars.com, realnewsworldwide.com, world news, headline news, best news

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: