“Why I ask, should not the ‘injunctions and prohibitions’ addressed by
the people in the Constitution to the States and the Legislatures of
States, be enforced by the people through the proposed amendment?” 
“The oath, the most solemn compact which man can make with his Maker,
was to bind the State Legislatures, executive officers, and judges to
sacredly respect the Constitution and all the rights secured by it.”
Rep. Bingham (See Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1090 (1866))

 
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional Oath of Office

Natural Born Citizen

Why Barack Obama must be challenged

US Constitution

“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.”

To understand the intent of the founding fathers in using the words
“natural born citizen”, to define presidential eligibility, one must
first examine any influential documents and opinions from those
involved in crafting the US Constitution. What is clear and indisputable
is the following:

• A naturalized citizen is a citizen by no act of law such as naturalization.
• A child born to US citizens on US soil is a natural born citizen.
• The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the following:

“the children of citizens of the United States that may
be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

 
Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, written in 1758, was a
valuable reference guide for the founding fathers.

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.”

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on
July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:

“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.”

The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

“This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.”

After the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.”

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Rep. Bingham on Section 1992 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the
time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be
born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to
be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more
precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign
sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance”
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance
to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.” Read more

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 1898 Reveals the following:

“Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English
rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United
States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to
affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.”

“It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English
common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of
the United States.”

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,
I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen”
applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United
States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners,
happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of
royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,
were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad,
were not.”

“Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German
subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned.
After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary
Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his
birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the
Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not
pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”

“And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of
such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United
States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth
Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first
clause of the first section reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.

The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it
is not open to reasonable doubt that the words “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words “and not
subject to any foreign power” of the act.”

Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325,328 (1939) differentiates between a US citizen
and a natural born citizen.  Ms. Elg, was born in Brooklyn, NY to an
American mother and a Swedish father was a US citizen, but not a natural
born citizen.

Leo Donofrio explains the basis for his lawsuit:

“The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other
“Citizens”.  And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment
only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”.  The
Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens.  They
put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the
Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.” 

“The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn
a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British
jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject
to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United
States.  And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution
as being eligible to be President.  But the grandfather clause only
pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution.” 

“It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to
anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their
intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause
which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Application of Natural Born Citizen and Citizen to Barack Obama

Barack Obama was born to an American Mother and Kenyan Father.

Is Obama eligible under the Natural Born Citizen provision?

Philip Berg states:

“Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff
believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia.
Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries
multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United
States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.”

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues.  They
are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President.  Since
Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the
jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth,
then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers
of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original
birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be
eligible to be President.” 

“My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and
therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen”
of the United States.  A “natural born citizen” would have no other
jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States.
The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. 
The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born
citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.”

“The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility
fail to hit the mark on this issue.  Since Obama was, “at birth”, a
British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of
Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in
Hawaii or abroad.  Either way, he is not eligible to be President.  Should
Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii,
it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.” 

“Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”.  And as will be
made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction
“at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.”

Lightfoot lawsuit

“Mr. Obama is a son of a citizen of Kenya, that in 1961 was a British
protectorate, whereby regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or US, he
was a foreign citizen based on his fathers citizenship, he was a subject of
a foreign power and foreign jurisdiction and does not qualify as a natural
born citizen.”

“In adherence to the natural born citizen provision, the first presidents
of this country, such as George Washington and John Adams, that were born on
this soil, in Virginia and Massachussetts respectively, had to include an
additional constitution provision in addition to the natural born citizen,
“…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution…”, in order to allow themselves, as Britizh subjects at the
time of their birth to be sworn as Presidents.  Since Mr. Obama is not 221
years old and was not a US citizen at the time of the Constitution, he, as a
British citizen at birth does not fall under this provision and does not
qualify as a natural born citizen and is not eligible to become the President
regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.”

Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

It is clear from the above that Obama is not eligible to be president.
For there to even be a ruling contrary to the letter and spirit of the
law, Obama must at least prove that he was a citizen of the US at birth.
This means that Obama would have to prove that he was born in Hawaii.

Unless Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii, he is in fact not a US
citizen and is an illegal alien

At this point, no legal proof of Obama being born in Hawaii has been
provided. The Hawaiian Health Dept. official stated:

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official
birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits
the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a
tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with
the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee
and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified
that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed
that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital
record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

According to Philip Berg:

“There are records of a “registry of birth” for
Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.”

So, how is it possible to not be born in Hawaii and yet have a
birth certificate record in Hawaii?

[§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State. 
(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child,
the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii
as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the
birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health
in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of
health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may
deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth
certificates and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established
by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1] Hawaii statute

From the Keyes lawsuit:

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

If Obama was born in kenya, his mother had to be nineteen years
old for Obama to be a US citizen. Berg explains:

“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of
his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen,
which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would
have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were
after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was
only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under
the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the
time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born
abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen
parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the
child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register
Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b),
Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944).”

 Under the best case scenario for Obama, he is a US citizen, not natural
born, and the worst case scenario, Obama is an illegal alien. If Obama
was born in Kenya, he is an illegal alien.

At the time of Obama’s birth, he was a Kenyan citizen and under British
rule. For there to be a ruling on Obama’s potential eligibility for the
presidency based on being a natural born citizen, Obama must provide proof
that he was also a US citizen at birth and that would require proof that
he was born in Hawaii. To date, no legal proof has been provided. In fact,
every effort has been made by Obama to avoid proving his eligibility. He
has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and employed numerous attorneys
to evade his dubious past.

Obama must provide a vault (long form) birth certificate to prove he is
not an illegal alien. Think about it. We know that Obama is not eligible
under the US Constitution.

Are we going to let him steal the presidency as an illegal alien?