From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “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.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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 words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “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.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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 words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””