Making Data More Accessible

Who will honestly consider the facts of eligibility

I have provided many links and references on this site, replying with information to the comments of others. For anyone who is really interested in the facts of the meaning of "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution, one more time I'll list below some of those links which will enlighten the reader. However, some individuals posting here prefer to just trade insults rather than look into the research. The birth certificate is a strawman, sending many people off chasing irrelevant rabbits. The meaning of the phrases "natural born citizen" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are supremely important as any honest seeker attempts to learn whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to the office of POTUS. If he is not a "natural born citizen", he is ineligible. The nasty insults are a bore and waste of time and indicate those tossing them really don't want to know the truth. I won't spend more time reading them.

Some folks suggest going to snopes for confirmations, but are apparently unaware that "snopes" is a man and wife in LA (she a housewife, he a web designer) who are Democrat supporters of Obama. They tend to disregard negative information about him and spin to enhance their preference. Read that site if you want, but understand the inherent bias. I've worked on research of the "eligibility" issue for many months, leading to my conclusion that due to his birth as a British subject and adoption by his Indonesian step-father, he can never be a "natural born citizen." I challenge you to read all the historical research on the following sites with an honest attitude for the facts of "natural born citizen."

Natural-Born is Nationality from Natural Law. It is determined by the father at birth, from which all rights of birth and inheritance flow. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British colonial. Read Vatttel's Law of Nations.

Natural-Born Citizen, A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

Black's Law Dictionary, 17th Ed. (1999)

Naturalized-Citizen, A foreign born [or born of foreign parentage] who attains citizenship by law. Black's, 17th Ed (1999)

The legislative definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined as "not owing allegiance to any other."

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “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.”

Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS (plural) NOT OWING allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the 14th Amendment was written said,

"... 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens'... that means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof'.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof'? NOT OWING allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Emerich de Vattel was a consummate writer on the law, from whom the framers drew their understanding. Following is from his Law of Nations.

§ 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. NOTE THE PLURAL- TWO PARENTS who are citizens.

Statutes over foreign birth, or birth to a foreigner, are Naturalization laws as they provide for the revocation of that alien nationality. Statutes cannot create or redefine Natural-Born, an immutable condition occurring from two U.S. citizen parents.

National law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nations' citizens. The simple fact that Obama had a foreign father removes the possibility of Natural Born status.

If he was born in the US, he would still be ineligible for the office, due to the fact that his father was a Kenyan, a British subject, which citizenship passed to Obama at birth.

Obama was born with a split allegiance and is therefore ineligible to be a "natural born" citizen. This split allegiance becomes evident in his interference in the political affairs of Kenya and the Mideast, while declaring himself to be a "citizen of the world." The founders of our country specifically intended that only one whose sole allegiance is to the United States would be eligible to serve in the presidency.

From Fightthesmears website-

“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."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and the intent and meaning of the writers of that document is today's law. They defined "natural born citizen" and Mr. Obama, having been under allegiance to Britain at his birth, cannot meet the test

8 USC 1409(c) regarding out-of-wedlock birth, re possible citizenship from mother (1961 version- the current one is revised and different) or go to home page, on the left, click on TOF and choose the topic Natural Born


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

48 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Downvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Downvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Downvoted
  8. Downvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Downvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Downvoted
  14. Downvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Upvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Downvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 5 ]


  1. Comment

    I salute your patriatism and most impressive knowledge. Few in this day care enough to look past their comic books. Yet there is more to the story. The work of the founding fathers that you are well versed in was amended following the abolition of slavery to allow the children of slaves to be citizens of the country they were born into and would spend their lives in. The law still grants citizenship to any child born in the US regardless of who their parents are. This is why the location of Obamas birth is important.

    There is a bill pending, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, that will return the law almost to the vision of the founding fathers. Please urge your legislators to pass it.

  2. Comment
    citar ( Idea Submitter )

    You are correct that the amendment was to provide benefit to the children of slaves, which children of course have long passed away.

    But in fact, it isn't "current law", but current and faulty interpretation of the 14th amendment that allows "border babies" to be citizens. The writers, as I quote above, defined the right as "not subject to a foreign power" or "owing no allegiance to another." The parents of border babies are not citizens; thousands have no intent to be Americans and the babies are subject to the foreign power. Even so, the interpretation DOES NOT make them NATURAL BORN citizens, as the framers of the Constitution and 14th intended. One of them could NOT become POTUS. And whoever wrote the short congressional summary of the 2009 Act posted online, was also not educated on this point, indicating current law does make them natural born- a false statement.

    Nonetheless, I do support the proposed act, with the intended purpose of correctly re-interpreting the 14th Amendment.

  3. Comment

    what you're saying is that a Native American, who was born to 2 American Citizens, is not eligible to become President, despite his ancestors being in the country longer than your ancestors. That's redicilous.

    By the way, citar, take a look at a case called Perkins v. Elg. It clearly states that U.S. Citizenship Law operates independantly from any other citizenship law. It also states that someone who has had dual citizenship is still a natural-born citizen.

    Furthermore, if 2 non-citizens, who had completely denounced their citizenship to other countries, but were not U.S. Citizens yet (say Green Cards), their child would be eligible for the Presidency.

    The situation was that Elg was born in the United States, to Swedish Parents (who were U.S. Citizens). Her parents moved to Sweden, became citizens there, and she obtained Swedish citizenship. She then moved back to the United States, before the age of majority, and continued to reside there. This case went up all the way to the Supreme Court, and not only did the court describe her as a citizen, but the Supreme Court described her as a Natural-Born Citizen (In those exact words). So, someone who did have Dual Citizenship is, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, considered a Natural-Born Citizen.

    While your legal theory is interesting, it's also completely wrong. Perkins v. Elg makes it very clear that U.S. Citizenship operates independently from any other citizenship law. There's nothing in U.S. Citizenship law that considers anything about other countries citizenship (other than to say that if the country has a problem with dual citizenship, then there's no citizenship granted).

  4. Comment
    citar ( Idea Submitter )

    Are you suggesting that Native Americans who are born to two US citizens hold allegiance to some foreign country and do not thereby have sole allegiance to the USA??? I don't know of anyone who considers Native American tribes as citizens of a "foreign power."

    With regard to your second paragraph, natural born citizenship happens at birth and cannot be changed at some later time. As all the references I cite will indicate, "two non-citizens Renouncing their foreign citizenship" would be using a statute to change their situation, which automatically becomes a "naturalization", not "natural born citizenship."

    If you have a sincere interest in the truths of this serious issue, PLEASE read all the references I provide in order to understand the requirements of "Natural born." These are not my thoughts, but the writings of those who have deeply and historically studied the issue.

    By the way, for a really important reference I cite in my list, I see one typo at the very end of it. That one is

    Of course I have read "Elg", which was not a case about "natural born", but only about a person native-born in the US whose parents took her away, she returned, and sued to reclaim her native-born US citizenship. An error in the lower court used the words "natural born" but the whole case was regarding and did decide on simple citizenship. It proved that her non-US-citizen parents had no legal ability to take away her US citizenship acquired at birth. HOWEVER, reading again the writers of the Constitution and 14th amendment, she was not the child of two US parents, and therefore not a "natural born" citizen.

  5. Comment

    Citar, Native Americans are members of their tribes, and therefore citizens of a soverign power. Therefore, under you own rule, Native Americans are ineligible to be President of the United States. Of course, then you have to explain away Charles Curtis, who was a Native American.

    But I don't think you've actually read Perkins v. Elg, citar. Let me quote you a sentance from the United States.

    "The court below...declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'..."

    So, your theory is that someone who has dual citizenship cannot possibly be a Natural Born Citizen. That is completely false, citar.

    Do me a favor, and I'm going to link you to a few articles that have just as much standing as what your articles do:

    Read the articles there. read the things that those articles link to. And you'll see that there's no hope to your novel theory.

    By the way, then I hope that you will not vote for Bobby Jindal when he runs for President, since under your definition, he'd be constitutionally ineligible as well.

  6. Comment

    Oh, and a few more comments from framers of the Constitution:

    James Madison:

    It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

    Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton

    Also read Lynch v. Clarke, and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Both of those cases (Lynch v. Clarke), declare people to be citizens based upon the place of their birth, and not the status of their parents. Lynch v. Clarke even determines someone to be a Natural-Born Citizen.