Pour yourself a cup of refreshment, then come back and join me in learning some more Constitutional history; history that you will be teaching to future generations for decades to come. What I have I uncovered is the ‘nuclear bombshell’ that blows Obama’s claims to constitutional eligibility to smithereens.

I apologize to those in the chat room last night. I woke with a splitting headache this am and trying to concentrate on the final draft of this has been slow going, thus its tardiness getting published today.

Following up after a very informative debate on Wednesday evening, I set my sights to further research St. George Tucker and his commentaries on the Constitution. During the debate, the lawyer for the liberal cause was quite adamant that the 1790 Naturalization Act,even though it had been repealed, was the one law that backed his claims that Obama is constitutionally qualified under A2 S1 C5 of the Constitution.

The 1790 Act was repealed in 1795 and the words’ natural born citizen’ were removed, while the rest of the 1795 Naturalization Act remained in tact and verbatim to the original of 1790. You see, those in Congress at the time knew the same thing that those of us who have researched them know; a natural born citizen needs no law to qualify them for citizenship. When one is born on US soil to parents(both) who are American citizens, that one automatically owes no allegiance to any other sovereignty than the USA, thus they are ‘natural born’, nature working in its purest form. They also knew that the founding fathers did not consider themselves natural born citizens, hence the wording of A2 S1 C5 and its inclusion of a grandfather clause:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution,”

Former assist US Attorney, Andrew McCarthy, in his most recent eligibilty article at NRO wrote this of the qualifications and stated that Obama was Kenyan at birth which is misleading, Obama was British at birth, Kenya did not gain its sovereignty from Great Britain until Obama was 2 years old:

“The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.”

Now, while quite eloquently written using his legal mumbo-jumbo, as we go further, I will prove how McCarthy is quite wrong in his interpretation that Obama’s dual citizenship presents ‘complex dual-citizenship issues’.

Moving on, St George Tucker’s  commentaries are widely used in teaching constitutional law. His works are thorough and very enlightening, even to a lay person such as myself. However, while searching for more of his commentaries online, I came across another influential legal mind of the time who also wrote commentaries on the constitution. While I knew of him as a former Supreme Court Justice, I did not at the time know of his influences in the history of our legal system and the teachings of constitutional law across this great nation.

Justice Joseph Story was born in Marblehead, Ma in 1779. He graduated 2nd in his class from Harvard University in 1798. From there, Joseph went on to read law under Samuel Sewell, a then congressman and later chief justice of Ma. Joseph later went on to read law under Samuel Pitman in Salem, Ma and with no formal secondary law education; Joseph was admitted to the bar 3 years later in 1801. He would later go on to serve in the Ma House of Representatives and also represent Ma in the US congress. Joseph was nominated to the Supreme Court by President James Madison and he took his oath of office in November of 1811 at the age of 32 and he still remains the youngest ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Many of Justice Story’s opinions are still widely cited to this date. In the preface of Joseph’s Commentaries of 1833, he includes a dedication to President Madison in which he states:

“But in one department, (it need scarcely be said, that I allude to that of constitutional law,) the common consent of your countrymen has admitted you to stand with a rival. Posterity will assuredly confirm by its deliberate award, what the present age has approved, as act of undisputed justice. Your expositions of constitutional law enjoy a rare and extraordinary authority. They constitute a monument of fame far beyond the ordinary memorials of political and military glory. They are destined to enlighten, instruct and convince future generations; and can scarcely perish but with the memory of the constitution itself.”

Even as a young budding justice, Story knew that the preservation of the Republic and the Constitution relied on adherence to the original intent of our founding fathers and that is why he was both admired and despised by both parties of Congress during his tenure on the court.

Prominent radio host and constitutional scholar, Mark R. Levin, of the Landmark Legal Foundation and avid supporter of Hillsdale College recently referred to Justice Joseph Story as:

“the great Supreme Court Justice and constitutional scholar”

Joseph served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1845 and during that tenure; he was elected as overseer of Harvard University. Story is considered as the main founder of ‘Harvard Law School’ which was open for teaching in 1829. He would remain in the same position as overseer while he also served as a professor of law, a position he held until his death.

So, now that I have laid out the background of Justice Joseph Story, let’s get to the heart of today’s constitutional crisis that the founding fathers warned us of in their many writings.

In my earlier articles, I had quoted St George Tucker, (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a ‘natural born’ citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

I thought I had the smoking gun here when I first quoted this back in March, but the liberal legal minds kept quoting that naturalization at the time, meant the same thing as natural born citizen per the 1790 Naturalization Act that was repealed. They like to quote John McCain as being naturalized under the 14th Amendment; however, McCain is a citizen by codified statute cited in the Foreign Affairs manual under children born to US citizens abroad. What I have uncovered will blast S. Res. 511, a Senate Resolution declaring John Sidney McCain to be a ‘natural born’ citizen  right into outer space where it belongs, because it is filled with nothing but hot air opinions of corrupt politicians. All their ‘whereas’ are nothing more than particles of a political solar system, waiting to disintegrate upon entry into the realm of constitutional law.

During Story’s tenure at Harvard and until his death, there were 12 published Commentaries on wide ranging aspects of American law. Three of these volumes were on the constitution and his works won him an international reputation as one of the most renowned constitutional scholars of the time.

It was in reading his works of Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of ‘The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution’ originally published in 1833 and now provided online by none other than the University of Chicago (how fitting), Story writes of the qualifications of those who wish to attain election into the executive branch as laid out in A2 S1 C5 of the constitution.

§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.

 

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicile, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

Here Story clearly defines the difference between the 2 types of citizenship when he went into detail about the grandfather clause in which the original founding fathers relied on to attain election to the executive branch, a clause that would soon become obsolete and extinct.

(snip) or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

Did you catch the pertinent words here? Those stubborn words ‘naturalized‘,  ‘exception‘ and ‘extinct‘? Remember, Obama himself, claims that ‘words have meaning’.

(snip) This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)

Now, permit me to reiterate that to this date, Justice Joseph Story remains one of THE MOST cited justices and his ‘Commentaries’ are main stays in the teaching of constitutional law worldwide since their original publications began in 1832.

Obama studied law at Harvard, he was the president of Harvard Law Review during his time there, yet we are not allowed to read any of his writings and none thus far have shown to have been published. More importantly is the fact that Story is the founder of Harvard Law School and Obama surely would have been very familiar with Story’s works, especially the 3 volumes on ‘The Founders Constitution’.

Obama also supposedly taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago. I say supposedly because there is some question as to his actual being on the roll as a professor. I have yet to find published academic course offering booklets, of the time he claims to have been there, that offer any constitutional law classes of which he is the professor teaching the class.

The man occupying the executive branch and commander of our military knew full well that he was not constitutionally qualified. He and his cronies in Congress have used the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 to obscure that fact and continue to feed the Kenyan birth theory to keep the true facts of his ineligibility swept under the rug.

That is . . . UNTIL NOW!

Let’s all say in unison: “BOGUS POTUS”!

The next order of business, in which Leo Donofrio is working on, pertains to Obama’s British citizenship at birth. Obama claims that his British citizenship changed to Kenyan citizenship in 1963 when Kenya gained their freedom from British rule, he also claims that since he did not act on that Kenyan citizenship upon coming of age (another clever smoke screen), this inaction automatically caused him to lose his Kenyan citizenship. That may be, however, research has shown that at the coming of age, Kenyans who were born during the time of British rule, had to formally renounce their British citizenship for if they did not, they would remain subjects of Great Britain and subject to the rule of the monarchy.

So, the questions remain, what country’s passports has Obama travelled on during his extensive world travels in the 80’s & 90’s when he was a poor struggling college & law student as well as his travels abroad while he was a US Senator? Also, where did the funds come from to finance his college & law educations?

Every American citizen has a very valid right to know the answers to these two final questions.