Constitutionally Speaking

H Res 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

This has some in a tizzy crying foul;  those who still cling to the Kenyan birth.

You see, tucked away in this non-binding resolution, such as the S RES 511, Congress has uttered another useless ‘whereas’ by adopting Hawaii the home of the 44th President. So What is the big deal?

None for me. Obama could have been born in a manger in the White House for all I care; it still does not make him eligible to be POTUS according to the Supreme Court ruling as to the definition of natural born citizen as it pertains to Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution.

Via Leo Donofrio, Esq:

On December 13, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

And on that same day he forwarded the following document to the Arizona Secretary of State:

[These images and Obama’s possible perjury thereto were first highlighted by The Obama File.]

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US.  The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a  Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President.  He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue.  But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen.  But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.   Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1.  This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.  But the  Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement.  SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”.  Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama –  the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status.  Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true.  If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your  “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are –  in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.

You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt.  You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.

The states of Arizona and Virginia accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots.  He was then elected President.  The voters in Virginia and Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.

When Obama  swore he was eligible, he lied.  He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible.  He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false.  He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was.   He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.

On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS.  He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say.  But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess.  The affirmations demanded that he swear he was –  in fact – eligible to be POTUS.

A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation  ahead of himself.  Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law.  The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.

The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election.  Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself.  He did no such thing.  He swore something was true when he  knew the truth was in doubt.   Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.

Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.

[Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]