A Comment About

Twelve Ways Obama Could Lose

February 1, 2012 - 12:00 am - by Patrick Reddy
The Obama Timeline author
2012-02-01 15:58:15

13. Obama’s name is removed from the ballot in many states because he is not a natural born citizen, making it impossible for him to get 270 electoral votes.

In 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “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.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Unscrupulous Obots—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Morrison Remick Waite wrote, “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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

In Schneider v. Rusk the Supreme Court stated, “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.” The U.S. Supreme Court therefore specifically noted, in its 1964 ruling, that “natural born citizen” does not have the same meaning as “native born citizen” or “naturalized citizen.” All are citizens, but only one subcategory of citizens can be called natural born citizens. Therefore, those who argue that Obama is a natural born citizen merely because he was born in Hawaii are incorrect. Birth in Hawaii only makes Obama a native born citizen. To be a natural born citizen requires two U.S. citizen parents—and Obama had only one.