1

A Natural Born Citizen

The following information was recently compiled by Professor Skidmore whom is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com. BY PROFESSOR RD SKIDMORE - Anyone who is serious about the U.S. Constitution and its requirements for the office of President. The Constitution in Article II defines the duties and qualifications for President of the United States; Section 1, paragraph 5 declares: The Constitutional requirement for President is 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; Note the Constitutional distinction of natural born Citizen and Citizen. The paramount question is why would the founders make the distinction of natural born Citizen and Citizen if it was not meaningfully important? In the case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Minor, a woman, wanted to register to vote in the federal Presidential election and was denied registration because of her gender. Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define natural born Citizen but that they did know its meaning and that it was different from Citizen as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens ELIGIBLE for the Presidency. The first seven Presidents were Citizens of the United States and not natural born Citizens, yet they qualified for the office (Washington through Jackson); because they were citizens AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF [THE] CONSTITUTION! These Presidents had lived through the Revolutionary War, they were patriots, loved our country at the exclusion of Great Britain, and held allegiance to our country as patriots. The founders recognized that a natural born Citizen, being born to Citizen PARENTS (plural) would have the same regard and love of country as these founders; at least that was their hope, prayer and intention. The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen; one only need to begin reading the naturalization acts passed by congress, and include the 14th Amendment. These enactments define citizenship and naturalization of citizens but never define the eligibility requirement for President of the United States. Though constitutionally distinct and separate there are those who argue that Mr. Obama is both a citizen and natural-born citizen, and thus eligible for the office of President because this fits their prejudices.

2 The Constitutional citizenship clause does not apply to Obama, is it did to George Washington, because he was not alive and a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1785). Obama is subject to the No Person except a natural born Citizen clause. How does he fare under this clause? Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth and The British Nationality Act of 1772 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of their birth location are themselves British Subjects: That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom: Now the issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born? By Obama's own admission, and demonstrated on the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is "NO". Remember, the Supreme Court (1874) in the Minor case unanimously defined children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born Citizens; and it is these children who are ELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States. Because Mr. Obamas father, at the time of his birth was a British Subject , and the Constitutional definition requires citizen Parents (note the plural), he is not a natural born Citizen as required for the office; he is for ever excluded from ever meeting the natural-born Citizen QUALIFICATION for President; thus Mr. Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States. Supporters of Mr. Obama do raise the case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark to defend their citizen/natural-born citizen prejudice. Wong was the son of Chinese subjects and born in California. At 17, in 1890, he left to visit China. Upon his return he passed through the collector of customs and was permitted to land as a nativeborn citizen of the United States. Wong again left to visit China in 1894, and returning to his homeland (U.S.) applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States. In the Wong case (1898) the court addressed the issue of Wongs citizenship. The United States Supreme court rendered a divided decision on the case where the majority found that Wong was a citizen. The court DOES NOT address if Wong is a natural-born Citizen QUALIFIED to be President of the United States; they left intact the Minor (1874) definition.

Unlike popular culture, in law there is precedent setting from Stare Decisis (to stand by that which is decided earlier). This is a hierarchy of law in that when a judgment is given by the court it is considered superior to future judgments and should be adhered to. Should Stare Decisis be ignored because the outcome does not fit our prejudices? Minor v Happersett (1874) defined children born of PARENTS who are Citizens are a natural born Citizen eligible to hold the office of President, compared to the Wong case of 1898 which addressed Wongs citizenship, not his qualifications to be President. In each case the court addressed two different issues and the Wong case did not strike down nor redefine Presidential eligibility. Our nation does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person. As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Courts unanimous definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged. Our congress and courts have refused to confront this issue and it is a Constitutional crisis for our nation and troops. The media and candidates refuse to ask the right questions, insisting on affirming Obama was born in the USA while disregarding the Constitutional requirements. Where Obama says he was born is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency and the Oath many of us have taken especially those in public office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God Thank you for reading.

REFERENCES
An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, United States Congress (March 26, 1790). ; Harvard, available at http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5596748, (last visited 26 October 2011) ; Indiana University, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, (last visited 26 October 2011) An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, United States Congress (January 29, 1795).; Indiana University, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, (last visited 26 October 2011)

4 British Nationality Act, 1772; Anno Regni decimo tertio G E O R G I I III. 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI.; available at http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1772.htm, (last visited 26 October 2011) United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5. 1787 United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 6. 1787 United States Constitution, Amendment XII, U. S. Constitution, ratified July 27, 1804 United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868 MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162 OCTOBER, 1874, Term; available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html, (last visited 25 October 2011); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875) Refer to paragraphs 17-19.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), (JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.); Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute; Available at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html, (last visited 7 November 2011) Oath of Office Congress: TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > 3331; available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00003331---000-.html, (last visited 26 October 2011) Oath of naturalization for citizenship; available at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/? vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa 3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD, (last visited 26 October 2011) Oath of Office for President, US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, adopted 1787