Natural Born

Written by Les Townsend | 30 December 2011

Yes there is a legal definition of “natural born Citizen”.

There is reason to believe Barack Obama knew that he is not a natural born Citizen as this term is used in the Constitution.

During the 2008 presidential election, there were numerous court cases contesting the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President. Allegations were being made that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and thereby did not meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution. The allegations were confirmed by Barack Obama's refusal to release complete copies of the birth records filed in Hawaii. The only document released was a copy of a short form certificate of live birth. These cases were extensively covered by WND.com, which is  one of the news sites on the Internet.

In my experience as an auditor, I learned that the most important items of information were always the items the subject of the audit did not want to provide. The initial refusal to provide copies of the original birth record raised serious questions.

I know from my experience that Hawaii did record foreign births in the 1960s. I was in the Army and stationed in Japan from 1965 to 1967. This was considered good duty because a soldier's family could accompany him, and live off post ( or in on post housing, in the case of officers and noncoms ). In discussions with my married colleagues, I was informed that if a wife ( there were no female soldiers in the unit ) became pregnant, she would go back to the states and visit her parents, to have the child. In the event that the birth was early, they would go back to the states by way of Hawaii and record the birth there, so they would have a U.S. sourced birth document. The recording in Hawaii, of births outside of the United States, was well known in the expatriate community.

Part of the standard operating procedure, for recording the birth in Hawaii, was to put a birth announcement in a coupe of local newspapers. The fact that birth announcements for Barack Obama were placed in two different papers appears to be more than a coincidence.

The court cases contesting Barack Obama's eligibility were dismissed for various reasons ( including lack of standing ), and the Supreme Court has simply refused to hear the appeal of any of these cases. The Supreme Court does not want to rule on this issue, because it might be forced to rule that our current president ( Barack Obama ) is not eligible to hold the office of President. The records, which President Obama refused to make public before the 2008 election, might have indicated he was not eligible to serve as President.

In 2011 after the short form birth certificate, which was provided prior to the 2008 election, was questioned by Donald Trump prior to the release of a book by Jerome Corsi questioning the authenticity of the birth certificate. A copy of a document was released, which the White House claimed was the original long form birth certificate. This document was examined by numerous experts whose findings were reported by World Net Daily ( wnd.com ). The conclusion of these experts was that the document was in fact a forgery. Birth certificates from 1961 were not prepared on a computer.

This issue arose because of the requirement that our President be a natural born citizen. This provision is contained in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides the following. “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

The issue here is caused by the fact that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen”. This phrase is used as a legal term and my Blacks Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, copyright 1968 does not specifically provide a definition for this term. The dictionary does provide a couple of terms which do provide light on the meaning of the term.

NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT. In English law, one born within the dominion, or rather within the allegiance, of the king of England.

NATIVE. A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.

This definition of “NATIVE” gives us a definition of citizen which requires birth within the United States or birth outside the United States when both parents ( the term used is plural ) are citizens of the United States, and the trip abroad is not a permanent move to a foreign country.

In the situation of President Obama, his father was not a citizen of the United States. Obama's father was from Kenya. The question then becomes an Inquiry about whether or not the fact that his father was not a citizen would prevent Obama from being a “Natural Born Citizen”. This term is different than the term “Citizen” which would accrue to him if he was born within the United States.

I researched this issue using Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition. This same dictionary would have been available to Barack Obama as a law student and later as a lawyer, since it would have been a staple in any law library along with a bound set of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, at the time Barack was a student.

The term “Native” listed above contained a reference to the  Supreme Court Case of UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898). This case was about an individual of Chinese ancestry who was born in the United States and who traveled to China. Upon his return he was refused entry to the U.S..  The court held that Mr. Wong was a U.S. Citizen because hew was born in the United States, and that the fact that his parents were Chinese citizens did not prevent him from being a U.S. Citizen. The case contains a lengthy discussion on citizenship following the citizenship,of parents and then concludes that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is definitive and that Mr. Wong was in fact a “Citizen” because he was born in the U.S.. While the term “Natural Born Citizen' is mentioned it is not defined.

The Wong case did not define the term “Natural Born Citizen” but it did reference another case which provides much more information on the definition of the term. The Supreme Court case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) does in fact give us a definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”

The Minor v. Happersett case was primarily about whether women had a constitutional right to vote. The case included a lengthy discussion regarding the definition of citizen and whether a woman should have the right to vote because she was a citizen. This case was decided before the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment and the court held in a unanimous decision that being a citizen did not entitle women to the right to vote. The case contained a definition of “natural born Citizen” and is very relevant to the situation of Barack Obama.

The following quote from the portion of the written decision addressing the issues of citizenship.

“"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

The discussion in the Minor v. Happersett case clearly defines a “Natural Born Citizen” as a child of two citizen parents. There is a sentence in this discussion that addresses the situation of a person born within the jurisdiction but not to two citizen parents. “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.” This sentence indicates doubt in regard to the definition of citizen, not to the definition of “natural born Citizen” which requires both parents to be citizens.

The Wong case mentioned previously resolved the doubt expressed in this case by making it clear that any person born within the United States is a citizen. This clarification regarding “Citizen” did not extend to “natural born Citizen” which would still require both parents to be citizens.
 
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as claimed, then why was there a delay in releasing a copy of what is claimed to be the long form birth certificate. The information from the 4th edition of Blacks Law Dictionary and the Supreme Court cases cited above would all have been easily available to him as a law student and lawyer. I have to believe he himself did the research and knew that; the fact that his father was from Kenya did in fact prevent him from meeting the definition of “natural born Citizen”.

Assuming he was born in Hawaii as claimed, then we have an individual who aspired to the only office in our country, which was prohibited to him by the Constitution. This action indicates he is not willing to accept any limits that apply and will not recognize the Constitutional restraints that apply to our elected officials. The danger to our country posed by this situation is in fact grave.

A further question arises because the document released appears to have been prepared using a computer, which makes the document a forgery. Birth certificates were prepared using typewriters in 1961.

Since the copy of the document which was released appears to be a forgery; we need to ask if he was actually born in the United States. If he was not born in the U.S., then his citizenship is conferred by his father and he is in fact an illegal alien.

The response of the mainstream media has been to first, ignore the questions about the birth certificate issue, and then to ridicule them. The issue is valid and will not simply disappear. We are all harmed when someone manages to get elected to an office which the candidate is not qualified to occupy.

We must all remember that power corrupts, and strive to enforce the limits in the Constitution so that all our elected officials will always be aware that there are limits to their power. If we fail in this responsibility, our country will cease to be a constitutionally limited representative republic and become a totalitarian police state.

The offices held by our elected officials are all far more important than the individuals who occupy the office. Individual elected officials come and go. The office continues and the legitimate powers of the office and the Constitutional limits on the power and authority carried by the office must be protected.

Our Constitution is designed to set limits on the power or the government. A President is subject to those limits and must recognize the limits of power. When a President is elected because he is anointed by the press, he may decide he is not bound by the chains of the Constitution and try to seize absolute power. We the People of these United States are the ultimate check on this potential abuse of power. We must elect individuals to Congress who will honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power and authority to instruct the Courts on the use of their appellate review authority. This power must be used to make it clear to the courts that we are all damaged when someone is elected to an office they are not eligible to hold. Any citizen who is eligible to vote must be viewed as having standing to question the eligibility of anyone running for public office. Many cases were filed challenging the eligibility if Barack Obama to hold the office of President. They were thrown out because the court claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing. Congress must act to ensure this type of situation never occurs again.

Our Senators and Representatives have the responsibility to apply Constitutional limits applicable to both the Executive and Judicial branches of government. You the voter have the responsibility of electing individuals to Congress who will honor the Oath of Office.

The current situation places our country in grave danger. If the people of our country do not vote Obama out of office and replace the members of Congress who ignore our Constitution, we may not see another election.

About the author:
Les Townsend is a former Taxpayers Party candidate for Congress, a retired IRS Appeals Officer, and a disabled veteran.