Legal Arguments Why Obama Doesn’t Qualify For US President Even If He Was Born In Hawaii
Posted by pwl on April 27, 2011
Clearly the PDF file of Obama’s Birth Certificate found on the White House dot Gov blog web site is a “digital composite with a green background layer”. That doesn’t mean that it’s a fake though.
IF this type of digital PDF document is what the State of Hawaii does to make digital PDF versions of the document for people whose records where NOT computerized then the document is as it says, “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” with the signature of “Alvin T. Onaka, Phd. STATE REGISTRAR”.
If you know anything about legal notarization of documents this could very well be a properly notarized legal true copy EVEN WITH ALL THESE DIGITAL ASPECTS IN THE PDF FILE.
People won’t believe Obama now though regardless.
A Solution For Obama
The best solution is a LIVE HD broadcast where multiple film crews from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, …, get to follow Alvin T. Onaka into the Hawaii State Department of Health records archive and have him show them the original copy and let them film close ups of it with their HD 1080p cameras and let them take tons of digital photographs of it at super high resolution. That would possibly settle the matter. Maybe.
But it’s all moot as the real issue is does Obama meet the qualifications of “Article II” of the US Constitution to be President? Well, seemingly no even if he was born in Hawaii according to this very well thought out legal argument (there are a couple of others but this is the best of the three against that I’ve seen so far)!!!
Why doesn’t Obama meet the requirements of President:
“Irrefutable point: US Constitution, Article II, section 1, pa. 5 states: “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.”
“That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
Those who are 35 years old or older, AND
Those who have been a resident of the US for 14 years or longer, AND
Those who are natural born citizens, OR
Those who were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted.
Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President? The ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT WITHOUT IT, NO ONE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BECOME PRESIDENT, BECAUSE NO ONE COULD SATISFY THE CONSTRAINT OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If “natural born citizen” means “born on US soil, with parents who are [both] US citizens,” then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the “natural born citizen” requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.
But if “natural born citizen” means essentially the same as “natural born subject” (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject,) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all. ” – A.L.
A Natural Born Citizen is what exactly?
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.
– Natural Born Citizen
So really it’s moot if Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, since his FATHER wasn’t a US Citizen which means that Obama doesn’t meet the qualification of being a Natural Born Citizen (born on US soil, with parents who are both US citizens)!
Oh, and then there is the adoption problem when his Step Father allegedly adopted him in Indonesia as that might have caused Obama to automatically give up his US Citizenship upon if the adoption mean he became a citizen of Indonesia. This could in the worst case scenario mean that Obama is an illegal alien… a lawyer is suing on this basis. Woops if true.
We live in very interesting times as the age old Chinese curse goes.
It’s very likely that the only way that this will be resolved will be by the US Supreme Court making a ruling on what the US Constitution means by “Natural Born Citizen” and if Obama qualifies or not.
Please note that the author of this article is a Canadian and such is a neutral observer and only a messenger after studying the various legal arguments being put forth for and against Obama’s eligibility. “A.L.” whom is quoted is a US Citizen, likely Natural Born Citizen in the full sense. Please don’t shoot the messengers! Thanks.