UP-DATE 4-27-2011
Today, the White House released a long form Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama. However, since my first blog of Feb-2009, and many blogs since, including this one from ten days ago, I warned ‘birthers’ the Birth Certificate was not the issue; the nationality of Obama’s father was.
Our first presidents were Art II eligible under the ‘citizens at the time of adoption’ clause.
Under the ’35-years old’ requirement, the first candidates that had to be ‘natural born citizens’ (NBC) were Art II eligible starting around 1811, or 1822, depending on if ‘at the time of adoption of this constitution,’ or 1776’s Declaration of Independence created the first U.S. citizens.
ANALYSIS OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS CLAIMING HE IS ART II ELIGIBLE
1) According to the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, and the 2008 SR511, having U.S. citizen parents was the key factor of NBC, not native-birth. (http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html)
2) If native-birth, or jus solis, was the determinative factor of NBC, then any son of a visiting British loyalist born on U.S. soil would be eligible to the presidency; in light of the history of our Revolutionary War, that is just an impossible scenario.
3) In the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, there is no description of ‘native-birth’ as a determination of citizenship, natural born or otherwise. Minor children of aliens became citizens upon naturalization of the father.
4) From the first of our naturalization laws to today, the citizenship of a child is determined first by the nationality of the father, i.e., which sovereignty has jurisdiction over the father and his children. Therefore, the 14th Amendment as misinterpreted by Wong Kim Ark does not create an NBC, let alone a citizen, if the parents are aliens. Ark is in conflict with existing law.
The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity, it ruled that he was so. So Wong cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. It is critical that the Court did not say that Wong was completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but only that he was subject to that jurisdiction. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment.Attorney Mario Apuzzo citing Wong Kim Ark
5) From 1787 to the 1920’s, or about 135-years, the maiden citizenship of the mother did not determine the citizenship of the child, only that of the father. Even in modern naturalization law, where the maiden citizenship of the mother is preserved even if married to an alien father, three things are necessary to activate U.S. citizenship at birth from the mother: One; Abandonment of the Alien Father, or Two; Birth out of Wedlock and Abandonment, and Three; Specific U.S. residency requirements by both mother and child are met.
Therefore, Obama supporters claim that Dunham’s U.S. citizenship made Obama an NBC is wrong as well.
6) Dual Nationality: Dual nationality, or two citizenships at birth, is considered UNLAWFUL per se, and a violation of Natural Law unless formally registered under existing laws. Liberals admit dual nationality is a ‘problem,’ but refuse to enforce laws prohibiting it.
Obama admits he was born with British citizenship per the 1948 British Nationality Act. U.S. law ‘dealienaged’ Obama according to the description of naturalization laws in paragraph 5. Therefore, Obama is not an NBC, but a citizen by naturalization law, i.e., naturalized.
7) In fact, if Obama had not met U.S. naturalization law residency requirements from ages 14 through 23, he would NOT be a U.S.citizen today. (See 1952 INA § 301)
8) If the Obamatons are correct, that judicially legislated case law (in violation of Art I, Sec 8) determines who is a ‘native-born’ citizen, i.e., to many, the simple requirement to be a natural born citizen, then any ‘anchor baby’ of illegal aliens is Art II eligible.
This is as ridiculous as Revolutionary War veterans allowing the son of a British subject Art II eligibility.
Emmerich de Vattel specified that a society “cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights,” . . . NOT children of aliens! §212, ‘Law of Nations’
CONCLUSION: Birth Certificate or No Birth Certificate, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT Art. II eligible to be president.
See ‘A Timeline of Obama’s Nationality,’ at https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/
Paralegalnm's Blog 
Leave a reply to slcraig Cancel reply