I wasn’t going to address this, but it just won’t go away. My State (Arizona) just passed legislation stating all Presidential candidates must show proof of citizenship to be on the ballot. Apparently the extract provided by the White House is in question. There are some folks out there who believe the current President is ineligible to hold the office, as the U.S. Constitution states, with regard to qualifications:
The United States Constitution, Article II Section I 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.
The big question, of course, is the definition of natural born Citizen. The constitution is vague on this point, and there have been (and continue to be) court cases with regard to this very question. After all, if the duly-elected President isn’t qualified, his Vice-President (who arrived on his electoral coat tails) is also. And every law signed by him and every appointee would be disqualified.
So this is a very important question.
This is not the first time this issue has been raised:
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada. This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur’s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824, Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. (Wikipedia)
A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401. (restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/)
Of course, documentation has been provided to the courts and the media demonstrating the President was born in Hawaii, after it had become a State. But the questions continue.
- Does the requirement that both parents be US citizens apply? (The President’s father was a British Kenyan subject)
- Is an extract taken from the original birth certificate document sufficient? Is it best evidence?
And now a document surfaces further confusing the issue
This is a promotional brochure from the President’s then publisher, extolling his background and education to sell a book that was never published. The explanation provided is that Mr. Obama, on more than one occasion, padded his resume-bio to sound a bit more exotic.
I suspect this matter will eventually reach the Supreme Court. And, whatever the decision, I’m certain Congress will then act to more specifically define natural born Citizen.
Until then, we must deal with the cards we’re dealt.
h/t Breitbart.com, Wikipedia, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com