For more than three years, those who love the U.S. Constitution and who respect the Rule of Law have debated endlessly the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States.\u00a0 Those who\u2019ve studied the issue with an open mind are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Obama, born to an American mother and a father of Kenyan\/British citizenship, is not a \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: \u201cNo 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n It is not unusual for liberals and Democrats to argue that the term \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d is undefined.\u00a0 This argument has been most recently advanced by Fox News anchor Bret Baier.\u00a0 It is an argument that fits neatly with the liberal view that the Constitution is a \u201cliving\u201d document, meaning nothing more than what they would like it to mean on any given day.\u00a0 However, they ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Minor v. Happersett<\/em>, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).<\/p>\n The facts of Minor v. Happersett<\/em> are these:\u00a0 On October 15, 1872, a woman named Virginia Minor\u2026 a white female resident of St. Louis County, Missouri\u2026 attempted to register to vote in the November 1872 General Election.\u00a0\u00a0 However, Missouri law in 1872 did not permit women to vote; women did not win the right to vote until the 19th<\/sup> Amendment was ratified in 1920.<\/p>\n Accordingly, when the St. Louis County voter registrar, Reese Happersett, refused to accept Mrs. Minor\u2019s registration, she filed suit in Missouri state courts, claiming voting rights under the 14th<\/sup> Amendment to the Constitution.<\/p>\n The 14th<\/sup> Amendment reads as follows: \u201cAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.\u00a0 No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. \u00a0Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n While the 14th<\/sup> Amendment would appear to protect a broad array of \u201cprivileges and immunities\u201d for all citizens, regardless of gender, the Constitution of the State of Missouri stated that, \u201cEvery male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n In arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for Mrs. Minor argued that:<\/p>\n As the case proceeded through the courts\u2026 the trial court, the Missouri Supreme Court<\/a>, and the United States Supreme Court\u2026 all ruled in favor of the State of Missouri.\u00a0 The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that \u201cthe Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone,\u201d<\/em> and that the decision of who should be entitled to vote was left to the Congress and the state legislatures (in 1872, only the State of New Jersey allowed women to vote, and then only those women who were property owners).\u00a0 And although from the perspective of the early 21st<\/sup> century it appears logical to assume that the arguments of Mrs. Minor\u2019s attorneys would prevail, it was not on that basis that the courts decided the case.<\/p>\n In determining whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first determined that she was a U.S. citizen because she was a member of the class of \u201cnatural-born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 They then proceeded to define the term \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d by stating, \u2026(A)ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. \u00a0These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.<\/em>..\u201d<\/p>\n In that differentiation, the Court established binding precedent, making it clear that persons born in the country, of parents (plural) who were citizens, are \u201cnatural-born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 By implication, that finding would appear to established the corollary, which is that those born in the country to one or more parents who are not<\/em> citizens, are not<\/em> \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.<\/p>\n Those who support the notion of Obama and Rubio\u2019s eligibility argue that, if one is at the time of\u00a0 birth, a U.S. citizen<\/em>, then that person is also a natural-born citizen<\/em>. \u00a0That is false because it fails to take into account the nationality of the parents. \u00a0All natural born citizens are \u201ccitizens,\u201d but all citizens are not \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.<\/p>\n Bret Baier\u2019s entry into the debate was brought about by a flood of emails and correspondence complaining that certain Fox News anchors and contributors\u2026 Hannity, O\u2019Reilly, Krauthammer, and others\u2026 have been promoting Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the 2012 GOP candidate for vice president.\u00a0 This in spite of the fact that Rubio is not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen of the United States (Rubio\u2019s parents were citizens of Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until four years after<\/em> he was born).<\/p>\n In support of his argument that Rubio is eligible to serve as president or vice president, Baier insists that the issue is resolved by federal law. \u00a0He points to 8 USC \u00a7 1401, contending that all that is required for status as a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen is for the mother to be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of these years after the age of 14.\u00a0 Baier asserts that those born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of the parents; those born outside the U.S. to parents who are both citizens, even those born outside the U.S. to one parent who is a U.S. citizen are all \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizens.<\/p>\n In refuting Baier\u2019s assertion, constitutional law professor Herb Titus set the record straight.\u00a0 He said, \u201cUnder Mr. Baier\u2019s view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law <\/em>(emphasis added). \u00a0If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment\u2019s definition of citizenship by birth. \u00a0And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the Constitution\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n What Baer fails to understand is that \u201cnatural born\u201d citizenship is inherent.\u00a0 It either exists or it does not.\u00a0 If a child is a natural born citizen at birth, it can never be taken away, and if a child is not a natural born citizen at birth\u2026 born to parents who are both U.S. citizens\u2026 it can never be acquired.<\/p>\n But what is most significant about Baier\u2019s entry into the eligibility debate is not his opinion on the matter.\u00a0 It is the fact that a news anchor for the top cable news network in America\u2026 a network that claims to be engaged in a vetting of Obama, while studiously avoiding any mention of his background and experience prior to his days as a Chicago community organizer, a network which in recent months has taken a decided drift to the left\u2026 has finally chosen to comment on the Rubio eligibility question, suggesting that the issue merits a commitment by Fox to air a full debate on the issue.<\/p>\n But what is most significant about Baier\u2019s entry into the eligibility debate is that any debate on the issue of Marco Rubio\u2019s eligibility must, of necessity, include a discussion of Barack Obama\u2019s eligibility.\u00a0 It cannot be avoided.\u00a0 That public discussion is at least four years overdue, and if Baer\u2019s entry into the Marco Rubio debate is only a backdoor way of opening the debate on Barack Obama\u2019s eligibility, then so be it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For more than three years, those who love the U.S. Constitution and who respect the Rule of Law have debated endlessly the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States.\u00a0 Those who\u2019ve studied the issue with … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n