In recent days I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to \u201cbeating a dead horse.\u201d Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787.<\/p>\n
What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert<\/i>, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council.\u00a0 The article in question was titled, \u201cSANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.\u201d<\/p>\n
In response, I asked the question, \u201cWho keeps propping up Santorum\u2019s ambitions… other than Rick Santorum?\u00a0 Unless I\u2019m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born.\u00a0 That makes him ineligible for the presidency.\u201d\u00a0 To which a representative of the Business Council replied, \u201cThat might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n
To that nonsensical assertion I replied, \u201c\u2026 If Santorum was born in the US, which I assume he was, that does make him a \u2018citizen.\u2019\u00a0 But that\u2019s not what is at issue.\u00a0 What is at issue is his status as a \u2018natural born\u2019 citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president.\u00a0 In order for him to be a \u2018natural born\u2019 citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens.\u00a0 If Santorum\u2019s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a \u2018natural born\u2019 citizen\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue.\u00a0 The reply read, \u201cUnder (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.\u201d\u00a0 Bingo!!\u00a0 Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.<\/p>\n
Once again I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms \u201ccitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d are synonymous\u2026 that to be a \u201ccitizen\u201d equates to being a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen.\u00a0 That simply is not true.\u00a0 One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, \u201cNo person except a natural born Citizen<\/i>,\u201d with the phrase, \u201c\u2026 or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution<\/i>\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word \u201cor\u201d requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either<\/i> \u201cnatural born citizens,\u201d or <\/i>\u201cci<\/i>tizens of the United States\u201d on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land.<\/p>\n
On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the thirteen original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.\u00a0 And the very first child born to newly-minted US citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock\u2019s signature, became the nation\u2019s very first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen.<\/p>\n
The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.\u00a0 There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.\u00a0 To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted US citizens, none of them \u201cnatural born,\u201d to serve as president.\u00a0 This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after<\/i> the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.<\/p>\n
George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen,\u201d but not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n
John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.<\/p>\n
Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n
James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before<\/i> the Declaration of Independence; were all \u201ccitizens\u201d because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.<\/p>\n
However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after<\/i> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a \u201ccitizen,\u201d he was a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen\u2026 the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n
What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation\u2019s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration<\/i> covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.\u00a0 All were \u201cgrandfathered\u201d and made eligible under the phrase, \u201cor a Citizen<\/i> of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026\u201d <\/i><\/p>\n
Every U.S. president since Van Buren\u2026 with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth\u2026 has been a \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship \u201cby descent\u201d from his Kenyan father and his American mother.\u00a0 However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of December 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.\u00a0 However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on August 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya \u201cby birth\u201d and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House.<\/p>\n
The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.\u00a0 Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.<\/p>\n
Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama\u2019s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.\u00a0 This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)\u2026 all born to one or more non-US citizen parents\u2026 are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.<\/p>\n
In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama\u2019s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency.\u00a0 Without question, he would have been declared ineligible.\u00a0 Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office.\u00a0 By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won\u2019t say.<\/p>\n
Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways.\u00a0 But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution.\u00a0 So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick\u2026 we love you all and you\u2019re a great credit to our country, but you just can\u2019t play in our presidential sandbox.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In recent days I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, … Continue reading