EligibilityQuestions.com
Who is a "Natural Born Citizen"?   Is a "Dual Citizen" at Birth a "Natural Born Citizen"?
What is the Difference Between a "Native Born Citizen" and a "Natural Born" Citizen"? 
Home Page



                                                     Home Page Last Modified: 1:43 PM, May 19, 2014       


   

Chart Posted May 19, 2014

 

 

Chart of Some Past and Prospective Candidates for President and Their Apparent Knowledge or Lack of Knowledge

Concerning the Natural Born” Citizen Requirement of Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution

 

This chart contains the following categories:

 

  • the Name of Individual Who has Run and/or May Run for President,
  • the Individual’s Citizenship Status at Birth; and
  • the Individual’s Apparent Knowledge of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring an individual seeking the Presidency who was born after the ratification on the Constitution be “Natural Born Citizen”.

 

 

Some questions that need to be addressed in light of this chart:

 

  • What is the meaning of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?

 

  • Why did the Founders require that those seeking the Presidency who were born after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution be “Natural Born” Citizens?

 

  • What are the implications for the primacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law if the Constitutional eligibility requirements for the Presidency fail to be clarified, understood, or followed?

 

 

 

 

Chart of Some Past and Prospective Candidates for President and Their Apparent Knowledge or Lack of Knowledge

Concerning the Natural Born” Citizen Requirement of Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution

 


 

Name of Individual Who has Run and/or May Run for President

Citizenship Status at Birth

Individual’s Apparent Knowledge of the

Natural Born Citizen” clause of Article 2,

Section 1 of the Constitution requiring an

individual seeking the Presidency who was

born after the ratification on the Constitution

 be “Natural Born Citizen”.

 

Ted Cruz

Dual citizen:   Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was American.  His father was Cuban and did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until later.  Ted Cruz had dual American/

Canadian citizen at birth.

Ted Cruz does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own

possible candidacy

 

Marco Rubio

Dual citizen:  Neither parent was a naturalized citizen at the time of Marco Rubio’s birth in the U.S.  Both parents became naturalized later.

Marco Rubio does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own possible

candidacy.

 

Bobby Jindal

Dual citizen: Neither Bobby Jindal’s parents was a naturalized citizen at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth.  Both parents became naturalized later.

Bobby Jindal does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own possible

candidacy.

 

Rick Santorum

Dual citizen: Rick Santorum’s Italian father was not a U.S. Citizen or a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Rick Santorum’s birth.

Rick Santorum has been questioned about his

eligibility about the “natural born citizen”

requirement but for whatever reason does not

seem to see the requirement as standing in the

way of his own candidacy.

 

Barack Obama

Dual citizen:  According to the birth certificate posted on the White House website, Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.   Other citizenship issues during Barack Obama’s life have not been clarified owing to the withholding of pertinent documents.  For instance, did he attend U.S. universities in a “foreign student” status owing to the fact that part of his childhood was spent in Indonesia, presumably as an Indonesian citizen since dual citizenship is not allowed in Indonesia?

Barack Obama may be assuming that a person

 born in the U.S. is a “natural born citizen” even

if his father was not a citizen.  He should know,

 but may not, that this is not a matter of totally

“settled law”. He does not appear to have

acknowledged that there are questions concerning

the meaning and implications of the “natural born”

citizen requirement. 

 

 John McCain

Natural born citizen: Both of John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.  John McCain’s father was serving in the military at the time of John McCain’s birth in Panama. According to Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758, Chapter 19, paras. 212 - 215), an individual born to parents who are abroad in service of their country retains the father’s citizenship.

John McCain may believe that one needs to have

 been born on a U.S. military base in order to be a

“natural born” citizen.  Constitutional scholars have

said that one needs only to have two parents

who were both U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth.

Also see Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations

(1758, Chapter 19, paras. 212 - 215).

 

           

 

                           

    
Important Note: The majority of the items listed in the

following Table of Contents now include live links.  

 

    

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

~    "An Open Letter to Public Officials and Members of the Media Concerning
Unanswered Questions about Constitutional Eligibility Requirements
for the Office of President of the United States "

 (Posted below on the Home Page of http://EligibilityQuestions.com)


~  New:

Chart of Some Past and Prospective Candidates for President and Their Apparent Knowledge or Lack of Knowledge Concerning the Natural Born” Citizen Requirement of Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.



 Natural Born Citizenship and Other Legal Questions
 Last Modified:   8:31 PM, December 27, 2010 
        


  ~  December 10, 2010 Court Filing by Steven L. Craig
                       
This case filed by Mr. Craig could well result in an answer to the question of what is the “legal”
Constitutional definition  of “natural born citizen.”  The case focuses solely on citizenship.  He has pursued a definition
of “natural born citizen” through a government agency and then the Administrative Appeals process
 and is now in Federal Court once again
.

 Selected Excerpts & Links to WND.com Articles
  Last modified:   6:15 PM,  June 15, 2010


 ~
  Part 1, Part 2,  and Part 3 (Pending):  List of Law Cases, Updates, and Links,
 and Other
NOTLegal Developments      Last Modified: 11:16 AM, December 2, 2010E:
 Near the end of Part 2 of the List of Law Cases,  excerpts of an article published November 8, 2010
about an
April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service Memorandum are posted. 
The author of that
Memorandum on the Eligibility of the President concedes that
Mr. Obama's eligibility was unvetted: "There is no specific federal agency' to review
 candidates for federal office...."
   The  CRS Memorandum affirms that only a
Certification of Live Birth  (COLB) was made public in June of 2008.
[No authenticated long form
birth certificate needed to prove
the exact place of birth and the name of the attending physician
has been made public.]  The CRS Memorandum also states that
the term "natural born citizen" is not defined within the Constitution.
The author of the CRS Memorandum conflates "native born citizenship"
 with "natural born citizenship." 
          


~   State Legislative Action Planned and In Progress
Last Modified:     2:48 PM, April 17, 2010
(Also see Part 2 of List of Law Cases...and Other Legal Developments) 

~ Two Different Versions of the Democratic National Convention's
 August 28, 2008 Official Certification of Nomination
for the Offices
of the President and the Vice President of the United States

Posted 1:32 PM September 12, 2009
Modified 3:06 AM September 16, 2009

~  Alleged Media Muzzling Aimed at Keeping Members of the Media from Talking
 about Matters Relating to Mr. Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility to Run for
and Serve as President of the United States 
 
Posted 8:18 PM, August 2009

List of Interviews by Andrea Shea King on Eligibility-Related Questions
on BlogTalkRadio.com 
Posted 4:13 PM, October 7, 2009

              

 ~  Background, Perspectives, Research, and Analysis Bearing on
the April 2008 Senate Resolution
Affirming Senator McCain’s Status
 as a “Natural Born Citizen”
Modified  2:22 AM,  October 18, 2009
 
(Also see the following "Interview by Andrea Shea of Attorney Mario Apuzzo
 and Lead Plaintiff Charles Kerchner")


 ~      2009-10-18
Transcript of an excerpt of an Interview of Mario Apuzzo
 & Charles Kerchner by Andrea Shea King

Excerpt focusing on some background on S. Res. 511 from a 2009-10-08 
Interview Archived at

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow/2009/10/09/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show.
Last updated: October 17, 2009 
 

Questions Raised by Forensic Document Experts Regarding Some
 Existing Documents
  
         
Posted 5:08 AM, September 18, 2009

Responses to Questions Concerning Constitutional Eligibility Requirements
Posed to Bob Schieffer,
 George Stephanopoulos, and David Gregory on June 23, 2009
Posted 12:56 AM, August 11, 2009

~ A List of Questions that Need to be Addressed Concerning
  the Constitutional Eligibility Requirements 
for the Office of President of
the United States   
Updated 2:10 AM, August 5, 2009 

 ~  An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly Concerning Unanswered Constitutional
Eligibility Questions 

Posted July 29, 2009

What Glenn Beck Appears to Think about Eligibility Questions as of January 4, 2010
Posted 4:02 AM, January 5, 2010

~  An Open Letter to Anderson Cooper
Posted 5:32 PM, May 12, 2010


~   Information about Don Fredrick's The Obama Timeline

Don Fredrick is a researcher who has tried to track down a considerable amount of information
that bears upon
eligibility-related questions that have continued to surround Mr. Obama.  To date,
 Mr. Fredrick has spent over 3000 hours in this endeavor.  Those researching eligibility issues
 might find his book of particular  interest,  especially individuals in the media and those following
 legal developments. 
The Obama Timeline  is now out in book form, including paperback and 
e-book form.  
(See http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Timeline-Birth-Through-Office/dp/1440150737/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250692911&sr=1-3                
and http://www.colony14.net   .)  Mr. Fredrick is working on Part II of The Timeline and writes
 related articles.  Mr. Fredrick's website is at http://www.colony14.net  

Mr. Fredrick's work is noted here for the benefit of those who are trying to identify
open sources of past and present  information and allegations, as well as reactions
to allegations and responses to continuing questions.  
Posted  5:21 PM, 
December 12, 2009
          

                        ________________________________________________________________________________
          
OTHER RELEVANT FILES AND LINKS
          

       2009-11-11 BHO Arizona Nomination Paper

             
~        2009-10-07 Court Minutes 10-07-2009 Barnett v Obama,
Judge David O. Carter, 3rd Federal District Court   

Last updated: October 7,


~        "Natural-Born Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President
By Alexander Porter Morse   Albany Law Journal, Vol. 66 (1904-1905)  See  http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/33806815 .

~        2010-04-16 Jorge L. Bara Affidavit re Address in the Birth Announcements
     

   2010-06-03 Ruling on defense request for witnesses & evidence US
v. LTC Terrence Lakin

~  April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service Memorandum

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Website Purpose

 

A purpose of the website is to attempt to clarify some questions regarding the citizenship status and Constitutional eligibility requirements of candidates for the U.S. Presidency and Vice Presidency, beginning with the recent past and extending into the future.  It is also to urge those in all branches of government at both the State and Federal levels, as well as those in the media to assume their respective roles of responsibility in recognizing the issues at stake, clarifying the issues, informing and helping educate the public concerning the complexities of these issues, and addressing and resolving the questions before the General Election of November 2012.  The first featured posting was an "Open Letter to the Media Concerning Unanswered Questions About the Constitutional Eligibility Requirements for the Presidency."  That "Open Letter" was replaced on July 24, 2009 with "An Open Letter to Public Officials and Members of the Media Concerning Unanswered Questions about Constitutional Eligibility Requirements for the Office of President of the United States "



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 


An Open Letter to Public Officials and Members of the Media Concerning Unanswered Questions

about Constitutional Eligibility Requirements for the Office of President of the United States”


 

Copyright July 24, 2009 by author.  

  Reprint Rights Reserved

Posted at http://EligibilityQuestions.com


This "Open Letter" is based on a previously posted "Open Letter to the Media..."  This version has been expanded and updated and is now directed to those in elected, appointed, and other roles of public responsibility in government, as well as members of the media. 


 

During my academic career and my career as an analyst, researcher, and practitioner in the public and private sectors, I have tended to focus on cutting edge issues, issues that have often been extremely controversial.  The citizenship eligibility requirements for the office of the President of the United States, would seem on their surface to be anything but fodder for controversy, but surprisingly they have become so over the past year or more.   The deeper one digs, the greater the complexity of the issues that are revealed.  Or to quote a news story on an unrelated matter that I read recently, “It is a strange story and it gets stranger.”

In a nutshell, there is a growing interest in a variety of questions concerning citizenship eligibility requirements for the President of the United States.  There is a growing interest in whether or not these requirements have been met by the current office holder.   A poll reported on June 14, 2009  surprisingly enough revealed that over half of the American public is aware that there are unanswered questions concerning whether or not the current office holder has met the citizenship requirements for the office as established in the Constitution. (For information concerning the poll, see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101368) .)   The public has not, however, learned of these questions from the mainstream media.  Indeed they have not learned of the questions from either the major television networks or, surprisingly to many, from Cable News Network sources.

In my years of tracking and studying controversial issues, this is the most curious controversy I have ever seen.    There has been a nearly total news blackout on the part of the three major television networks and the Cable News Networks concerning a set of Constitutional eligibility-related questions, and this news blackout only began to be partially lifted in June and July of 2009.  This phenomenon is as fascinating and puzzling as it is frustrating.  So long as the media would not touch the topic, very few individuals in major roles of public responsibility in all branches of the government, have appeared to be willing to take the questions seriously.  This includes individuals in the Judicial Branch as well as the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.  This apparent failure to take the unanswered questions seriously has occurred even though those in government are under oath to uphold the Constitution and the law and even though those in the Judiciary have a preeminent role in defining the meaning of the Constitution and ensuring adherence to the rule of law. 

What is even more challenging from my perspective is that there are complex issues surrounding the Constitutional eligibility requirements for the U.S. Presidency.  These requirements are subject to differing interpretations and key terminology can be defined in different ways by Constitutional and other legal experts.  Some would say, for instance, that there is no settled law concerning the definition of a “natural born citizen,” a requirement for Presidential eligibility.  Others disagree and make the case that the Founders did not intend for someone holding dual citizenship at birth to be eligible to become President and indeed that is why they required that Presidents be “natural born” and not naturalized citizens.  It is a challenge to begin to comprehend these and other complexities surrounding eligibility issues.  It can be even more challenging to explain the issues to others. Trying to share what understanding one has can fall on deaf ears as many seem to immediately tune out when any of these eligibility questions are raised or they simply dismiss the questions as being preposterous.   This is not a good thing in a republic that depends on its vitality and its sustainability on the unfettered exchange of ideas and perspectives, and on the seeking and speaking of truth.  In our free society we must feel free to raise unpopular issues and explore and discuss differing points of view and different perceptions of the facts.  Such unfettered discussion is of particular importance when it comes to matters that should concern us all:  honoring and abiding by the Constitution and the rule of law.

Because the majority of those in the media are either not aware of these questions relating to Presidential eligibility requirements or are familiar with the forty or more law suits, past, pending, or in process in the courts; the public has not been kept properly informed of what has been going on and has little understanding of the questions that have been raised or of the significance of those questions.  This means that the media has failed to keep the government and the public informed of the roiling controversy concerning unanswered questions involving the sitting President’s eligibility to serve as President.

Most of those in government and in the media seem unaware that a variety of documents have been sought by various plaintiffs in the law suits that have been brought.  The documents that are being sought would either help prove or disprove Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be elected to the Presidency and serve as President.    Many people in government and in the media have seemed oblivious to the controversy concerning a copy of one of documents, a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that has been posted on the Internet.  They have also been apparently uninformed concerning the failure of this short form document to take the place of a long form birth certificate.  Many also seem oblivious to the numerous questions raised by forensic experts concerning the authenticity of the document.   It may well be that the long form of the birth certificate and other documents being sought in law suits will be or can be produced, but the simple fact is that they have not been produced to date by Mr. Obama and other defendants in the law suits.

An even smaller number of people appear to be aware of a separate set of questions concerning the apparent fact of Mr. Obama’s dual citizenship at the time of his birth.  Many individuals seem also to be unaware of the significance of that fact.  They seem unaware of matters of unsettled law concerning the bearing such dual citizenship has on meeting the natural born citizen requirement for Presidents of the United States.   Many may also be unaware that questions involving dual citizenship would still remain even if the long version of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate were to surface and the place of his birth were to be solidly established.  This is owing in part to questions concerning the eligibility of his mother, owing to her age and apparent failure to meet the necessary U.S. residency requirement at the time to confer citizenship on her son at the time of his birth.

           Even if one assumes that his mother had been able to meet the legal requirement at the time to confer citizenship on her child, there is still the unresolved question of whether or not a person holding dual citizenship at birth qualifies as a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 of the Constitution.  [See references in the Links Section of the http://EligibilityQuestions.com website entitled "Natural Born Citizenship and Other Legal Questions.”  Especially see "Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer" by Stephen Tonchen at http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm .]

To muddy the water even further, there are other questions concerning Mr. Obama’s Indonesian citizenship during his youth and early adulthood and the holding of Indonesian citizenship possibly up through and including his election to the U.S. Senate and his election to the Presidency.  If he had given up his American citizenship or if his American citizenship had been in effect “renounced” when he assumed Indonesian citizenship, the questions that would follow would include:  When was his American citizenship reinstated?  How was his American citizenship reinstated?  And what are the implications of such legal actions (or absence of legal actions) for the natural born status and citizenship status of a Presidential candidate or President, not to mention a Senatorial candidate or Senator?

All of these questions could be definitively answered but remain unanswered owing in large part to the apparent sealing by Mr. Obama of practically every relevant record that might help answer some, if not all of these questions.  Some questions might still remain unanswered as they may involve unsettled law and may require one or more Supreme Court rulings. 

Of some concern to those who have been tracking these matters for months if not over a year, hundreds of thousands of dollars have reportedly been spent by Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee in defending the numerous law suits that have been brought by individuals seeking the documents that would help answer many of the unanswered questions concerning his eligibility.  The question necessarily arises:  Why has so much money been spent when it would seemingly have been an easy matter for Mr. Obama to unseal and reveal the documents that are being sought?  (Such documentation could still leave unanswered the question as to whether or not Mr. Obama qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” )

            Many people assume that the “Certification of Live Birth” that one can find on the internet surely constitutes sufficient evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth in the United States.  For a variety of reasons, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not prove sufficient evidence.  Indeed there are even forensic experts who have come forward saying that the document that has been provided on the internet is not only photo-shopped, but poorly photo-shopped.  That this could possibly be the case is beyond belief for many.  (Indeed if in fact it were true, the person guilty of falsify the legal document could be charged with a crime. )  A forensic analysis of the Certification of Live Birth can be found at http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101483 .  A video of an expert describing anomalies in the COLB is accessible at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ&feature=player_embedded .  For additional information concerning the experts findings, see http://polarik.blogtownhall.com .

I fully realize that until June and July of 2009  the topic of Constitutional eligibility requirements has been a most unpopular topic for many, including the vast majority of journalists, commentators, and analysts on the major networks as well as those on the Cable News Networks.  Prior to July, there had been only brief instances when some of the eligibility questions were raised on any of the television networks, mainstream or cable.  One such instance occurred on May 27, 2009 and another occurred during the week of June 14.  Lester Kinsolving, a White House correspondent for WorldNetDaily, raised some of the eligibility questions during a White House news briefing by Robert Gibbs on May 27.   See the full exchange and a write up concerning the event at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342 .  Mr. Gibbs treated the question derisively.   A similar exchange involving Mr. Kinsolving and Mr. Gibbs with a similar response occurred again in July.

Soon after the first Kinsolving/Gibbs exchange, Rush Limbaugh broke his long silence on the matter of eligibility questions and quipped that God and President Obama had something in common:  neither had a birth certificate.   (The audio replay is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMAJUoY9cg .)

Prior to that backhanded mention of an eligibility-related question, Mr. Limbaugh’s call screeners had reportedly been instructed not to allow callers through who wanted to address eligibility questions.  (This screening policy apparently changed on June 10, 2009. ) (See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100717 .)

During the week of June 14, at least two MSNBC commentators on the leftward side of the political spectrum ridiculed and dismissed those who have raised questions about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. Indeed, they even vilified FOX News for having raised these questions.  Funnily enough, at that time there had been only three persons to my knowledge at FOX News who had mentioned eligibility questions and done so only briefly.  The most extensive mention has been made by Shepard Smith and he took the same point of view that the two commentators on MSNBC had taken. 

On May 27, Brett Baier had mentioned the exchange between Lester Kinsolving and Robert Gibbs on his evening news program on FOX, but that was as far as that reporting went.   Bill O’Reilly noted briefly in a humorous way on FOX in May that he sends all questions about eligibility to Glenn Beck. The implication of this brief remark was that he thought such questions were too off the wall for him to handle himself. 

 

[Note added July 28, 2009:  On July 27,  2009, Bill O’Reilly addressed the “birth certificate” aspect of the controversy surrounding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1zrcXCJzK0 ).  He did not address the unresolved questions regarding “natural born” citizenship and dual citizenship.

       So far as I know, however, as of July 28, 2009, there has been little if any substantive attention given to eligibility questions on the air at least by Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Bernie Goldberg, Laura Ingram, or Greta Van Susteren.  ]

          Interestingly enough, until July of 2009, Matt Drudge appears to have maintained his distance from any and all of the questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s eligibility.   Prior to July, there had been an occasional news item on eligibility-related matters appearing on the Drudge Report, but such news items seemed to disappear quickly.  Since the beginning of July there has been a definite increase in news items.   Coverage of the law suit involving Major Stefan Cook did appear on the Drudge Report for several days with the citing of an article by Lily Gordon on July 16, 2009.  The article was entitled  Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status.”  (Her articles on this subject can be accessed at http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/v-print/story/778482.html.)  (For other coverage concerning this case, see a July 18th  video at http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/07/18/video-orly-taitz-explains-why-she-believes-president-obama-is-not-eligible-to-serve-as-commander-in-chief/  and and hear a July 21st radio interview at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow/2009/07/22/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show.

          Sean Hannity also kept his distance from the topic until Major Cook’s case when he mentioned it briefly shortly after the coverage of the article about the case appearing in the Drudge Report.  He does not appear to be spending additional time reporting on the matter on his television program.

The reporting on the Major Cook case appears to have played a major role in beginning what could be the end of the news blackout on network and cable television.   Coverage on certain stations has begun to increase.  Most coverage tends to reflect a relatively superficial understanding of the facts.  A majority of the commentators, reporters, and analysts have seemed to embrace the tactic of ridiculing those who have raised questions about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold the Office of the President.  Lou Dobbs has been perhaps the most notable media personage to raise eligibility questions.  To date his emphasis seems to be focused on the need to see the long form of the birth certificate.  At the other end of the spectrum have been Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Kitty Pilgrim, all being from MSNBC, with the exception of Kitty Pilgrim who is with CNN.

A major break in the news blackout with regard to the major networks came on July 22 with coverage of the eligibility-related questions reported on by Brian Williams and Pete Williams.  On this four minute segment, a portion of a video was replayed of a raucous town hall meeting held by Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware during an angry constituent raised the question of Mr. Obama’s citizenship with the Congressman and did so with the obvious support of a substantial number of equally angry constituents present at the meeting.  (See http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220057 for the NBC coverage.) 

 The increase in coverage by MSNBC, FOX, and CNN seems also to have been triggered by this widely replayed portion of the town hall meeting in Delaware along with the coverage given to the case involving Major Stefan Cook.

As regards the internet, Joseph Farah, the founder, editor, and CEO of WorldNetDaily (wnd.com), and a large number of the reporters writing for WND have been unrelenting in their efforts to keep the questions in the public eye for over a year.  They have increased their reporting efforts and have initiated or supported campaigns that would bring greater attention to eligibility questions.  These efforts have included a petition campaign, a billboard campaign (“Where’s the Birth Certificate?), a recent nationwide poll that showed that over half the public had questions about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President, and the offer of a bounty of $10,000 for anyone who can prove that they were present at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii.   They have reported that as of July 18, 2009,  412,679  individuals had signed a petition at http://www.wnd.com/obama_petition  “demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.”  All of these initiatives have been written about in articles on the http://wnd.com .  Links to these articles can be found in the List of Links at http://EligibilityQuestions.com . Also see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546.

The public is apparently becoming increasingly aware of what had been an “underground” controversy over disputed facts, issues, events, and law suits that were being reported on, and widely discussed and argued online.   Practically everyone in the Cable News networks whom one might have expected to cover the “story” did not covering the story and everyone whom one might have expected to denounce the story largely kept quiet until July of 2009 when the blackout on the part of the mainstream media began to show signs of ending.   Members of the mainstream media who had been ignoring or failing to address these questions seem to be beginning to awaken to the fact that this story is not going away, certainly not anytime soon.  The law suits brought by individuals in the military who are questioning the President’s legitimacy to serve as Commander in Chief seem certain to continue to attract attention.  As constituents meet with their Members of Congress during the August 2009 recess, they too are likely to have to respond to eligibility- related questions.  

It would seem helpful to consider why the mainstream media and the Cable News Networks have more or less ignored eligibility-related questions until now.   The fear of being ridiculed or thought politically incorrect could certainly have been a factor.  I am aware that some do not wish to address the Constitutional eligibility questions for fear that such reporting could lead to possible revelations that Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold the Office of President.  If investigative reporters such as Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein were to begin to address these eligibility questions, they would surely get the public’s attention.  But no investigative reporter from the mainstream media with the name recognition of a Woodward or Bernstein has begun to address these questions as yet.  

Some would doubtlessly prefer to ignore eligibility questions owing to what might follow if Mr. Obama were found to be ineligible.   Some would appear to feel that it makes no difference whether Mr. Obama is technically, legally eligible or not, that the status quo should be maintained.    Others might argue that sooner or later the status of his eligibility will become known or will be decided in a favorable or unfavorable way and there is nothing to be gained by trying to resolve the matter quickly.  Others contend that it is essential to resolve the matter quickly since all of Mr. Obama’s actions as President to date, could be nullified if there were a determination made by the courts that he was not eligible to serve.

 The eventual resolution of these matters could come about through court action.   A resolution could also come about if Mr. Obama were to decide on his own to unseal the records that are currently sealed or unavailable to the public.  Such action could possibly help resolve them matters sooner than would otherwise may be the case.

If and as Mr. Obama were to run for a second term, it is quite likely that more than one state will have changed their vetting requirements for candidates for the Presidency, making it impossible for him to run in at least one or more states without presenting proof of his natural born citizenship status.  Were he to fail to present such proof at that time, the media would surely cover the story.   It is interesting to conjecture what would then happen, were he to be found to be ineligible at that time:  What would happen with regard to his actions both before and after he took office in 2009?   What would happen with regard to validity of his selection of Joseph Biden as his Vice President?  What would happen with regard to the validity of the laws that he had signed and other actions that he had taken, not to mention appointments that he had made since taking office, including appointments to the Supreme Court?

What might happen if Mr. Obama were to be found to be ineligible to serve well in advance of the end of his four year term in office?  Possible scenarios are many and varied.  Only a few possibilities will be mentioned here.  One possible scenario, were Mr. Obama found to be ineligible to serve as President before the next Presidential election, might conceivably include his removal from office along with the removal of the Vice President and their replacement with the “second” place winners in the November 2008 election for the Presidency and Vice Presidency.   (The rationale for removal of the Vice President along with the President might be the fact that the Vice President had in effect been selected by someone ineligible to make the selection.) 

Another scenario might be for the Congress to determine who should replace the President and Vice President. Yet another possible scenario might the Congress or the Supreme Court calling for an unprecedented off year Special General Election.   A variety of possibilities exist for determining who might serve as President and/or Vice President prior to a Special Election.   One speculation I have heard would be to ask the former President and Vice President if they and their appointees would be willing to serve during the period prior to the Special Election and the Inauguration of the next President and Vice President.

What might happen given any of the conceivable scenarios if it happened that Mr. Obama were to be found ineligible is uncertain since we as a nation would be entering uncharted territory.  This indeed is a reason for my writing what began as an open letter to the media and now has been expanded as an open letter to those in responsible positions in government as well as to those in the media.   Those in government as well as those in the media are both in a position to research these matters and help educate the public.  They are in a position to help inform the public concerning matters that could precipitate a Constitutional crisis.  The media may be in the best position to help the public and those in key positions of authority and responsibility, begin to consider these matters and begin to think through what courses of action might be taken by those in government were it to be determined that Mr. Obama were ineligible to serve.   The media as well as those in the government could conceivably help keep the lid on what could otherwise erupt into a very volatile and chaotic situation.   Both could play a very important role doing the research and analysis that will be needed to understand the implications of the possible facts that may emerge over the course of the next few months or years.   While the eligibility questions are being answered, it would seem extremely prudent to consider what courses of action will be open to us in dealing with and ameliorating the consequences of the possible Constitutional crisis that we may find ourselves facing and how the nation might make the smoothest possible transition out of such a crisis.

Elected public officials and appointed public officials may have to choose between doing what they think is right and refraining from actions that they might view as career ending.   Indeed persons in all sectors of society who raise questions about the Constitutional eligibility of the President may feel similar pressures in determining what personal course of action to take.

There were those who fervently hoped that these unanswered questions concerning Mr. Obama’s eligibility  would have been be addressed and resolved  long before now.  In fact, many of the law suits that have been filed were filed well in advance of the election in 2008.  Had the eligibility questions been settled before the Democratic Convention and if the head of the Democratic ticket found to be ineligible to run at that time, a Constitutional crisis could have been averted.  If the eligibility questions had been resolved before the Inauguration, and if the President-elect had been found to be ineligible, the potential for a Constitutional crisis would have been lessened. 

Since the same eligibility questions remain unaddressed and unanswered after the Inauguration, a Constitutional crisis would seem likely were the winner of the election, the sitting President, be found now to be ineligible to serve. 

 At no point along the way, prior to the Inauguration did anyone in a significant position of responsibility respond to pleas to recognize the significance of these eligibility questions and the basis for raising them.  No one in a significant position of responsibility worked to help answer these questions before the election, not President Bush or Vice President Cheney, not any leader of either major party, not any of the opposing leading candidates within the Democratic party, not any well known candidates within the Republican Party or other parties with the exception of Ambassador Alan Keyes and Congressman Ron Paul, and not anyone in the Federal Judiciary or on the Supreme Court. 

 The story is a bit different within the House and the Senate.  While some few raised concerns about the Mr. Obama’s eligibility over the past year or more, there are now ten Members of Congress who have become co-sponsors of HR 1503, a bill that would amend the Federal Election Laws and require documented proof that an individual who runs for President or Vice President meets the necessary Constitutional requirements. (For information regarding HR 1503,  see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1503.)  The sponsor of the bill was Rep. Bill Posey [R-FL15] . The co-sponsors as of July 12, 2009  are Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] , Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5] , Rep. John Campbell [R-CA48] , Rep. John Carter [R-TX31] ,Rep. John Culberson [R-TX7], Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6] , Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX24], Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX19], and Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2] .  According to a WND article posted June 18, 2009 by Bob Unruh, Senator Tom Coburn [R-OKLA] has said that he favors state and federal requirements that would make it necessary for future presidential candidates to document their qualifications.  In the article the Senator is quoted as saying that he would likely support Congressman Posey’s bill were it to get to the Senate.  See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101492      In the future, other actions to ensure the proper vetting of candidates for President (and Vice President) might be taken by Members of Congress prior to the Election, prior to the meeting of the Electoral College, or prior to Inauguration.  Indeed, a question concerning Senator McCain’s natural born citizenship status was raised owing to the circumstances of his birth.  While he was born to two American citizens, he was born in Panama.  The Senate passed a resolution clarifying Senator McCain’s natural born citizenship status and his eligibility to run for the Presidency.

     At the time the results of the Electoral College are announced in the Senate, the President of the Senate is supposed to announce the results and then ask for any objections.  For whatever reason, Vice President Cheney, in his capacity as President the Senate, failed to ask for objections on the designated day in January of 2009. 

    What remedies might there be were a sitting President be found to be ineligible to serve as President after being inaugurated?   One would assume that remedies might include anything from resignation to impeachment.  But, someone would need to take the action that would lead to resignation or impeachment.   There could be a number of ways in which such a situation might come about.  The sitting President might be accused of a crime.   If he or she acknowledged committing a crime, the sitting President might resign rather than face the possibility of impeachment.  Of course, a sitting President might also be impeached.

     With the few exceptions noted earlier concerning Members of Congress who have raised concerns or the ten to date who have co-sponsored HR 1503, it appears that the majority of those in the Congress have either not responded to pleas from citizens to investigate these matters or not taken any actions or introduced or sponsored any legislation that would result in the resolution of the unresolved eligibility questions. 

     The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice do not appear to have taken any public action.  The FEC has stated that it can only require proof of eligibility of candidacy if a Presidential candidate accepts public funding.  If the candidate does not accept public funding, then the FEC cannot require proof of eligibility.

      Many state officials, including Governors and State Attorney Generals, have also demurred and have taken no action.  This may soon change depending on cases that are in progress at the state level and depending on the possible passage of State legislation that would require those whose names appeared on State ballots as candidates for President and Vice President to provide adequate proof of their eligibility.

    Why is it that so many people have failed to make sure that eligibility requirements were met?   Why have so many failed to take action, even when they have questioned whether or not eligibility requirements have been met?  Why have so many people who would seem to have the authority and even the obligation to take action failed to take any immediate action?   There are many possible reasons that individuals may be reluctant to raise questions, let alone take action involving possible ethics violations, violations of oaths, submission of inadequate or inauthentic documentation, and matters where crimes may have been committed: 

·        They may have failed to acquaint themselves with the facts.

·        They may be unaware of the facts.

·        They may be unaware of the existence of unanswered questions.

·        They may have dismissed those raising eligibility-related questions assuming that surely such individuals were ill informed or ignorant.

·        They may have dismissed those raising questions as being idiots, crazies, conspiracists, or even racists.   Indeed, many people immediately seem to jump to the conclusion that those raising eligibility questions surely must be doing so out of racist motives.  From what I have been able to discern in the current situation, there is no racism involved; there is a concern for the Constitution and the rule of law and the Founders’ intent that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen.

    There are many other reasons people in roles of responsibility may be reluctant to come forward and raise questions concerning the Presidential eligibility requirements prior to the election, as well as now. This can include individuals in roles of Constitutional responsibility who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.  These reasons might include:

·        groupthink;

·        social pressure;

·        denial;

·        wishful thinking;

·        inability to assess reality;

·        absence of character or integrity or a moral compass;

·        cowardice;

·        failure of nerve;

·        failure to exercise common sense;

·        absence of self confidence, initiative, or will;

·        failure to exercise discretion and good judgment;

·        reluctance to risk being ridiculed or reviled;

·        fear of being labeled as a crazy or conspiracist, or racist; or

·        fear of reprisals to oneself or one’s family or one’s place of work.  (With regard to the latter, it may be noted that the Defense Department reportedly pressured Major Cook’s employer (a defense contractor) to terminate Major Cook shortly after his orders to go to Afghanistan were rescinded by the military.)


     Another reason that individuals in roles of responsibility may not have come forward and taken action is that they may well find it unthinkable and beyond belief, that someone might decide to run for President,  knowing that he or she were ineligible to do so.  Surely, no one would do that.   But what if they did?   What if the unimaginable were to occur?  For instance, it may be particularly hard for some to imagine that a person who ran for the Presidency and who had a law degree and who had taught constitutional law would not have known that he or she failed to meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements,  if indeed that were to be the case.  Disbelievers or reluctant believers may simply have found it beyond belief that a person seeking the highest office of the land might be in effect engaging in such an unprecedented fraudulent act, an act that if discovered could result in impeachment or worse, while running the risk of precipitating a Constitutional crisis and possible social unrest or upheaval.   Surely no one would knowingly do that, would they? 

      In February of 2009, one of the most popular guests on Cable TV told me in an e-mail that he was not addressing the eligibility questions because he felt that there was sufficient evidence of Mr. Obama’s citizenship.   (On reflection, I am not sure that he was conversant with the issues surrounding “natural born citizenship”.  It is also unclear how much time he had spent studying the analyses of forensic experts who had rendered opinions concerning the Certification of Live Birth.  Questions may have arisen in his mind had he done so.)

     Yet another extremely popular commentator told me in June at the National Press Club that he had simply not taken the time to research the matter.  He invited me to send him the information that I had collected which I did.    From his recent statements on the air, however, he does not seem to have gleaned understanding of the unresolved Constitutional questions surrounding the definition of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”.   Some say that a person who holds dual citizenship at birth cannot be a “natural born citizen” and meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency.  The commentator did not seem to understand that being born on U.S. soil does not automatically make an individual a “natural born citizen”.   The citizenship of each of his or her parents needs to be taken into account.

  The same commentator also appears to have accepted the popularly held notion that an Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth issued in 1961 can take the place of a long form birth certificate in establishing place of birth.   At that time parents were able to secure a Certification of Live Birth for their child even if that child had not been born in Hawaii.

        As one who has long been a student of controversies, how they arise, and how they do or don’t get resolved, I find no precedent for the way that these matters have been so widely ignored by those who should be paying the closest attention.  I have some thought concerning possible sociological, psychological, and even political explanations for this reticence, but those possible explanations will not be discussed more fully here.  A brief mention of whistle blowing and whistle-blowers might however be in order.  Why whistle-blowing and whistle-blowers?  In a matter involving whistle blowing, the whistle-blower try to shed light on matters of potential gravity, matters that may seriously impact people’s health, lives, fortunes, careers, or futures or even matters that may seriously impact whole organizations, sectors of society, nations, or the world.  Such individuals need to possess strength of character and integrity.   Such persons need to be thick-skinned, and impervious to or capable of withstanding character assaults, ridicule, and marginalization.  Such persons need to be able to withstand threats or acts of retribution and possible smear campaigns that could damage their reputations and means of earning a livelihood or even threaten their safety or their lives or that of their family’s.  Ideally it would be a help if such whistle-blowers or would be whistle-blowers were independently wealthy!   In the end, however, what one does, from signing a petition to reporting on an issue, to sponsoring legislation or rendering a decision, to taking an action, involves determining what one values and what priority one gives to one’s values,  What one does also involves having the courage of one’s convictions.

     My intent here is to raise awareness concerning unanswered questions and to encourage those who have the same unanswered questions to pursue answers to those questions. 

   Another intent of mine is to try to raise consciousness and awareness concerning these widely under-reported matters of potential national as well as global significance.  In addition I am trying to try to shed light on how it is we have gotten to where we are and why it is that so many of those whom we might naturally count on to take action, have not taken action.   I am also hoping to draw attention to the possible reasons for the under-reporting and the superficial reporting that we have been witness to.  I do this in the hope that those in positions of responsibility in government and those in the media will take it upon themselves to do the research that is required and try to comprehend the complexities of our current situation.  I hope that the sharing of this overview and analysis might help in our efforts to come up with the answers to the eligibility questions that have been raised here.  I hope as well that those in government and in the media will all play a role in helping inform the American public concerning the answers that are found.  I hope that those in government and in the media will be able all they can to help ensure that our nation survives and survives well if we were to find ourselves in what could be an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.   I would hope that they would be voices of reason and be instrumental in keeping the nation together were such a crisis ever to occur.  However the questions might be answered, it seems particularly essential that those in roles of responsibility in government and those in the media need to play a role in helping the public, understand the issues at stake.   It is of course imperative that those in government inform themselves concerning these very important matters but that they begin to take actions that are commensurate with their roles, duties,  obligations, and responsibilities.

   In this extraordinary experiment known as America, it seems essential that we seek the truth however uncomfortable that seeking the truth may be.  It seems essential that we not only seek the truth, but act on the basis of the truth that we find. Respect for the Constitution and the rule of law needs to drive our efforts.   Respect for fairness and justice in the electoral process also dictates that we address once and for all the unaddressed eligibility questions discussed here.  It is my hope that we will all do our part in helping find answers to the questions raised here and in taking responsible action based on answers to those questions for the sake of the preservation of the Union, the Constitution, and the rule of law.


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Chart Posted May 19, 2014

 

 

Chart of Some Past and Prospective Candidates for President and Their Apparent Knowledge or Lack of Knowledge

Concerning the Natural Born” Citizen Requirement of Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution

 

This chart contains the following categories:

 

  • the Name of Individual Who has Run and/or May Run for President,
  • the Individual’s Citizenship Status at Birth; and
  • the Individual’s Apparent Knowledge of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring an individual seeking the Presidency who was born after the ratification on the Constitution be “Natural Born Citizen”.

 

 

Some questions that need to be addressed in light of this chart:

 

  • What is the meaning of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?

 

  • Why did the Founders require that those seeking the Presidency who were born after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution be “Natural Born” Citizens?

 

  • What are the implications for the primacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law if the Constitutional eligibility requirements for the Presidency fail to be clarified, understood, or followed?

 

 

 

 

Chart of Some Past and Prospective Candidates for President and Their Apparent Knowledge or Lack of Knowledge

Concerning the Natural Born” Citizen Requirement of Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution

 

Chart Posted May 19, 2014

 

Name of Individual Who has Run and/or May Run for President

Citizenship Status at Birth

Individual’s Apparent Knowledge of the

Natural Born Citizen” clause of Article 2,

Section 1 of the Constitution requiring an

individual seeking the Presidency who was

born after the ratification on the Constitution

 be “Natural Born Citizen”.

 

Ted Cruz

Dual citizen:   Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was American.  His father was Cuban and did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until later.  Ted Cruz had dual American/

Canadian citizen at birth.

Ted Cruz does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own

possible candidacy

 

Marco Rubio

Dual citizen:  Neither parent was a naturalized citizen at the time of Marco Rubio’s birth in the U.S.  Both parents became naturalized later.

Marco Rubio does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own possible

candidacy.

 

Bobby Jindal

Dual citizen: Neither Bobby Jindal’s parents was a naturalized citizen at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth.  Both parents became naturalized later.

Bobby Jindal does not seem to see the applicability

of the Constitutional requirement to his own possible

candidacy.

 

Rick Santorum

Dual citizen: Rick Santorum’s Italian father was not a U.S. Citizen or a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Rick Santorum’s birth.

Rick Santorum has been questioned about his

eligibility about the “natural born citizen”

requirement but for whatever reason does not

seem to see the requirement as standing in the

way of his own candidacy.

 

Barack Obama

Dual citizen:  According to the birth certificate posted on the White House website, Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.   Other citizenship issues during Barack Obama’s life have not been clarified owing to the withholding of pertinent documents.  For instance, did he attend U.S. universities in a “foreign student” status owing to the fact that part of his childhood was spent in Indonesia, presumably as an Indonesian citizen since dual citizenship is not allowed in Indonesia?

Barack Obama may be assuming that a person

 born in the U.S. is a “natural born citizen” even

if his father was not a citizen.  He should know,

 but may not, that this is not a matter of totally

“settled law”. He does not appear to have

acknowledged that there are questions concerning

the meaning and implications of the “natural born”

citizen requirement. 

 

 John McCain

Natural born citizen: Both of John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.  John McCain’s father was serving in the military at the time of John McCain’s birth in Panama. According to Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758, Chapter 19, paras. 212 - 215), an individual born to parents who are abroad in service of their country retains the father’s citizenship.

John McCain may believe that one needs to have

 been born on a U.S. military base in order to be a

“natural born” citizen.  Constitutional scholars have

said that one needs only to have two parents

who were both U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth.

Also see Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations

(1758, Chapter 19, paras. 212 - 215).

 

 

  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Note Regarding the List of Links Included in the Table of Contents

on the  http://EligibilityQuestions.com Website



In the Table of Contents on this website, you will find a variety of files with references and links to websites that I hope will be of help to those just beginning to research these matters.    These links include a TV clip from an NBC affiliate on June 24, 2009 in Hawaii.  The clip provides an interesting overview of a few of the questions that have been raised and the public response to them:  http://www.ketknbc.com/news/politics/ktbbs-question-day-is-there-enough-proof-president-obama-a-us-citizen .

Included on the same page are links to some articles appearing on the http://wnd.com  website on June 24 and June 25, 2009.  These articles focus on matters mentioned in the June 24, 2009 TV clip.

A YouTube clip of particular interest added July 14, 2009: Ambassador Alan Keyes voices his opinions on the Constitutional eligibility dispute have on YouTube: 

Available at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103918

 

Of related interest:  An exchange that Alan Keyes reportedly had with Barack Obama in 2004 both were running for the U.S. Senate from Illinois: Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjtwwxILZxQ&feature=fvw   

Obama Admitted - Not Natural Born  [When talking with Alan Keyes in 2004,  Barack Obama reportedly said about his citizenship status(?)] “It doesn’t matter because I am not running for POTUS.”  

From YouTube, December 11, 2008  "…This video is solely for the search of someone who downloaded the video that used to be posted [on you tube…] The [video] includes a scene where Alan Keyes (pre or post) his second debate 2004 with Barack Obama when he was competing for the IL Senate Seat...in an offstage, non-formal recording, that was captured on film by a personal [camcorder]. He was caught admitting he was not running for President, so his Citizenship should not be a concern. This occurred when questioned by Alan Keyes on his Natural Born Citizenship...again it was a 'side stage' comment, not a professionally video as seen on Alan Keyes' website..."

 

















Website Builder