They quote Vattel's 1758 "The Law of Nations," a document used widely by the American Founders, where it states in Vol. 1, Ch. 19, Section 212: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
His organization, ProtectOurLiberty.org, also explains that under the British Nationality Act of 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 he was a British subject.
The goal, according to Apuzzo, was to avoid a president with divided loyalties – to America and to another nation to which his father or mother owed loyalty.
"This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) at the time of birth assure that one is born with sole natural allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives)," the organization explains.
"Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the president and commander in chief of the military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the president because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be president will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation.
"The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional Republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the 'natural-born Citizen' clause that gives the American people the best chance to keep it that way."
When President Obama finally presented his long-form birth certificate yesterday (April 27, 2011), that ended the "birther" controversy, right? Well, not so fast! Unless you have been following the story on WorldNetDaily (WND.com), you may not be aware of what the actual controversy is about. The mainstream media has always referred to the "birthers" as people who didn't believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States.
However, the majority of the press has had it just a slight bit wrong all this time (almost 3 years). At least among those of us that had followed the story, mostly on WND.com, the question was not where he was born as much as it was whether or not Barack Obama is qualified to be president. In the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, it specifies that to be eligible to be President, a person must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.
So, while nearly 100% of Americans will now finally agree that Obama was definitely born in Hawaii, the real controversy is far from being over. I am not talking about those "birthers" that will say that the birth certificate is a fake. Those people are out on the loony fringe, and pretty much the equivalent of the "9/11 truthers." The true controversy regarding the constitutional eligibility issue is the part of the story that the liberal mainstream media has refused to cover since the very beginning. This column does an outstanding job in explaining just why the "natural-born citizen" clause of Article II, Section 1, would make Barack Hussein Obama not eligible to be President of the United States.
This is far from being case closed, as The Donald (Trump) was patting himself on the back for all day yesterday. The President thought he was putting the "silliness" to rest, because he has "big problems to solve." And Glenn Beck will have continued frustration when he finds out that the distraction will continue. I'm just sayin'...
* * *
Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible
'They are going to have to face the music on this at some point'
By Bob Unruh
April 27, 2011 ~ 8:07 pm Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
The "Certificate of Live Birth" document released by the White House today, if authentic, assures Americans that their president was born in Hawaii as he has said, according to two participants in a lawsuit who challenged the president's tenure in the Oval Office.
But they say it also proves he's ineligible under the Constitution's requirements to be president.
According to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney who argued the Kerchner vs. Obama case, and the lead plaintiff, retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, the documentation reveals that Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, was the father when Barack Obama Jr. was born.
That, they say, would disqualify Obama because of the Founders' requirement in the Constitution that a president be a "natural-born Citizen," commonly understood during the era of the beginnings of the United States to mean a citizen offspring of two citizen parents.
The Kerchner vs. Obama case, as have some others, challenged Obama on two grounds: that he had not proven his U.S. birth and that even if that was documented, he stilled needed to meet the requirements of being a "natural-born Citizen."
That's in Article 2, Section,1, which 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."
"They are going to have to face the music on this at some point," said Kerchner, whose allegations never were decided on their merits after the courts created a roadblock by determining Americans don't have "standing" to demand the Constitution's requirements be followed.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo agreed.
"Assuming that it's valid, that he's born in Hawaii," he said, "It confirms who his father was. His father was not a citizen."
What the president released:
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
READ MORE at WND.com
Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!