Humpty Obama

The following was posted on the ObamaFile. The responses that were included [here in red] are excellent and deserve to be posted everywhere. I have included additional responses [mine – in green] for some additional comments.

DOJ To Judge:  Dump Ambassador Keyes Lawsuit

The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent attorney Orly Taitz, who is representing Ambassador Alan Keyes and 200 military members, is challenging Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to be president.

In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices.  Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can’t be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can’t show they are directly injured by Obama’s presence in office.

 The State of Hawaii, has not confirmed they issued a Certification in 2007 or 2008, that contains the Vital record of Barack Obama. Nor has the State of Hawaii or any officials released any information that it contains. Also it begs to ask, why if Barack Obama claims to have released his Birth Certificate, would he spend $1.6 million to keep what he has already released, sealed?

 
“It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress,” Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote.  “Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch.” — you don’t say! — so I guess if Obama secured his office through fraud, it’s OK with the Obama JustUs Department — what a shocking surprise!
 So the numerous e-mails, calls, and letters to the Senators and Congressman that went unanswered and ignored, along with no challenge being done at the Electoral College means they completely disregarded the will of the people and committed treason by failing in their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.  Or the admission that they investigated and by the word of  Snopes.com that he was born in Hawaii. Let alone taking a newspaper announcement as a legal document.

Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper.  However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.

 I wonder where they received their liberal law degrees, that when something is clear and concise as John Jay’s letter to George Washington concerning the Commander of the Army, they become confused and disorientated to the point they babble, stumble, attempt to confuse the issue.

“The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing,” the government lawyers wrote. Same old argument — “Standing” — the American People have no right to know who and what Obama is, nor where he comes from — he’s special, you know.

So if no one complains about the rules being violated the game goes on? But here they maintain that if an illegal act was committed, EVERYONE involved has to complain, before anything can be done. Imagine a murder being committed and before the accused can be charged, EVERYONE from the murderer, the victim, the family involved has to agree that something or someone was violated; a wrong was committed, before any actions or charges could be brought forth. If this is the case, how many murderers would agree that they did anything wrong. Amazing!

Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008.  Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama’s election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.

But an illegal candidate can remain there if the voting public is too ignorant to investigate him? Again, if Barack Obama was found to be ineligible the legal candidates would have been harmed and the outcome could not have been the same. If given the choices without the illegal candidates because they were rightfully removed, who would have the voters selected? So harm was done as the federal campaign finances were available to parties with a certain level of votes.

“The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election,” the motion states. So what?  Since when did winning a political office become a prerequisite for running?

 Being an illegal candidate and disqualified in one State, would have opened the vetting process and allowed the voters to make an informed decision. Questions were raised prior to the conventions and again ignored.  

The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in “innuendo” and advancing “a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act.”

 Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, “Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama.”

The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter.

This biased report could have been written by Obama, himself.  I have removed many of the pejoratives that Gerstein sprinkled “liberally” throughout the source article.  This Obot doesn’t mention that Taitz is representing Ambassador Allen Keyes, the Independent Party candidate for POTUS, and 200 military officers and non-commissioned officers till halfway through this smear job.

  I guess Gerstein believes that “a three-time, longshot presidential candidate” or “an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate” is not entitled to justice. These lefties make me want to hurl!  It’s all justice for me, but not for thee, with these people.
 

  Only an Obama JustUs Department, protector of the New Black Panther Party, could claim a plaintiff shouldn’t be heard, shouldn’t receive justice, because, “…they never had a mathematical chance of winning.” Furthermore, what in the hell is Justice Department lawyers doing defending Obama in this suit?  It’s bad enough that Obama has illegally spent at least $600,000 from his campaign funds, to compensate Perkins Coie for legal services, to keep his bona fides from the American People — now he’s got Civil Service lawyers from the JJustUs Department representing him.

Advertisements

Natural Born Confusion – Only for Obama supporters

 After posting the Constitutional Points to ponder, I was flooded with comments. I decided to pick the worst comment that was sent and dicest his illogical and clearly labeled lies.  My responses in RED

Now lets look at how far the Obots are trying to confuse the truth.

 Author : smrstrauss (IP: 70.19.198.241 , pool-70-19-198-241.bos.east.verizon.net)

E-mail : smrstrauss@aol.com

URL    :

Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=70.19.198.241

Comment:

Re: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ”

 The quotation is from a translation of Vattel that appeared 100 years after the Constitution was written. No translation of Vattel before the Constitution used the term “natural born citizen” (Vattel himself wrote in French.) What were his words? “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

The version that I have been quoting is  The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) Emmerich de Vattel.

Clearly there is no “citoyens” (citizens) in the phrase “Les Naturels.” The translation that was made before the Constitution said: “The natives, or indigenes [whatever that meant] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Again I will correct [whatever that meant] (sure sounds like he’s is confused)

“The term ‘indigenous people’ can be used to describe any ethnic group of people who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection”

 So the authors of Article II in the Constitution could not have been thinking of Vattel when they wrote “Natural Born Citizen.” What were they thinking of: The common law of Britain (and of America too), that had held for decades that someone was a “Natural Born Subject” if she or he were merely born in the country and not to a foreign diplomat.

 Again, states miss-information.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

And James Madison said: It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

The commonly used term in the law at the time was “Natural Born subject.” There was no use in law or common discussion that “Natural Born” required two US parents and being born in the country. Since the reference “Natural Born” can only have been to the common law, the common law definition applies, and that merely requires birth in the USA.

 Again, miss-quoting and miss-leading remarks.  Again, I will correct him.

 All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)

 And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

 Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

 “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

 Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

 “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

 Senators Hatch and Graham are NOT correct. But is this the first time Senators or Congressmen have been wrong.

 As a case in point I refer to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

This Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004 refers to the following; S.2128 Natural Born Citizen Act.  That act never passed and hence as of this Judiciary Hearing in Oct 2004, the meaning and Constitution had never been amended.

So let’s look at the Natural Born Citizen Act

 S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

(About the paid content on GovTrack)

Navigation

> Overview

– Summary (CRS)

– Full Text

– Committee Assignments

– Related Legislation

 Track S. 2128 [108th]

Because this bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress, no more action can occur on it.

 Primary Source

See S. 2128 [108th] on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

 Overview

Sponsor: Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]show cosponsors (2)

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-10]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?

Text: Summary | Full Text

Status:  Introduced Feb 25, 2004

 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments

 Reported by Committee (did not occur)

 Voted on in Senate (did not occur)

 Voted on in House (did not occur)

 Signed by President (did not occur)

 This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. 

Last Action: Oct 5, 2004: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Now lets fast forward to Feb 2006 and look at the following.

 SARAH P. HERLIHY  2/22/2006 AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

 The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

 Again, no amendment has ever been passed to alter the Founding Fathers and Framers definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”. However Obama and his supporters have continued to attempt to not only disregard the United States Constitution, but to alter it’s meaning.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

Natural Born Citizen legally defined

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. 

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress.  Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following; 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

 

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.

Thomas Jefferson – Natural Born Citizen

In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.

The first question is

“Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”

to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with

“Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”

(In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)

Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:

“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

(So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)

The second question is

“Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”

and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection, 
“He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”

(For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)

The third question is
“Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”

Thomas Jefferson’s answer:

“1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult.  But by the common law.”

(Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was “no middle character” between a “natural subject” and an “alien”. Further, he called the ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN son of the British subject an ALIEN who could not inherit from the British father. So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)

“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”

Here is the bomb- 
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Therefore Obama is an alien of the United States and an Alien is not, can not, nor EVER be a “Natural Born Citizen”