Is Barack Obama a Naturl Born Citizen?

Does Senator Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President

Warning: strpos() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given in /home/cerebel6/public_html/uslaw/uslarticle.php on line 46



"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;"

By this clause, the Framers established two strict sets of citizens

eligible to be President. It is respectfully submitted that discovering

the intended distinction is the primary issue now before this Honorable


The grandfather clause allowed all those who were citizens of the

United States "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” to be

President. Nobody alive today can claim Presidential eligibility

thereunder. And it's clear that the Framers sought to exclude those

same classes of citizens from being President in future generations

by reducing the field of eligible people to only natural born citizens once

the grandfather clause had run its course..

The Framers probably didn't consider themselves to be natural born

citizens as they were, for the most part, British subjects at the time of

their birth. Considering they had recently fought a difficult war to rid

themselves of the British monarchy, it doesn't seem likely they intended

that those born subject to the British monarchy would be eligible to hold

the office of President.

Barack Obama, at birth, was both a British citizen as well as a United

States citizen. And like the Framers, Applicant respectfully submits that he

is not a "natural born Citizen", but rather a "native born Citizen" (if it be

established that he was actually born in Hawaii.).

Article 1, Section 2, provides that Representatives must be seven years

a "Citizen" while the Senate requires nine. Again, what distinction have the

Framers drawn here between "Citizens" and "natural born Citizens"?

In 1790, Congress sought to expand the pool of natural born Citizens.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the only Congressional legislation

which has ever attempted to confer "natural born citizen" status. The

relevant portion reads as follows:

"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically repealed the act of

1790 and replaced it with virtually the same clause as that of 1790, except

the words "natural born" were deleted and have never been replaced by

Congress. The 1795 act reads as follows:

"the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

So Congress effectively kept the part of that clause which granted

citizenship, but repealed the words "natural born" from that level of

citizenship. Congress never again attempted to legislate a definition

of "natural born citizen.

Congress and the several states had their chance to expand the pool

of "natural born Citizens" with the 14th Amendment. Had they sought

to avenge their prior attempt in 1790 to expand the pool of natural born

Citizens, a Constitutional amendment would have been the perfect chance

for them to have done so. But they didn't. The 14th Amendment only confers

the status of Citizen, and only to those born under the jurisdiction of the

United States.

Since the Constitution, from its very genesis, has distinguished between

"natural born Citizens" and other "Citizens" in Article 2, Section 1, as well

as Article 1, Section 2, "Citizen" status under the 14th Amendment also must

be distinguished from that of "natural born Citizens." And it is the burden

of those seeking an implication to prove otherwise. The plain meaning and

spelling of the word "Citizen" in the 14th Amendment evidences the same

status as is used to set the requirements for those wishing to become

Representatives or Senators, as well as those who were "Citizens at the

time of the adoption" of the Constitution.

It is respectfully submitted that the Framers, in their wisdom, sought

to restrict the office of President to those Citizens who had a slightly

closer bond to the United States. And if history is any guide, other than

those Presidents who were eligible to that office via the Article 2, Section 1,

grandfather clause, it does not appear that the United States has ever had

a President who wasn't born in the United States to parents who were both

United States citizens. There have been Presidents who had one parent

born abroad, but as far as Applicant has been able to verify, in each

of those cases, the alien parent had become a Citizen prior to giving birth

to their child who later became President.


Since Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, limits itself to a status available at

birth - as evidenced by its use of the words "natural born Citizen" - Applicant

respectfully submits that Barack Obama, having been a British citizen (as well

as a United States citizen), at birth, can never cure the presidential defect.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, eligibility is set at birth, not at the time the

proposed candidate is running for office.


It is respectfully submitted that the Framers sought to exclude dual

national Citizens from holding the office of President since having dual

nationalities, at birth, would help create the conditions whereby a future

President might take the office with a competing loyalty to another nation.

And at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the Framers would have

been particularly wary of the British monarchy calling for some degree of

loyalty by the Commander in chief.

As to the problems associated with dual nationalities, the U.S. Department

of State Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 081 states:

"e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.)"

And at 7 FAM 082 it states:

"Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a 'status long recognized in the law' and that 'a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.' See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)."


In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), this Honorable

Court held that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese

descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of

China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,

was, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the

first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

That case also engaged in a thorough discussion of the history of

citizenship in as much as the United States has been influenced by the

English common law. Indeed, the opinion in that case is a dissertation

on citizenship wherein it was discussed that "natural born subjects" of the

King were person's born in the King's land. But despite the exhaustive

undertaking of that opinion, and the careful deconstruction of British

and United States common law, the Honorable Justice Gray comes to the

conclusion that those born in the United States are "native born" citizens.

And for well over 200 years this phrase "natural born Citizen" has

continued to remain elusive. The Framers were very aware of the common

law but the weight of evidence is against the term "natural born Citizen"

being equal to "natural born subject". If one returns to the pre-Amendment

initial Constitution, the most compelling evidence available that "natural

born Citizen" status - as it pertains to Presidential eligibility - was intended to

restrict rather than enlarge the pool of possible Presidents can be found in

the grandfather clause and the requirements to be a Representative or Senator.


It is common parlance to say that one has a natural born right to

something. Being that one has the natural right to it,

there is no need for a statute to confer it. The absence of statutory

use of this term "natural born citizen" for 200 years witnesses to the

truth of this interpretation. Because statutory grants of citizenship

confer citizenship when there is some defect to or absence of the claim

of a natural right. Indeed every statutory grant of citizenship, excepting

naturalization of a foreign born foreigner, is a certain sort of sanation

of the defect which bases its title of justice to confer the rights of citizenship

on the partial right the person already has. Thus the very requirement

in the minds of some that the phrase be previously defined in law for it

to have a clear meaning is itself a testimony to their misunderstanding

of its authentic meaning.

Throughout the writings of the Founders there is a constant reference

to the natural right to do this or that, whether regarding expatriation,

freedom of taxation, self determination etc.. It would be historical to

confer a meaning on "natural born citizen" which conforms to statutory

definitions. Indeed to expand on its meaning apart from a Constitutional

amendment - which opportunity was present in the past, but rejected - would

alter the contract of the sovereign people with the government and violate

the fundamental norms upon which they have conferred authority on the

government and the court to exercise their appropriate powers.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz Stay Application to US Supreme Court

Related Law Articles

Related Law Bulletins

Related Law Questions

Lawyers! Want your Website or Blog Included Here?

US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource

Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree

Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!


0.18 secs