Natural-born Citizen or Not?

Before you decide not to read further, I will answer that first presumed question of yours. No, I am not a believer in the birther conspiracy! I am a Conservative, as many of you know if you have read any of my editorials, yet, even if I have doubts about President Obama and the accuracy of his past, I do not personally believe he was born other than in Hawaii.

On January 26, 2012, in a Georgia Court Room presided over by Judge Michael Malihi, several attorneys argued the eligibility of Barack Obama's qualification to be placed on the Georgia Presidential Ballot. The President and/or his attorney refused appearance.

To my understanding, this court case is not a challenge as to his place of birth, but to whether he is a Natural-born Citizen as defined by the Constitution. There have been many challenges over our Nation’s history, and it is my opinion, that this issue needs addressed by the Supreme Court.

When one looks at our history, and takes into consideration our current laws with the technological advancements since our beginnings, one wonders where our country is heading with citizenship requirements. I was taught, during my government classes in the 1960’s, that natural-born, intended by our founders to insure that the countries highest office, the president, had no allegiance to any foreign country. One had to be born on our sovereign soil of parents (yes both) of native-born citizens. Since those days, we now allow children born on our soil of illegal aliens, to be classified as native-born and receive citizenship. The definition of natural-born and native-born is different and confusing.

How many anchor babies are being encouraged to dream of attaining the high office of President of the United States of America? All of them! Naturalized or native-born citizens can and have done wondrous things. Immigrants, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, have attained high office. One could even attain federal elected office in the United States Congress, but not the highest office in the land, the Presidency.

We need a case, possibly this Georgia case, to climb the judicial statutory ladder for adjudication in the Supreme Court for a definitive definition of the intent of the founders as described in our Constitution. If not, we might be looking at a child of illegal immigrants, with possible loyalties to another country, as our elected leader at some time in the future.

My next concern is that President Obama and/or his attorney, Michael Jablonski dismissed the Georgia court subpoena. According to an article written by Craig Andresen of The National Patriot on January 26, titled OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE...BLOW BY BLOW, he wrote, “...Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to be heard and neither he nor his client would participate.”

I found an article written on January 28, by Patricia Walston of the Examiner.com, titled Obama could easily have lost Georgia eligibility case by “no-show” default. She wrote, “It was reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily that the judge considered granting a default judgment because President Obama did not appear. However, this was not what those attorneys who brought the case wanted. They wanted a definitive decision based on the facts; and for them to be recorded as part of the court records for any future appeals.”

In an article titled Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case written by Cindy Simpson of the American Thinker on January 30, she quoted attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation, “...Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing.”

A ‘no-show’ decision could not be appealed by the President. A decision by the Court against President Obama is not likely to be appealed. Just how many delegates does Georgia hold? Not enough to bother with the publicity. How many other states have a similar law that states a citizen can challenge a candidate on the state ballot? A paradox appears! An appeal must happen to climb the judicial ladder towards the Supreme Court. Consequently, which side do you want the judge to rule for now?

If you continue to read the following, the first and possibly the only question that is of the greatest importance is how did a man born in Nicaragua make it on any presidential ballot? Why are there any states that do not require proof of eligibility to be placed on an election ballot for President? Where are our state leaders on this issue? Georgia is one of these states where the law requires the candidate to prove his natural-born citizen status. Do you, the American citizen presume those on your state ballot are eligible to legally serve?

Below, you will find a short history of challenges or controversy to Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. The following is a short summary; you can find more in-depth details from my source listed below.

Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886) and the 21st President, was rumored as being born in Canada rather than in Vermont. His mother was born in Vermont and his father in Ireland. His father became a naturalized American citizen when Chester was 14 years of age. Arthur succeeded Garfield upon his death in office.

Christopher Schürmann born in New York in 1848, he entered the Labor primaries during the 1896 presidential election. He was the son of German immigrants that were not naturalized citizens. His eligibility was questioned in a New York Tribune article.

Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) who was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson, was challenged in an article written in the Chicago Legal News, by Breckinridge Long. Hughes, born in the United States, held dual citizenship as his father was a British subject.

Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was born in the Arizona Territory before statehood. This was a minor controversy during his presidential campaign in 1964.

George Romney (1907-1995) who ran as a Republican in the presidential nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico, where his grandfather had immigrated in 1886. George’s monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Due to Mexico’s nationality laws George did not have Mexican citizenship.

Lowell Weicker (1931) born in Paris, France, to parents who were U.S. Citizens, his father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons. He was a former Connecticut senator, representative, and governor, who dropped out of the 1980 presidential race before primary voting began.

Roger Calero (1969) born in Nicaragua and ran on a Socialist Workers Party candidacy in 2004 and 2008. There were only nine states where Calero, was unable to be listed on the ballot, by state law, because of his ineligibility to hold office.

John McCain (1936) was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. He ran for the Republican nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008. There is today, considerable controversy on whether he is classified a Natural-born citizen, even with a non-binding resolution by the U.S. Senate in April 2008.

Barack Obama (1961) the 44th President of the United States was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Citizen mother and a British subject father. The Kenya Colony became an independent country in 1963. His father had no intention of becoming naturalized and had his passport revoked, according to Obama’s own book, in 1966 or 1967. There are still many unanswered questions as to whether he qualifies as a Natural-born citizen.

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-use-in-atlanta/obama-could-have-lost-georgi...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/media_blackout_in_obama_georgia_ballot_el...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause