The Constitution, Obama, and the Birthers

The Obama birth certificate. Why is this still accepted as valid? The Birther movement still matters, for the precedent.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Constitution says who may run for President. President Obama makes light of that rule and thus shows disrespect for the Constitution.

President Obama’s birth certificate has been an issue since he started campaigning. Alan Keyes was one of the first of many to ask to see it. But a conservative blogger started the debate in March of 2008. He simply wanted to see the birth certificate to find where Obama’s loyalties lay. The issue spread like wildfire, and today anyone living in the United States surely knows about it.

Is President Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States? People are arguing that in court, and perhaps even a judge won’t settle it. But many have held up those who raise that question to high levels of ridicule. This should trouble anyone who values liberty. Citizens of this great nation have a right to ask whether someone running for President is eligible to that office. Someone should ask that, and the candidate should answer, early in the campaign. Instead, Obama’s supporters have turned it into a racial issue, not a constitutional one. How race affects the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility is a mystery. Nevertheless, race has permeated the discussion.

Obama’s supporters argue that the “Birthers” raise the question only because Obama is black. Of course he is only half black, so perhaps Obama need only show half his birth certificate—the white half. Ridiculous? Yes. But that would actually be more logical than saying that the citizenship question is racial. That is, unless one applies the logic of Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals): if you ridicule someone enough, they will stop asking the tough questions.

The text of the Constitution is race-neutral on this point. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 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…

The Framers obviously wanted any person who became President to be a “natural born citizen,” and made all others simply ineligible. This rule is not racial in any way shape or form. Anyone, of any race, can be a “natural born Citizen.”

The “Anti-Birthers” often say that President Obama is a constitutional scholar. That means that he has read and understands the Constitution. So we should ask not whether he understands the Constitution, but whether he honors the Constitution.

All Presidents swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” We expect a President not to subvert it or place himself above it, but to follow it and protect it in word and spirit. President Obama, under much pressure from various directions, simply refused to do that during his campaign and the first two and a half years of his term. Whether he is a citizen pales before his disregard of his Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency. Does such disregard qualify him as a preserver, protector and defender of the Constitution? Why has no one in this debate yet asked this?

An elected official, sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution, should not think himself above it. We all bind ourselves by the Rule of our Land, even the President of the United States—or I should say, especially the President of the United States. We cannot and should not trust people who break or ignore the laws to protect the laws. That defies logic and common sense. We must restore logic and common sense to this government and demand both from our public servants. Then we might restore our prosperity and preserve our freedoms.

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

27 Responses to The Constitution, Obama, and the Birthers

  1. John says:

    Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. He’s a natural born citizen of the United States.

    This birth certificate nonsense has been refuted a thousand times, and yet still it persists. It may not be a racial issue, but it is a personal attack on the President, and a completely unwarranted one at that.

    Conservatives should focus on the issues, not strange conspiracy theories designed to discredit the duly elected leader of the country and distract from the issues at hand.

    • John – Nice try, but not good enough.

      While you seem to dismiss the racial accusation towards “birthers,” you conveniently replace one accusation [and, ridicule] with another. You [unconsciously or consciously] attempt to marginalize and categorize those conservatives who are concerned about Obama’s eligibility, (to be president), as conspiracy theorists [nuts].

      Furthermore, you begin your comment by stating an untruth. You claim that Obama meets the standard of natural born citizen status. You insidiously [whether conscious or unconscious on your part] add, “of the United States.” Why didn’t you strike that and add, “according to the US Constitution?” You didn’t, because I think that you know, that you would have to accept the US Constitution’s present standard of genuine presidential eligibility standards. [Article I – Sec. II]

      John – you really need to educate yourself more on this whole issue. Get a hold of Dr. Corsi’s new book. It is very understandable and thorough. And, there are some nice basic websites that can explain why Obama does not meet the Constitutional standard of being a “natural born citizen.” Basically, Obama, can’t, because at the time of his birth, he had conferred upon him, his father’s British nationality. [His father was not a US citizen, loyal to the United States] Go back and read Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution. And, check out how, throughout the history of the US, that understanding meant, that in order to become a US president, the subject had to have been born on US soil of 2 US parents – and, not one or both of them with divided citizen loyalties from a foreign land.

      I’ll leave you with 1 link – one of the eligibility websites, for your ongoing education on this most important issue:

      “The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen – and the clear and compelling evidence that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen:”

      http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm

      • Please excuse me, as I [mistakenly] referred to the (place) of the Constitution’s qualifications for US president in my aforementioned comment, as belonging to Art. I – Sec. II:

        It is, [correctly] “Article 2 – Section I,” rather than what I (twice), inadvertently posted in my reply to “John.”

      • Rodney says:

        “Go back and read Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution. And, check out how, throughout the history of the US, that understanding meant, that in order to become a US president, the subject had to have been born on US soil of 2 US parents – and, not one or both of them with divided citizen loyalties from a foreign land.”

        You are poorly informed. “Natural born citizen” has always meant “citizen from birth” and nothing more. President Andrew Jackson was born to two Irish citizens but was considered to be “natural born” because he was born on American soil by parents who had settled there. Same thing for Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, whose mothers were English; James Buchanan and Chester Arthur, whose fathers were Irish; and Herbert Hoover, whose mother was Canadian.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Incorrect. Andrew Jackson was likely grandfathered in: “a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” As to Chester A. Arthur, he carefully hid his questionable parentage from the electorate, and even if he hadn’t, that case never came before any adjudication in a court of law. So he “got away with it.” Someone “getting away with it” does not make precedent.

  2. Trevor says:

    There is no longer any argument to be made in this regard, if there ever was. I wish the nutjob at Conservapedia would realize that by pushing all of the lame anti-Obama issues on his “Trustworthy Encyclopedia” makes people realize that without EVER having legitimate arguments, he’s simply scratching at dirt since he has nothing better to do.

  3. James Owenby says:

    Without question, clearly ANY sane person can see that having a Kenyan father and being moved to and registered as an Indonesian citizen by his American mother disqualifies him as a “natural born citizen.” Pretty clear to me. It looks as if the liberal electorate was so enamored with replacing George Bush with an avowed leftist, that they ran right past fully vetting Barry Soetero.

    • Trevor says:

      No, clearly NOT every sane person sees that, considering most Americans believe he was born in Hawaii, and with plenty of evidence to back it up.

      • Trevor – According to your reasoning, over 1/2 of Americans are insane:

        “Gallup: Most still question Obama’s birth – Less than 1/2 of Americans say prez ‘definitely’ born in U.S:”

        http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298501#ixzz1MLmkGRen

        As to your assertion that there is “plenty of evidence to back it up” [your words] that Obama was born in Hawaii – there is plenty of evidence to legitiamately and sanely question his US origin of birth. Please educate yourself, more thouroughly on this whole issue. Here, linked below, is a good site to start out with. And, it has other links on it, of other good sites, relating to the eligibility issue:

        http://birthers.org/

        • Trevor says:

          You know, if you linked me to the actual poll, it says only 5% of Americans are absolutely sure he was born elsewhere, compared to 47% that are absolutely sure he was born here, 18% probably, and 20% that can’t make the decision. A note, I’m absolutely sure that McCain wasn’t born in the United States, but he was born in an Air Station in Panama under US control. I could somewhat see people doubting his natural born citizenship, I personally wouldn’t.

          I personally had a preference for McCain though, and I’m already throwing my support behind Romney, I’ve followed him on the issues and seems like the most effective and pragmatic candidate. Obama was the naive young senator suddenly thrown out onto the stage. Come on, I think we could have done better. (Could have done worse, but there aren’t many choices…)

          Not that it matters, according to Family Radio: http://www.familyradio.com/index2.html

          Oh well.

          • Trevor – I think that the point of the poll from a valid interpretation, thereof, is that a majority of Americans have some degree of doubt as to Obama’s genuine origins. We don’t need that type of [alleged] “president” – especially since his White House presence leaves so many questions unanswered due to his continued secrecy and anti-American traditional views and policies……….

          • Trevor says:

            Pastor, perhaps some familiar words:

            “After all, Mr. Obama is now the USA president and he is, [according to the politically correct crowd] to be held in such high esteem that he should not be subject to such a critical analysis.”

            Well, you admitted he is the US president, not the alleged president, but the president. Not that you consider him “your” president, same as I could certainly not consider Newt Gingrich “my” president if the pendulum swings far right.

            I thank you for this interesting conversation, yet I have to go, I’m preparing for a trip with a lovely Israeli woman. ^_^

  4. Father Chris says:

    If this is not a racial issue..why wasn’t George Bush (Jr/Sr) asked to show their birth certificate? Why wasn’t Bill Clinton? Why was it that the first time the entire “was he born in the US or not” argument came to light, was when a black (or half black) man ran for President? If this is such an important and critical issue for the office of the President, why is it that 43 presidents came and went without a whiff of this “birther controversy?”

  5. Terry A. Hurlbut says:

    In case anyone is wondering what “Trevor” is talking about, the address of Conservapedia is: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

    Have a look. You’ll learn a great deal. Maybe “Trevor” didn’t, but you can.

    @Father Chris: No one asked to see the birth certificates of Bush (either one) or Clinton because their heritages were too well-known for that. And also because Secretaries of State across the country have just gotten careless. They have just *assumed* that everything was in order.

    Let me remind you that someone questioned John McCain’s status as a natural-born citizen. He was born in what was then a territorial annex of the United States, and on a military base. That’s another thing that someone ought to clarify.

    The 2008 election definitely showed that this was the most careless election on record as regards allowing potential non-natural-born citizens to face off against one another for the highest office in the land.

    And finally, Father Chris: I challenge you to find the text in the Constitution, or anything in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations (the most likely text that the Framers relied on), that says, or implies, that a natural-born citizen must be a member of the dominant race in the country.

  6. John says:

    @Pastor Nathan
    That isn’t the definition of Natural Born Citizen, because there is no clear definition for the term. However, cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) have explored this same issue and come to the conclusion that according to the common law of England, which does define “natural born citizen” and is where the framers of the constitution found the term, that any child born to alien parents, so long as those parents aren’t diplomats or enemy combatants, is considered a natural born citizen.

    Barack Obama goes one further by having an American citizen as his mother. It’s pretty clear he qualifies, even before he produced all of the documentation that PROVES that he qualifies.

    Also, this issue, having been settled to the satisfaction of the grand majority of people, is simply a distraction from the real issues at hand. We have two wars, are getting involved in a third, the economy is still stagnant, health care in America is a joke, and so on and so on, and you want to talk about a birth certificate?

    Pressing this issue will alienate moderates and independents alike, and isolate conservatives from the mainstream. Continue talking about the birth certificate if you want Barack Obama to be re-elected in 2012, as that is most certainly going to help him win votes since it makes conservatives talking about this look like a bunch of racist lunatics.

    • John – Again – nice try, but not good [and, accurate] enough:

      First of all, just because the US Constitution doesn’t offer a dictionary definition of the term, “natural born citizen” – that, unnecessary omission does not negate the genuine understanding of the term and its original meaning, and present clear, understanding. Christianity widely accepts the teaching of the “Triune God,” even though the Scriptures [in all of its compiled books] do not offer a dictionary definition. [“Context” often is the natural manner in which understanding can often be had]

      The US Constitution pens the words, “natural born citizen.” It does not state “native” born citizen. Further clarification of the “natural born citizen” description, is understood with US legal precedence. Check on the history of the 14th Amendment, and, especially the “natural born citizen” understanding of it, by its sponsors, Michigan Senator, Jacob Howard and Illinois Senator Lyman Trumball – 1866.

      Secondly, as to your specific reference to the Supreme Court decision of 1898 – “United States v. Wong Kim Ark,” you erroneously state and draw a hasty conclusion that the US framers came up with the “natural born citizen” phrase from English common law. Not so, as the framers drew their substance of “natural born citizen” phrase from Vattel, who wrote his “Law of Nations” treatise, in 1758. [Chapter 19; Section, 212]

      You [erroneously] conclude that the Supreme Court decision, conferred upon the Chinese offspring, Wong Kim Ark, a “natural born citizen” status. No. It did not. The ruling decided that he was a US citizen – not a “natural born citizen.”

      Unless I am mistaken, Wong Kim Ark’s Chinese parents, were foreign born, but, permanent U.S, residents, conducting business in the United States. To suggest that this 1898 Supreme Court decision applies to Barack Hussein Obama, is ludicrous. It is like attempting to compare an apple to an orange. Obama II’s father was not a permanent US resident, and doing business in the US as was Wong Kim Ark’s parents. He was studying as a [temporary] student in the US until he was to return to his native Kenya.

      Thirdly, John, you exaggerate and claim that this eligibility issue of Obama has “been settled to the satisfaction of the grand majority of people.” Again, not so. Apparently, you have not kept up with the latest Gallup poll:

      “Gallup: Most still question Obama’s birth – Less than 1/2 of Americans say prez ‘definitely’ born in U.S:”

      http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298501#ixzz1MLmkGRen

      Fourthly, you make the fallacious argument that there are more pressing issues that our country faces and that this eligibility issue only will “alienate moderates and independents alike” [your words of description]. I ask: “If the United States Constitution isn’t worth, upholding and fighting (for), – then, the defeat of the United State’s Constitution, usurper, isn’t worth it, either…….

      http://freedomtorch.com/blogs/12090/2941/why-vote-for-a-conservative-to-d

      Finally, in answer to your stereotyped assertion [often used by liberals to distract those conservatives who desire to uphold the Constitution] – here is an answer to your (faulty) argument that there are bigger issues, at hand:

      “There are Bigger Fish to Fry” – A “Birther” Rebuttal

      http://freedomtorch.com/blogs/12090/2843/there-are-bigger-fish-to-fry

  7. Chisco3 says:

    “Obama’s supporters argue that the “Birthers” raise the question only because Obama is black. Of course he is only half black, so perhaps Obama need only show half his birth certificate—the white half. Ridiculous? Yes. But that would actually be more logical than saying that the citizenship question is racial.”

    Given his “bi-racial” status, one has to conclude that obama found it advantageous to claim his “black half” over the white one for some reason (“affirmative action”??) that would allow him to claim “benefits” not available to the “white half”.

    Since it is obvious (to anyone who looks at his personality for 30 seconds or longer) that obama is a master at “gaming the system, his reasoning becomes immediately clear.

    If one is as “gifted” as obama supposedly is, then there is no reason for him to have to cling to any specific “racial identity” is there, because the magnitude of his “gifts” should place him in a category of “specialness” that transcends racial mundanities, right?! Not so with obama, who has always trumpeted his “black heritage”, while giving little or NO mention of the role his white grandparents played in sticking with him and raising him, when BOTH of his parents couldn’t be bothered! (Why is there such “adoration” for a father you’ve only seen TWICE in your life??! Wouldn’t it make more sense to DETEST the abandoning, uncaring father?)

    Nope, not when his RACE is more important than his CHARACTER….

  8. Trevor – Regarding your May 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm quote of “mine:”

    I don’t know where you came up with that, but I think that you are either twisting and / or taking something out of context, something of which I posted about this eligibility issue. Unless I inadvertently (by some quirk) referred to Obama as [legitimate] president, I am careful not to refer to the Constitutional usurper in that manner.

  9. Trevor says:

    Ah, waiting to head out. I am always leery of air travel. >_<

    So… http://www.thechristianmessage.org/

    Sunday, May 1st

    "The Divine Perspective – The Godly Righteous or the Ungodly Wicked"

    Filed under "The Politically Correct Culture of today frowns on calling out [criticizing] certain [peoples'] belief and lifestyle distinctions"

    "Political correctness would bring reproach upon any individual like Cal Thomas for being so outspoken. After all, Mr. Obama is now the USA president and he is, [according to the politically correct crowd] to be held in such high esteem that he should not be subject to such a critical analysis. However, the Scripture says that Mr. Obama like everyone else will stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

    Pastor (emeritus) Nathan Bickel

    • Trevor – Thank you for bringing to my attention where you tracked down that one quotation of mine. It was part of my topical sermons on “The Christian Message” [www.thechristianmessage.org] site.

      It is nice that you referenced the site. It is a joy of mine to give that which I have been given – free without advertising or asking for contributions. Please do visit the site, often, as the preached [online] Word, may [by God’s grace] help you sift through some of your unanswered questions, and / or, unbelief.

      But, be that, as it may, I think that the original assertion of yours, was that I [personally] referenced Barack Hussein Obama, as [legitimate] “president.” I don’t think so, as you should carefully read the whole topical sermon message, in context:

      “The Divine Perspective – The Godly Righteous or the Ungodly Wicked:”

      http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/05/divine-perspective-righteous-and.html

      Trevor – If you will look at the context (of what you copy/quoted), I was referring to the inner thinking of the politically correct (mindset). You failed to copy / quote the titled heading before the paragraph you readily referenced:

      Title:

      “The Politically Correct Culture of today frowns on calling out [criticizing] certain [peoples’] belief and lifestyle distinctions:”

      What, you quoted:

      “…..Political correctness would bring reproach upon any individual like Cal Thomas for being so outspoken. After all, Mr. Obama is now the USA president and he is, [according to the politically correct crowd] to be held in such high esteem that he should not be subject to such a critical analysis. However, the Scripture says that Mr. Obama like everyone else will stand before the judgment seat of Christ…..” 2 Corinthians 5:10

      By the way – you also, omitted the Scriptural reference, above.

      Trevor – I have no idea what churns within your mind. However, I do admire your tenacity. I would hope, in time that you harness your tenacity with doses of logic and a healthy spiritual regard for the Scriptures.

      Thank you for your forum response to my comment reply. Too bad, some of the comments of yours deviated far from the subject of Obama’s ineligibility. For your on-going education in that regard – please reference a great link:

      “The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology:”

      http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4876/The-video-that-will-END-the-Obama-Presidency-Birthers-Get-Last-Laugh-Demand-Formal-Apology.aspx

      • Believe me, I am NOT following you Pastor! LOL

        I just ran into your post at Citizens4Freedom and replied to your wonderful comment about my video!

        Thanks for telling these Obots THE TRUTH even though it goes in one ear and out the other! Facts seem to mean NOTHING to them!

        And Obots, to add to his link, here’s another 100% government document sourced video that proves without a doubt that Obama is not a natural born citizen!

        ARREST USURPER OBAMA NOW! BARRY SOETORO IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN~100% SOURCED W/ GOVT DOCUMENTS~WARNING
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnJDuVNifQ

        http://www.youtube.com/user/KenyanBornObamAcorn

        Sorry Obots, but facts are facts!

  10. Joseph says:

    Its rather Obvious that Obama himself has created this whole birth issue. He uses to purposely divide and ridicule opposition. He withheld his birth certificate and released a rather obvious forgery in an ingenious and successful attempt to play the race card. Anyone who questions him is a bitter, racist teabagger. Americans are so adverse to racism that claims of it instantly shut down arguments and destroy credibility. Ironic, coming from a man who said in his own book that he despised his white half. The right will continue to lose if they view this afront to liberty as an idiot. The man is calculating and manipulative. His deception is on par with Satan. Trevor, first off its obvious you didn’t even read those articles. You are so far into your own beliefs and religion that you probably can not remain objective enough to criticaly evauluate anything that contradicts your own world view. Same goes for you, John. Secondly, y’all conveniently overlook his other eligibility issues, like the fact that he was in Pakistan at the time of an travel ban to the country. He could not have legally entered the country with an American passport. Care to explain some of the dilemmas?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.