News the Stars Bring Today

There are numerous Americans who are confused about the issue of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be President, since he is a “so-called constitutional lawyer.” Truth is, he was a part time constitutional adjunct lecturer. So, his supporters cite the 14th Amendment or US vs.  Wong Kim Ark (SCOTUS) to support his eligibility.

Let’s take a look at what the First Chief Justice said: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…” (Chief Justice Marshall in Marshall vs. Madbury.) Therefore, according to Natural Born citizen.wordpress Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.” Therefore, the author of the preceding blog states that the 14th Amendment does not redefine “natural born citizen.”

Rather, we should understand the Founding Fathers’ original  intention. And that can be ascertained by understanding that when using the phrase, “natural born citizen”, they were using a phrase coined from an internationally famous work, “Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains” (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns). This was written in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel and the Founding Fathers were very aware of it.

This is the section of the Vattel’s book that they used as a basis for the requirement to be President: “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…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.”

With so many ongoing suits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President, this clarifies the situation and makes it clear that he does not fulfill the requirement, since, by his own admission, he was born a British subject due to his British-Kenyan father (British Nationality Act 1948) So, even if he can produce an Hawaiian birth certificate, which he is fighting, he is still ineligible.