Editor:
Is there a real possibility that our President may be ineligible for the Office he holds? Opposing voices proclaim bigotry or racism or some other –ism or -phobe. The language of the Constitution – namely Article II Section 1, paragraph 6 states: “No person except anatural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President: neither shall any person be eligible for that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Our President was born in Hawaii (the fiftieth State) with one parent a non citizen and a British Subject. Because Mom was a U.S. citizen our President is a citizen, but, is the President “natural born” within the meaning of the framers of the Constitution? The fact that our Pres. delayed producing the long form birth certificate should at least raise some eyebrows. A senior Army Officer questioned the legitimacy of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces refusing deployment to Afghanistan. He stood Court Martial and was sentenced to prison where he now resides. Our President did not produce the birth document to save this Officer prison time, but did produce it within two weeks or so of “The Donald” demanding it be produced. Hmmm? One writer to the news attempted to quote Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defining who can be called a “citizen”. No mention is made of a definition of what is a “natural born” citizen or the residency requirement. The same writer referenced the XIV amendment - but, there again no definition of "natural born".
The following is a definition of the term “natural born”:
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862: Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.He reiterated his statement in 1866: 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.
This definition raises serious issues with what we are confronted today. Google search “Natural Born Citizen” and see for yourself. The clause “born…of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.” -- Our President’s Father, as stated earlier, was a British Subject owing allegiance to another Sovereign Nation. Years of residency is also open to question.
This is only one quote – there are others that can further muddy the waters. This issue should have been thoroughly explored before the primary season. It was not, very likely, because of the race of the Candidate
One other important point: Congress passed a special resolution in the case of John McCain. Senator McCain was born at an Armed Forces Hospital on U.S. territory in Panama. Would Senator McCain have been “natural born” if he had been born at a foreign hospital -- even though both parents were U.S. Citizens? Congress should pass a resolution or law defining once and for all what a “natural born” citizen means. I do not believe that our President should be ousted from office, but I do wonder if he can legally seek a second term?
In sum: Two important questions, (1) what is a “natural born” citizen, and (2) what constitutes a fourteen year residency requirement? Congress should clarify these two points so that we do not have this problem in the future. I do hope Congress acts so we can move on to really important topics, i.e. the economy, jobs, and energy. Question with boldness.
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".