In recent days I have been drawn into yet another
debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of
the U.S. Constitution. Given that Barack
Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, without
so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream
media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to
“beating a dead horse.” Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as
a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional
principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand
precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document
in 1787.
What generated my recent exchange on the subject of
presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the
Pennsylvania Business Council. The
article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”
In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up
Santorum’s ambitions... other than Rick Santorum? Unless I’m wrong, his
father was still an Italian citizen when he was born. That makes him
ineligible for the presidency.” To which
a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but
Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”
To
that nonsensical assertion I replied, “… If
Santorum was born in the US, which I assume he was, that does make him a
‘citizen.’ But that’s not what is at issue. What is at issue is his
status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for
president. In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his
parents must have been US citizens. If Santorum’s father was still an
Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’
citizen…”
The final response from
the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the
issue. The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our
initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.” Bingo!!
Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.
Once again I
found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms
“citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen”
equates to being a “natural born” citizen.
That simply is not true. One
would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that
mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the
phrase, “No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
Even the most
unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or” requires an
implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” or “citizens
of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the
land.
On the day
that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen
of the thirteen original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United
States of America. And the very first
child born to newly-minted US citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry
on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born”
citizen.
The
Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United
States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be
at least thirty-five years of age. There
were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a
president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the
day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of
age. To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible
for newly-minted US citizens, none of them “natural born,” to serve as
president. This was necessary until such
time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.
George
Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February
22, 1732, forty-four years before the
Declaration of Independence. He was a
“citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were
British subjects at the time of his birth.
John
Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October
30, 1735, forty-one years before the
Declaration of Independence. He was a
“citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born”
citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his
birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.
Thomas
Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13,
1743, thirty-three years before the
Declaration of Independence. He was a
“citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born”
citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his
birth.
James
Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five
years before the Declaration of
Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28,
1758, eighteen years before the
Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in
Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before
the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president,
born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because
they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were
not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the
time of their birth.
However,
Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on
December 5, 1782, six years and five months after
the Declaration of Independence. Unlike
his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born”
citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born
to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of
Independence.
What
a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact
that, while the Founders
intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president,
there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35
years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering
those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.
All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution…”
Every U.S. president
since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father
was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan
father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural
born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution.
Barack Obama was born
with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his
American mother. However, under Chapter
VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of December 12, 1963, Kenyan
Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on August 4, 1984, his
twenty-third birthday. However, his
eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3,
Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on August 4, 2010, he
became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya,
should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White
House.
The Framers found it
inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the
Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign
nation. Barack Obama provides, if
nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the
president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign
allegiances.
Although Democrats have
successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact
that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his
skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents
of both parties, Democrats and Republicans.
This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX),
Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and
former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-US citizen
parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from
consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.
In the days of
Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and
qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency. Without question, he would have been declared
ineligible. Yet, in spite of the fact
that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota
since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the
office. By what tortured reasoning, what
conceivable standard, they won’t say.
Liberals and Democrats
being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both
ways. But conservatives and Republicans
believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law and we simply cannot
allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution. So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and
Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just
can’t play in our presidential sandbox.
Source: Paul R. Hollrah, February 14, 2014, Paul R.
Hollrah is a freelance writer. He is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy
of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri - Columbia and a Senior
Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He currently resides in Tulsa,
Oklahoma
No comments:
Post a Comment