Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem, PART 1

FOREWORD by TexasDarlin

Judah Benjamin, an historian and former journalist, has written a two-part series challenging the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. It is exhaustively researched, and lengthy compared to most blog entries. However, I have left his story intact with only minor edits because of its importance.

Although Judah Benjamin addresses the possibility that Obama was born in foreign territory, the article’s central thesis rests on the assumption that Obama was born in the United States.

Here is my 2-sentence bottom-line summation:

Barack Obama has been a citizen of multiple nations. And even if his citizenship outside the US was renounced, Article II of the U.S. Constitution prohibits him from being President, for the same reason that naturalized citizens are prohibited: divided loyalties.

The article must be read in its entirety to be fully understood and appreciated. It will be presented in two parts. PART ONE is the author’s legal reasoning. PART TWO is the factual basis for the author’s conclusion that Obama has held dual citizenship and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS.

This Post contains PART ONE. PART TWO will be published at No Quarter shortly.

[Please see the Author’s End Note about his qualifications and request for professional reivew.]

---

By Judah Benjamin

PREFACE

Who is eligible to be POTUS under Article II of the Constitution and why? The answer isn’t what most people think and people need to know!

People made a big ruckus about McCain’s eligibility but what about Obama? He may have held anything up to 4 other Nationalities. If a Naturalized Citizen cannot hold the Office of POTUS neither can a Dual National or a Dual Citizen.

In Part Two of the Article I shall show the evidence that leads me to think Obama has held other Citizenship.

---

INTRODUCTION

I am going to start this very long Article with a summary for those who don’t want to read the whole thing. A bit like Cliff’s Notes.

Article II of the Constitution of the United States DOES NOT mean what almost everybody thinks that it means. When it says, “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; ….and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”, it ISN’T talking about WHERE the POTUS is born.

The United States Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104, which was written, partly, to clarify Article II says this, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. The Framers were clear that you did not have to be born in the USA, or in a State; you could be born anywhere.

No, the Framers were talking about Allegiance, Loyalty. The POTUS had to have only ONE Allegiance. The old Precedent Case for Article II was United States v. Rhodes and in that Case Justice Swayne said, “All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this Country…since as before the Revolution.”

Swayne was quoting the Precedent of English Common Law and Justice Sir William Blackstone, who said: “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

Blackstone states unequivocally that Dual Nationality is IMPOSSIBLE as a condition, you can only have ONE Allegiance. Chief Justice Jay believed that and so did every one of the Framers. The fact that we don’t see things that way today isn’t the point. They did, and it means that someone with Dual Nationality is Ineligible by definition. That Law has stood as a principle since 1337 and before.

US Law says nothing about Dual Nationality at all, it simply accepts that some people have it, but if Naturalized Citizens cannot be POTUS because they have previously had another Allegiance, and that is exactly why they can’t, then Dual Nationals can’t either, in fact there is less excuse for them.

The US State Department says, ” Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.”

There is no way a person who has Dual Citizenship, or who has had Dual Citizenship, should be eligible under Article II. As you will see in Part Two there is good evidence that Senator Barack Obama is such a person, that Governor Bill Richardson may also be and that Senator John McCain is not. By definition NATURAL BORN = BORN IN THE (SOLE) ALLEGIANCE OF THE USA, not born on US Soil.

The whole First Part of this Article cites Case Law, Sources, Precedent and gives the opinion of Lawyers. The Chief Counsel for the INS has said that this argument is Valid, he doesn’t like it, but he admits it is true. If you feel like arguing about it, read the whole article before you do.

Thanks to Texas Darlin’ for helping to publish this, I’m grateful for her patience and hope for that of the readers.

---

What we are looking at in Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr’s, run for the Office of President is, among other things, I suspect, an end run around Article II of the Constitution of the United States.

It is a Constitutional Lawyer’s trick to use the XIVth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to invalidate Article II.

Obama seems to be backed by Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor (Obama’s teacher); Theodore Bevry Olson, 42nd United States Solicitor General; T Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown University Law School, Washington, former Executive Associate Commissioner of Programs of the INS and General Counsel of the INS, at least if he is not, I cannot imagine why Professor Aleinikoff, or Solicitor-General Olson, aren’t trying to get this into Court.

Whether he wins or loses may matter to Obama. It doesn’t matter to Tribe and Company; what matters to them seems to be getting rid of Article II because they think it is long obsolete. If so, they are hugely helped by the fact that the majority of people have no understanding of what Article II means, or says, and less understanding of why it is there at all.

Article II doesn’t mean, and never did mean, what most people think it does and it exists for very specific reasons, reasons that Aleinikoff has derided in the pages of “The International Herald Tribune” (as we shall see later). The history of Article II goes back long before the United States even existed, was even settled by the Colonists, the principles upon which it is based are older than Magna Carta.

Whether it is right that it should be abandoned or not is a matter for debate but if it is to be thrown under the bus it should be done openly and cleanly by a Constitutional Amendment and not by some sleazy back door deal that endangers the stability and standing of the USA.

This will be a long story. I’ve been digging into this matter for months now, I’ve read god alone knows how many texts, I’ve gone off on tangents, I’ve misread Laws and made basic errors and until last night I couldn’t see the wood for the trees because I was concentrating on Obama himself, on his history, and on certain illegalities and pseudo-legalities connected with his family background.

Don’t get me wrong, those problems are there and they are real but they are not the be all and end all. Last night I was sitting looking at my notes when I had an epiphany I should have had weeks ago. I had been wondering what would make Tribe and Olson, who were opposing counsels in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and who are opposed in every way imaginable act in concert, with each other and with Aleinikoff, both in regards to McCain’s eligibility problem, which I’ll deal with later, and Obama’s.

Last night the answer struck and now I present it to you on a silver platter.

As has been proven time and time again over the past few years most people have no understanding of what Article II is all about. Adam Liptak’s article in “The New York Times” of July 11, 2008 and Professor Gabriel Chin’s paper No 08-14 of July 9, 2008 prove that there are even Lawyers who don’t get it.

Article II has nothing to do with where you are born, never has, never will, it is about Loyalty and Allegiance, not Geography. It isn’t really about being President, it is about being Commander in Chief.

OK, now for a lesson on History and Law. It’s going to be boring folks, but it matters:

[See Footnote 1 for the “History and Law” lesson, in the Footnotes File]

PART ONE: What does Article II of the Constitution of the United States set down as the necessary qualifications for a President? And why are some Citizens Ineligible?

Everybody knows the answer to that question, right? The President has to be born in the United States! That’s why there is all the fuss about John McCain and why there were arguments about Goldwater and George Romney! Its obvious!

Would it surprise you to know that “what everybody knows” is wrong? Because it is, believe it or not. McCain and Goldwater were and are, respectively, perfectly able to serve as President under the Constitution and any objection to George Romney was probably right. By the way, you could make a compelling argument against Bill Richardson, too.

Article II of the Constitution has this to say about the qualifications for the Presidency (and therefore also for the Vice-Presidency):

“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Article goes on to talk about the Vice-President:

“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

So, POTUS and VPOTUS have to conform to the same rules with regard to citizenship, age and residency; that is straightforward.

What is not straightforward is the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’.

Most people assume that this term has the same meaning as Native Citizen, or Citizen by Birth. However, if the Framers had simply meant that, we may rest assured that they would have said it.

The term Natural Born Citizen occurs in US Law in two places: The Constitution itself and the United States Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

It does not appear in The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat, 414), or in subsequent legislation. Now the Act of 1795 repealed and replaced that of 1790 but the State Department say that SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] of Chapter 1, Title III of the INA refers explicitly to the Act of 1790 and so does Chapter 2.

Why refer to a Law obsolete since 1795? There is reason.

Congress cannot change the meaning of The Constitution by Legislation. This is the basis of the ACLU’s case against the new FISA Bill. The Constitution can only be changed by Amendment. Every part of the Constitution has to be understood in terms of the Language and Law of its own day, The Supreme Court may interpret it but it cannot alter even a comma. Aleinikoff has observed that The Constitution “cannot be changed by any subsequent legislation. Only an Amendment duly achieved under its terms can alter any particular of it. The Constitution can only be understood by examining the original meaning and intent of any given provision within it, and the various amendments must be viewed in the same light”.

In short, there is no relevance to Article II in any modern legislation, so you have to determine who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen by finding out what the men who framed it meant. The Act of 1790 is significant not in itself but because it speaks to the Intention of those who less than three years before Drafted the Constitution and Article II and who also Drafted the Act. The Act states:

The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.

This is not altering Article II but clarifying the meaning of Article II and in so doing it makes clear that it was never the case that one had to be born in the USA to be eligible for the Office of President, one did not need to be Native Born, but one did need to be a Citizen by Birth. However the term Natural Born goes beyond that.

Still, why were Naturalized Citizens excluded in the first place? The answer to that lies in the genesis of Article II. It did not spring fully armed and fully grown out of nowhere as Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. It began with a letter. On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The Convention agreed and without debate the provision suggested by Jay was written into the Constitution.

That Jay’s advice was taken is not surprising because in his career Jay was President of the Continental Congress, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, Ambassador to Spain and France, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State) and Governor of New York, among other things. He wasn’t a man whose advice could be ignored. Note that what particularly concerned Jay was not a political issue but a military issue arising because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He was bothered by issues of National Security.

You may well say that this gets us no closer to the meaning of the text of Article II and in a sense you would be right because the real clue to that, as I found, lay in an opinion offered by another Supreme Court Justice, given in 1866.

In United States v. Rhodes, Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne (December 7, 1804 – June 8, 1884) addressed the issue as follows:

“All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.”

This is invariably taken to be a statement of pure jus soli based upon Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), which established that under English Common Law “a person’s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth–a person born within the King’s Dominion owed Allegiance to the Sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the King’s protection.” [SEE Footnote 2, in the Footnotes File]

But is United States v. Rhodes dealing with only jus soli? Because The United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) states “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.

Swayne was perfectly acquainted with this Law and that of 1795 and 1798, so he is not talking about where someone was physically born at all. Swayne was also perfectly well aware that there were people born on US Soil who owed their Allegiance to the British Monarch, even in his own day, the British 60th Rifle Regiment was called “The Royal Americans”; it wasn’t a joke in the early nineteenth century. Cox thinks that it may not be a comment on Calvin’s Case and he is absolutely right. Swayne took account of Calvin’s Case but it wasn’t his major source.

[SEE Footnote 3, Author’s Note on sources, in the Footnotes File].

The 1790 Act clearly shows that Allegiance is not simply bounded by Geography and so I may add does the UK Nationality Act of 1948, and those that preceded it.

Justice Swayne wasn’t a great Lawyer but he was good enough for Lincoln to nominate him, and Lincoln wasn’t a bad Lawyer himself. Swayne was a good logical thinker, deeply versed in Common Law, both English and American. The key word is Allegiance: “born in the Allegiance of the United States”, not “within the Territory”, or “on the soil of”.

To be a Natural Born Citizen one has to be born in a State, or Condition of, Allegiance to the USA. A person with Dual Nationality due to having parents of differing Nationality, who both acknowledged the Birth, is not so born. Their Allegiance is, by definition, divided. Subsequent acquisition of Nationality produces the same problem.

Swayne did not pluck his opinion out of thin air. On the contrary he did what every other Lawyer in the USA did in his day if there was no American Statutory Definition available, he turned to the Common Law of England. The usual source for information on English Common Law in the USA at that time, and for sixty years afterward, was “Commentaries on the Laws of England, with Additional Notes by George Sharswood, Professor of Law in the University of Pennsylvania”, by Justice Sir William Blackstone, Vinerian Professor in the University of Oxford, or any one of several other American Editions of this seminal work (I list 4 in my bibliography and give a link to a fifth). And Blackstone does deal with the topic in language which echoes not only in Swayne’s Judgment but also in the Act of 1790:

“WHEN I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.

“Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

Note, “Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects.” McCain’s parents were serving as agents, or “embassadors,” of their country while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. They were not mere merchants or tourists, they had been sent there by their Government. Thus had they been British, their child, while “born abroad,” would always, at least since 1337, have been considered by the Common Law of England to be a Natural Subject of the King (i.e., a citizen). Therefore a child born abroad under similar circumstances of American parents is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

Even though the Panama Canal Zone was not U.S. Sovereign Territory at the time, John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. To determine otherwise, one would have to declare that the phrase “Natural Born” means something different in the Constitution than it meant in the Common Law of England. The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear, time after time, that we are to turn to the Common Law of England for the definition of such terms. English Law is Equity for US Law.

Any Dual Nationality McCain ever had was a technicality washed away when he joined the US Navy, that is if the Government of the United States and the Government of Panama ever thought he had it. This is according to US and Panamanian Law and Blackstone.

[See: Embassy of Panama]

McCain has never had an Eligibility Problem in terms of Article II and the Law as it stood when Article II was written. Subsequent legislation does not change that at all. The whole argument about McCain, or Goldwater, is based on a total ignorance of what Article II means, or is talking about. Lawrence Tribe knows that full well!! It is a strawman argument as T Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown University Law School, Washington, former Executive Associate Commissioner of Programs of the INS and General Counsel of the INS has pointed out.

Note what Blackstone says:

“And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

Blackstone states unequivocally that Dual Nationality is IMPOSSIBLE as a condition; you can only have one Allegiance. Jay believed that and so did every one of the Framers. The fact that we don’t see things that way today isn’t the point. They did, and it means that someone with Dual Nationality is Ineligible by definition. If anything else is true Aleinikoff’s statement…

“Clearly, though, the Constitution indicates anybody who is naturalized is not natural born, and this is a ridiculous provision. Foreign born people have served as governors of states that are larger than many countries.”

…automatically becomes true, he opines that a person with Dual Citizenship and a person who is Naturalized are in identical positions. Aleinikoff is as good a Lawyer as Tribe and Olson and better than Chin. Aleinikoff says of jus soli, “It bestows citizenship on a kind of technicality based more on logistics and timing then on roots, community, or legality”. He argues that Dual Nationality has historically been looked upon with disfavor in International Law and practice for the obvious reasons of concern over divided loyalty during times of war, military service, and diplomatic protection. However, Aleinikoff argued that there is little evidence to support the claim that Dual Nationality diminishes either National Loyalty or Political Allegiance, or that Dual Nationality is harmful to national interests. He does however accept that a view opposite to his own can be forcefully argued, and may be legally correct currently.

Not only can Tribe, Olson, Aleinikoff and Michael Dorf, Professor of Law at Cornell University, see that the jus soliargument is BS, so can a simple journalist. Elizabeth Olson of ‘The New York Times’ said in June 2004, in the same “International Herald Tribune” article from which I have taken most of Aleinikoff’s comments:

“The Constitution’s framers chose the term “natural born” not only to highlight the need for allegiance, but also to eliminate the possibility that foreigners could exert power over the fledgling government, according to constitutional experts.”

About the only major Constitutional Lawyer who inclines to the jus soli opinion is Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University, and he isn’t certain he thinks it is true.

Generally when dealing with the issue of who is, and is not, a “Natural Born Citizen” modern sources cite the following Supreme Court cases:

[VIEW these citations in Footnote 4, in the Footnotes File ]

Of these cases, only the Dissent in the Dred Scott Case is actually vaguely relevant and that was overturned by the 14th Amendment.

All of these cases are about simple Citizenship or Naturalization, whereas Swayne’s Opinion in United States v. Rhodes is directly applicable Precedent and it is never cited today. Blackstone’s opinion is also Precedent and so is Calvin’s Case (1608). The situation of Michaëlle Jean, who became Governor General of Canada in 2005 may also be accepted as a Precedent and so may the Australian Sue v Hill Court Case.

All are hostile to the notion of Dual Allegiance. The Canadians have held that Dual British Nationality, as in the case of Former Prime Minister John Turner, is acceptable because it does not constitute a Dual Allegiance as both the UK and Canada owe Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. They hold that Dual French Nationality is acceptable for Stephane Dion as Leader of the Opposition but there is a strong view that Dion would have to renounce French Citizenship to become Prime Minister. Canada, like the UK, has no bar against Naturalized Citizens holding any Office. The Australians on the other hand hold that Elizabeth’s position as Queen of the UK and Queen of Australia are wholly distinct and thus that UK Dual Nationality constitutes Allegiance to a Foreign Power. Herein lies the Bugbear of “The Appearance of Foreign Allegiance”.

The following are also Precedent and are cited in older sources, or for some reason unknown never cited at all:

[VIEW these citations at Footnote 5, in the Footnotes File]

Here is a quote from The US State Department:

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

“However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

“Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.”

Here is another quote from the State Department:

“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

“A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

The whole point of Article II is that the President must have absolute and total Allegiance to the United States of America and no Foreign Ruler or Government, Church, or Political Entity.

The purpose behind the exclusion of Naturalized Citizens is that the President must never even have had such an Allegiance in the past (FYI, I have severe doubts about Chester A Arthur on this count. He may have been Canadian by birth and may have held Dual Citizenship with the UK.)

Naturalized Citizens are required to take an Oath of Allegiance and this is what SEC. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448] says about that Oath:

“SEC. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448]

(a) A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 310(b) an oath (1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign anddomestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and(5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or (B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or (C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C), and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (4) and clause (5)(C). The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 322 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oathif in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning.

b) In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.”

In spite of this, their Allegiance is held to be incomplete, so how can the Allegiance of a Dual National, or former Dual National, be anything else?

Answer, IT CAN’T. The very notion is ridiculous. To which you may add that there exists no US Law which explicitly states that a US Citizen may legally possess Dual Citizenship, in fact the Oath of Allegiance and the entire weight of actual case law would appear to suggest that it ought to be impossible for the condition to exist at all!

If a Dual National, or former Dual National, is allowed to stand for the Office of POTUS, or be Elected to that Office, any Naturalized Citizen could take a case before the Supreme Court and correctly argue that under the Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment they are allowed to stand, Article II notwithstanding! No need to pass the Hatch Amendment, no need to do anything very much at all…Arnold Schwarzenegger could stand tomorrow, and he is both Naturalized and a Dual Citizen. Explain that one!

Senator Obama’s “FightTheSmears” website and a number of other sources keep quoting the XIVth Amendment in regard to Citizenship. Read it carefully and you will see that it has no relevance to the issue unless someone were trying to argue about Eligibility due to Race (which nobody is, or has).

People also keep bringing up the XIVth Amendment in McCain’s case, and brought it up with Goldwater and Romney. I repeat, the XIVth Amendment does not mention “Natural Born Citizens” and has relevance only if you are trying to overturn Article II!

[See: BarackObama.com]

No, the issue of Eligibility has to be taken before the Supreme Court and Congress needs to pass a Dual Citizenship Bill, both PDQ!

Why is all of this relevant? The answer is in Part Two of this Article, but boiled down, there exists good reason to believe that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, has been a Dual National, and may have had a period when he was not, or should not have been, a US Citizen at all.

Obama’s behavior in Kenya by campaigning actively for Odinga has to call his Allegiance into question. There is also reason to think that Governor Bill Richardson has the same problem, more or less. This is unprecedented and it should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

NATURAL BORN = BORN (AND REMAINING) IN THE (SOLE) ALLEGIANCE OF THE USA, not born on US Soil. This is based on Laws which date back to at least 1337 before that to 1215 and fundamentally to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, at the least.

PART TWO is available HERE

---

AUTHOR’S END NOTE:

Let me explain something, right here, right now. I’m not a Lawyer, I’m a Historian, always have been. I’m pretty well certain that my arguments on the Natural Born Citizen and Dual Citizen issues are legally sound, in fact I haven’t been able to find any alternative that makes sense in three months.

However since I’m not a Lawyer TexasDarlin and I agreed that the article should be reviewed by one, a Constitutional Lawyer. I know who I wish could review it, and I’ll name them, but I can’t think of one single reason for them to agree to read something written by a Layman. If there are any Lawyers reading this let me know if you’d like the job.

Here is my “Dream Team” of Reviewers:

Michael C Dorf, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University. Professor Dorf is one of the best Constitutionalists I have had the pleasure of reading and without his work I would never have been able to make head or tale of the whole mess.

Professor Tim Lindsey, of Melbourne University Law School, in Australia, Professor Lindsey is a leading expert on Indonesian Law, who, as an Australian, has no horse in this race.

Muna B Ndulo, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for African Development, Cornell University. Professor Ndulo is an enormously respected authority and knows Kenyan Law inside out.