Electing the Sophomore Class President

So, a month has passed since our national elections. Many words have been printed reflecting the campaigns and the outcomes.

It remains though that electing the President of the United States is not equivalent to electing the sophomore class president and yet, this nation has decided to do just that; and our courts have resolutely refused to hear legal arguments on the issue routinely dismissing challenges by Democrat candidates, such that one must think that these legal scholars intentionally desire to ignore codified Presidential qualifications.

The United States President is required to meet our nation’s Constitutional requirements, and should he fail in this regard, then the Vice President assumes the office until said defects can be perfected. The United States is a Republic, a Federalist form of Government, with criteria for our elected offices that are required to be met. Congressional members, in taking their oath of office are required to safeguard our Constitution.

Yet, could your elected representatives pass a test on the Constitution, especially as it relates to the qualifications of President? Unfortunately in their ignorance they openly refuse to uphold the constitution that they have taken an oath to defend and protect.

One has to seriously ask, is the Republic that was the United States finally no more?

The Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President is clear in that:

“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; …”

Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. The British Nationality Act of 1948 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of the birth location are themselves British Subjects and governs the status of Obama (Part II, Section 5) with a special gift:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

One should note the established birthright inheritance Obama received from his father.

Though many miscreants debate Obama’s birth in Hawaii, the issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Since both of his parents were not U.S. citizens, and his father gave him a special birthright when he was born, is he a Natural Born Citizen per our Constitution?”

The unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1874 defined ‘natural born citizen’ in the case of Minor v. Happersett as a child born of two parents who are United States citizens. Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define ‘natural born Citizen’ but that they did now its meaning and that it was different from ‘citizen’ as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of parents (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens and thus eligible for the Presidency, declaring…

“…At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Our Constitution does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person. As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1874 decision and definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged, it has never been overruled, altered or amended; the qualifications for the office of President have never been amended to allow a lower status of ‘citizen’ or ‘naturalized citizen’ to supersede the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification; and the 1874 Supreme Court findings have been identified as precedent.

There are some who would say that the Supreme Court altered the Presidential qualifications; but that requires an act of Congress, through the amendment process, which requires ratification of the states; and the Supreme Court does not hold power to amend this nations’ Constitution.

Our U.S. State Department declares that a child who is born of parents with differing nationalities is given the opportunity to declare their citizenship when they reach the age of majority (18), and are issued documentation from the State Department should they declare for U.S. Citizenship. Has Mr. Obama made such a declaration? Has that documentation been provided to justly validate citizenship even though he can never meet the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification?

Reader, shouldn’t your elected federal representatives, your state representatives and governors verify with documentation that an individual who is not a ‘natural born citizen’ is qualified to hold the office President of the United States as required under our Constitution?

For complete documentation, please see my previous article: Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A ‘Natural Born Citizen?’

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

About Richard Skidmore
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted via [email protected]