What is a natural born citizen?
By Ken Hildebrand contributing writer for End the Lie and host of the Information Nation
With the election season in full swing and the mainstream media having picked the candidates for you, it’s time to vet these guys. Let’s not go through, what has been a nightmare of, is this person eligible for the office they seek.
Let’s now try to determine if these individuals are eligible for the office they seek, and let me tell you, this is a bit of a nightmare.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas. His father Barack Obama Sr. was born in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible to be president. I will explain later.
Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr. was born on November 20, 1942 in Scranton, Pennsylvania. His mother Catherine Eugenia Finnegan was born in Scranton, PA as well. His father Joseph Robinette Biden, Sr. was born in Baltimore, MD. Joe Biden is eligible to be the vice-president.
Willard Mitt Romney was born March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. His mother Lenore LaFount Romney was born in Logan, Utah. His father George Wilcken Romney was born in Mexico, but his parents were both natural born citizens of the United States, and could bestow American citizenship on their children, therefore George Romney is an American citizen. Mitt Romney is eligible for the office of president.
Marco Antonio Rubio was born on May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents, Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia, were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975. Marco Antonio Rubio is not eligible for the office of vice-president.
So, what exactly does the Constitution say about eligibility? Let’s find out.
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.
Now that’s pretty clear, only a natural born citizen can hold the office of President. But, what is a natural born citizen?
Most people think that everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. Well, I guess we weren’t the only ones that needed clarification. So in 1875 it was taken to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
In 1875 there was a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Minor v. Happersett, in which “Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth.
According to this ruling neither Barack Obama nor Marco Rubio meet the qualification for the office they hold or may seek.
I know that there are a lot of people who may think that this is splitting hairs, but if we don’t hold to the Constitution then what do we hold up as law?
Congress and the President love to throw the Constitution around when it suits them. Then they distort it when it suits them. Equal justice under the law no longer has a meaning if we don’t apply the law to everyone equally.
Editor’s note: the Congressional Research Service came to a completely different conclusion in their November 14, 2011 report, “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.” In this report, they stated the following:
“In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
So what is the correct conclusion? Can we really trust the Congressional Research Service to produce an accurate report which might expose the president at the time as illegitimate and unable to hold office? What, or who, are we supposed to believe?
I recommend that you do not believe anyone and that you do as much research as possible and decide for yourself. As always, I encourage you strike out on your own and come to your own conclusion which is not influenced by anyone or anything except the truth.
Minor editing by Madison Ruppert
Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.
Madison Ruppert is a Los Angeles-based independent journalist and researcher as well as the founder, owner, administrator and editor of EndtheLie.com. He has no affiliations with any government agencies, political parties, non-governmental organizations, or economic schools. He is available for freelance writing assignments and appearances or interviews in any format. He can be reached by emailing
very good reporting, Madison.
And yes, you are correct on two things – both the finagling of the constitution regarding the qualifications of presidency, as well as Mr Obama not being eligible for presidency.
This is an obvious exploitation of the constitution for selfish purposes, I mean after all it was him who said its an archaic paper which need revision.
I think our choices for presidency must be revised, and get this imposter out of the whit house.
Twitter: endtheliedotcom
April 27, 2012 at 5:18 AM
Actually I didn’t write this, Ken Hildebrand did so I can take absolutely no credit whatsoever. I just added that addendum to show the opposing argument. I’m sure he will appreciate your comment though. He also does a great radio show. If you haven’t given it a listen, I highly suggest you do. There are free archives at the link above.
Madison Ruppert recently posted: Syria, Waco, Occupy, and Los Angeles
A natural born citizen of the greatest country our lord made what a great grace to every one who stands and professes this gift and look how it has been stepped on and disgraced by so many and how many communist politicians do we have who make statements against it they should have there\’s revoked immediately
Amen, brother. Amen….
No person except a natural born citizen,
or a citizen of the United States, …
Then what is the meaning of “or a citizen of the United States” in the constitution.There is no one word about that.
thought the same thing as you Mans
or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
also I want to add this doesn’t matter ultimately since Obama has no power whatsoever he’s just a puppet, a mask!
I see no grey areas in the Constitution. “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.”
As far as the statement “or a citizen of the United States”, it clears itself up by stating, “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”. So our forefathers pretty much evened out the playing field for everyone at the beginning, giving everyone an equal chance. But this was also a statement to others…become a citizen now or throw your chances out the window for you or any of your family generations to follow a chance at the Presidency. Rather stern, but yet “no grey areas”. It’s black and white. Take it as such. Don’t try to read something into it. It’s not there. If our forefathers intended to include anyone else, it would have stated such.
yes seems very clear to me!
Pingback: How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen – John Malcolm
Minor v Happersett was a supreme court case argued in 1875 that upheld that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. It’s an arcane piece of legislation overturned by the 19th amendment.
What does it have to do with Obama, or for that matter Marco Rubio? Not a thing. The author of this piece appears to be pulling out an obscure supreme court decision in which the idea of what constituted a natural born citizen was briefly discussed for the sake of obfuscation.
Here’s the actual transcript of Minor v Happersett regarding the question of who may be considered a citizen, which was briefly debated before the court decided that despite the fact that they found the petitioner to be a citizen, she was ineligible to vote because she was a woman: “New citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
Please don’t take my word for it, however – the transcript is
readily available.
Shame on the author of this “expose.” shame on you on multiple levels.
ETA: direct quote from the article above: “Most people think that everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. Well, I guess we weren’t the only ones that needed clarification. So in 1875 it was taken to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
In 1875 there was a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Minor v. Happersett, in which “Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth”
1. The author leads the reader to believe that Minor v Happersett was argued for the purpose of determining who was a citizen. Patently untrue. It was argued to decide if women had the right to vote.
2. The author states that the result of the case was that natural born citizen was defined as children born of two US citizens. Again, untrue. The result was that a) “the Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens” b) that the woman in question was determined to be a citizen and c) that she didn’t have the right to vote regardless.
Pingback: Fox News anchor declares Obama is eligible « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
Pingback: “Citizen” vs “Natural Born Citizen” [Infographics] – John Malcolm
Pingback: Obama ‘Kenya’ Lit Booklet Raises Question MSM Will Refuse to Ask – John Malcolm
Pingback: Obama’s family fraudulent identity. « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
Pingback: JB Williams — Romney, Rubio, McCain and Natural Born Citizen « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL