Pennsylvania has filed a complaint with state officials to have the supreme ruler removed from the 2012 ballot because he can’t meet the state’s eligibility requirements. The filing was made by a legal team led by Dale Laudenslager and Charles Kerchner. They assert that after lengthy research, Obama fails the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution.
The problem is, the Constitution doesn’t define a “natural born citizen.” And as I understand the situation, that’s a major obstacle.
One interpretation, but by no means concurred to 100% within legal circles, is a “natural born” citizen and a citizen are two different classifications of American citizenship. A “natural born” citizen is someone born in the country from two parents that are both U.S. citizens (born or naturalized). As a result, an individual can be (or become) a U.S. citizen but not necessarily be a “natural born” citizen.
And so, applied to Obama, the argument is that although Obama’s father was in America attending school, he was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Obama can not be a natural born citizen of the United States although he is a citizen.
Thus, the legal attack on Obama’s eligibility is two fold: 1) demonstrate a clear legal distinction between the definition of a citizen and the definition of a natural born citizen, and 2) demonstrate Obama is not a natural born citizen.
But the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen is inferred — based upon interpretations of previous citizenship cases, scholarly writings, English common-law, intent and context of the founding fathers and so forth. But someone can build the opposite case.
For example, one attorney, on the attack, references six cases that the attorney interprets as defining citizenship and presents them to the judge. Meanwhile, the defense attorney draws on five different cases that demonstrate a different definition. And then the judge has to make an overall determination. Add to this any partisanship or perceived intimidation (you are going after the top dog in the country after all) and it is indeed a muddied pond.
Although the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate has created the most national drama, it is currently his citizenship classification with which the legal community is wrestling. Obama’s eligibility has been or is being legally challenged in Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, New Jersey, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Arizona. New Hampshire and New Jersey have rejected the filings. Now Pennsylvania can be added to the list.
WND.com reports that,
In a letter to the chief clerk’s office in Pennsylvania, attorney Karen L. Kiefer submitted a “Nomination Petition Objection.”
“In Pennsylvania, the Department of State printed candidates ‘packet of required qualifications and instructions’ provided by the Pa. Secretary of States’ office, Jonathon M. Marks, commissioner and the Department of State website acknowledge the U.S. constitutional authority and state that to be eligible … for the office of president of the United States, a candidate must be a ‘natural born citizen.’
“Obama, who is not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States, has filed a nomination petition” even though the petition requires a person to have parents who were citizens at the time of the birth, she argues.
“Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a foreign national at the time of his birth and candidate Obama admits in his book, ‘Dreams From my Father,’ at page 215, that in mid 1960s ‘the government (Kenya) revoked his (father’s) passport, and he (Obama Sr.) couldn’t even leave Kenya,’” the report said.
“Candidate Obama’s father was never an immigrant to the United States, nor a permanent resident; Candidate Obama’s father never filed for or attained U.S. citizenship status; therefore, candidate Obama fails to meet U.S. constitutional and Pennsylvania requirements for the office.”
“Obama … has declared he is eligible for the office of president, and, therefore, has the burden of proving to this honorable court the truth of the matter,” the challenge explains.