Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
New Obama campaign image
There are those who dislike Obama’s policies and just want him out of office. There are those who like the socialism he’s been working to install in the U.S. and probably will vote for him again. And there are those who have done some research and say the simple logic of the facts regarding Obama confirms he’s not eligible under the Constitution’s requirements for a person to be president.
But the concept of a constitionally qualified “natural born citizen,” when it’s been used interchangeably with so many other words like “citizen” and “native-born citizen,” remains an enigma to some.
Now comes a constitutional scholar to put it in simple phrases and make it clear.
The evaluation of the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution comes from Dr. Herbert W. Titus, of counsel to the law firm William J. Olson.
He previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993 he was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University.
And before that, he was a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of Justice.
His degrees are from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and he’s admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, appellate courts in the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and other districts. His practice has taken him into courts more than a dozen different states.
He explains that much of the discussion of citizenship, and the 14th Amendment, essentially can be ignored in this argument, in a video from TheAmericanView.com.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it: There is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country…”
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
There have been allegations since long before Obama’s election in 2008 that he is not a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the Constitution on no other official.
Obama’s critics believe that at the time the Constitution was written, the founders agree with Titus, and understood “natural-born citizen” to mean the offspring of two citizens.
Obama has claimed he was born in Hawaii, but birth documentation he’s released has been judged by a number of document, imaging and graphics experts to be fake.
Others believe he would fail to qualify no matter his place of birth, because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. They allege the founders precluded dual citizens by specifically demanding a “natural-born citizen.”
The Hawaii birth documentation image that was released by Obama and described by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s Hawaiian birth: