How 95% doesn't matter

 


In the discussion of precedent and Obama's ineligibility now opens the door for others that have questionable natural born Citizenship status. Think about this. 95% of all the Presidents of the United States were either born before the Constitution or were born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents.

Ted Cruz is ineligible. Like the first 10 Presidents he was not born in the United States (Location), and his father (parentage) was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, and therefore does not meet the qualification of being a natural born Citizen.

Bobby Jindal is ineligible. He was born in Louisiana, his parents were not U.S. Citizens (Parentage) at the time of his birth.

Nikki Haley is ineligible. She was born in South Carolina, her parents were not U.S. Citizens (Parentage) at the time of her birth.

Marco Rubio is ineligible. He was born in Florida, His parents were not U.S. Citizens (Parentage) at the time of his birth.

A history of Presidents and natural born Citizenship.

Presidents 1-10 were born in the colonies and were not citizens till the adoption of the Constitution. They were eligible due to Art II Sec I language stating “No Person…, 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.”

Presidents 11-20 were all born in the United States to U.S. Citizen Parents and were natural born Citizen and eligible to be President due to Art II Sec I language stating; “No Person except a natural born Citizen, 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.”

President 21 was potentially ineligible due to speculation that he was actually born in Canada. This was never uncovered due to Chester A. Arthur burning all personal records upon leaving the office.

 

Presidents 22-43 were all born in the United States to U.S. Citizen Parents and were natural born Citizen and eligible to be President due to Art II Sec I language stating; “No Person except a natural born Citizen, 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.”


President 44 does not meet the criteria of being a natural born Citizen (Parentage) first due to his father being a British subject and potentially by birth (Location) which is in doubt and has yet to be verified. 

Why does the fact that 95% of all Presidents met all the requirements as laid out in the Constitution not matter?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Keep It Simple Stupid - Article 2, Sec 1, Clause 5 - Natural Born Citizens

Image
Originally posted on  Keep it simple stupid! | Natural Born Citizens and why some are ineligible to be POTUS. (petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com)  On January 15th, 2015.     " 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." September 4, 1787.  [1]    The statement above is easily understandable, or is it?    In 2008 after receiving information about Obama being born to a Kenyan (British Subject) father, and possibly being born in Kenya, I thought “No way are they going to allow him to run for President”. I waited, and waited and then I found out that McCain was born in Panama. I was like “well he was born to a military Father ...
Read more

TRUMP V ANDERSON - NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REFERENCES

  23-719_feah.pdf (supremecourt.gov) HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com   Pg1 Official - Subject to Final Review 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 DONALD J. TRUMP, ) 4 Petitioner, ) 5 v. ) No. 23-719 6 NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL., ) 7 Respondents. ) 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   9 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Thursday, February 8, 2024 12 13 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 14 argument before the Supreme Court of the United 15 States at 10:08 a.m. 16 17 APPEARANCES: 18 JONATHAN F. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE, Austin, Texas; on behalf 19 of the Petitioner. 20 JASON C. MURRAY, ESQUIRE, Denver, Colorado; on behalf 21 of Respondents Anderson, et al. 22 SHANNON W. STEVENSON, Solicitor General, Denver, 23 Colorado; on behalf of Respondent Griswold.   Pg 108...
Read more

Election Transparency, Accountability and Inclusion Act American Voters’ Alliance / Daily Clout

  Election Transparency, Accountability and Inclusion Act American Voters’ Alliance / Daily Clout S ECTION 1 – State ment of Purpose :   WHEREAS, election administration must be transparent, inclusive, and accountable to ensure fair elections and accurate results; and   WHEREAS, accountability requires that election management responsibilities be vested with persons and institutions accountable to the citizenry; and   WHEREAS, transparency requires that the public, political candidates, political parties, and the media be able to meaningfully observe the election process including any process involving the management of ballots; and   WHEREAS , government election offices must be managed in an objective manner that does not directly or indirectly benefit one candidate or political party over another; and   WHEREAS , [insert state ] hereby seeks to treat all eligible voters and all legally cast ballots equally to ensure a fair election; and   WHERE...
Read more