He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Posts Tagged ‘natural born citizen

Natural Born Citizen — Chapter 8: Dual and Multi Citizenship

Dual and multi citizenship and their relation to natural born citizenship

If a person who is born with dual or multi citizenship can also be a natural born citizen, how does that circumstance potentially jeopardize our Constitutional Republic?  First let’s address the issue of dual and multi citizenship.  In Chapter 7, we discovered that according to Barack Obama’s own campaign website Fight the Smears, Barack Obama possessed dual citizenship upon his birth.  As was noted, his Father was bound by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and as a result, Barack Obama was also bound by that Act as well.  So what does the British Nationality Act of 1948 state regarding the citizenship Barack Obama inherited at birth?  Part II, Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 states:

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.[i]

That would appear fairly straightforward and would thereby make Barack Obama a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.  But the Act goes on to discuss provisions thereafter that affect the above quoted passage.  The provisions in this portion of the passage discuss ways in which citizenship would not be acquired under this section of the Act, but may be obtained in another Section within the Act.  In reviewing the provisions none would have excluded Barack Obama under Part II, Section 5.  It would appear that in accordance with Part II, Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama at the time of his birth did in fact hold citizenship in the United Kingdom.

In Part II, Section 19 of the Act, renunciation of citizenship is allowed as follows:

(1) If any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies of full age and capacity who is also— 

(a) a citizen of any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act or of Eire; or

(b) a national of a foreign country,

makes a declaration in the prescribed manner of renunciation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered; and, upon the registration, that person shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies:

Provided that the Secretary of State may withhold registration of any such declaration if it is made during any war in which His Majesty may be engaged by a person who is a national of a foreign country.[ii]

Do we have any evidence that Barack Obama renounced his British Citizenship?  In his FactCheck.org reference, he claimed his Kenyan citizenship had expired.  Why is there no mention of his British citizenship?  The answer may lie in the fact that in 1963, two years after Barack Obama’s birth, Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain.  At that time, both Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama became Kenyan citizens.  Their citizenship was defined in the 1963 Kenyan Constitution in Chapter 6, Section 87 as follows:

Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:

Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.[iii]

In accordance with Section 87, Subsection (1), Barack Obama Sr. became a Kenyan Citizen on December 12, 1963.  In accordance with Section 87, Subsection (2), Barack Obama became a Kenyan Citizen on December 12. 1963. 

At the time of gaining Kenyan citizenship, what became of the British citizenship of Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama?  The British Nationality Act has been updated numerous times since Kenya became a sovereign country in 1963.  In my research, I have not found anywhere in the Kenyan Constitution information regarding British citizenship.  Neither have I found in the subsequent Amendments to the British Nationality Act of 1948 any language discussing the loss of British citizenship by virtue of Kenya becoming a sovereign country.  On the face of it, I would assume the citizenship was transferred from British citizenship to Kenyan citizenship; therefore, Barack Obama was no longer a British citizen; however, I have no documentation to prove this assumption.  And it is also possible that Barack Obama’s British citizenship remains intact today, and if that is case, such a condition would seem to be a significant issue for a man currently occupying the White House.

For the purposes of our discussion, although it is important what became of Barack Obama’s British citizenship, what is more important is that at the time of his birth he held dual citizenship as both a U.S. citizen and a British citizen.  In our discussion, it is important what the founders when writing the Constitution would have thought about this dual citizenship with respect to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  My first impression is that the founders would unequivocally have a problem with multi citizenship at birth.  I say that because it seems unfathomable to me that a person whom holds citizenship in another country based on that country’s laws possesses sole allegiance to the nation where he was born.  As such, I can’t imagine how that same person could be considered a natural born citizen and eligible to the Presidency.  In the next chapter, we will look at what the founders may have thought of this condition when we discuss allegiance.

[i] The British Nationality Act of 1948 — http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

[ii] British Nationality Act of 1948 — http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

[iii] Kenyan Constitution Chapter 6, Section 87 — http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#87

Any reproduction of the content in this blog post must credit the author:  KJ Kaufman (aka:  curi0us0nefromthe60s) and must reference a link to this blog site https://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com or link to the specific blog post cited.  You are free to distribute this content in order to educate the populous as long as you adhere to the aforementioned conditions.  Your cooperation in citing this source when reproducing, referencing or redistributing the content contained herein is greatly appreciated.

Written by KJ Kaufman

August 26, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Request to DOJ for Quo Warranto Action


In reading extensively the laws regarding the natural born citizen issue surrounding Barack Obama, and in particular reading Leo Donofrio’s opinions on the matter, (following Donofrio’s own letter to the U.S. Attorney) I decided to email U.S. Attorney Taylor with carbon copy to Attorney General Holder.  I will also be following up with hard copies via certified mail with return receipts requested tomorrow.  I think for anyone that truly believes this issue is important, you should also construct your own original correspondence to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder.  I think it is important to not just copy and paste a letter but to come up with our own well thought out appeal based on the facts.  I have included my letter here but highly encourage you to write your own correspondence as well.  Anyone seeking help with their own original correspondence can post their letter in the comment section, and I will be happy to review it and provide editorial notes.

 March 16, 2009 

United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Cc:  Attorney General, Eric Holder

Dear U.S. Attorney Taylor,

During last year’s Presidential election, many of us questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States.  It became even more troublesome to some of us when Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website Fightthesmears.com:


“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

At that point, some of us saw this statement as the first factual statement that might prove Mr. Obama is in fact not a natural born citizen.  Many scholars and legal minds believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States that both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the child must be born on U.S. soil.  Although citizenship has been adjudicated in the courts, and has been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, a definition for natural born citizen has never been completely and clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, nor in its amendments nor in the courts.  In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would lean more toward the definition above then otherwise.

As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the Office of President of the United States.  This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a natural born citizen nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office.  It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.

Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility.  In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements.  In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves up to potential prosecution.

After researching the matter, and in particular reviewing the research of Attorney Leo Donofrio, it has been determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility.  What has been determined is that once President Obama was elected (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but) by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute.  Furthermore the statute states in part that:

only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.

Furthermore, the following sums up the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:

1.    In accordance with the separation of powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches) of our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress exercised their legislative power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, DC Code Sections:  16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.

2.   Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry.  You have a special duty to bring forth this action.

3.    No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches).  The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the matter.

4.    Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14thamendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.

Sir, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  Mr. Taylor, you and/or Attorney General Holder have a duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute.  Lacking such an action on the part of you or Attorney General Holder will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution).  It is an awesome burden placed upon you and Attorney General Holder, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws.  If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to?  A nation without laws is no longer a nation.  I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.


Name Withheld in this Post

Email Address for Attorney Taylor:  dc.outreach@usdoj.gov

Email Address for Attorney General Holder:  AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Update 3/18/2009

In order to assist you with writing your own original letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder, your letter should follow this general construction:

  • Introduction — The introduction should include the primary element that you are requesting which is that they initiate a quo warranto action due to Barack Obama not being a natural born citizen.  The introduction can be several paragraphs long but should be tightened up as best as possible.  My Introduction really takes up about half of what I wrote and is intermixed with the crux of my arguments that should have been clearly separated into the body of my letter.  My letter could be cleaned up considerably on this point.
  • Body — The body should utilize the research from Leo Donofrio’s site clearly showing that the law leans toward the fact that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and that the quo warranto statue is the only means to remove a usurper from the Office of the Presidency of the United States.  The body can also make use of the military concerns as to why this action must be brought forth.  My letter has the Introduction and Body too much intertwined.  You can write a much better and more coherent letter than mine following these simple basic constructions of essays/letter writing.
  • Conclusion — The conclusion should reiterate that U.S. Attorney Taylor or Attorney General Holder must act on this matter.  You can utilize passionate pleas here but it also important to ensure that you are keeping to the facts of the matter in your passionate discourse.

Written by KJ Kaufman

March 16, 2009 at 8:37 pm




As Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America, there are still those who believe he is not eligible due to Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that he just pledged to uphold.  The relevant passage states in part:

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…

There are those who believe that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President of the United States of America.

What really is at question here is not the definition of what it is to be a natural born citizen but loyalty to the United States of America for the crux of the issue that surrounded the inclusion of the Natural Born Citizen mandate for the Office of President in our Constitution was in fact an assurance of loyalty to this new Nation.  It was imperative to the success of our Nation that its citizenry be loyal and that the highest office of the land be held by one of unquestionable loyalty.  This is truly the issue before us today.

To simply state that Barack Obama is not loyal to this country without a preponderance of evidence is to potentially lack loyalty yourself.  It is a question that cannot be answered in a few words, a few sentences or a few paragraphs, but rather a long discourse with arguments from all sides surrounding issue.

First the question must be asked, what does it mean to be loyal to the United States of America?  This in itself is a profound asking but can probably be most effectively summed up as freedom, freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, freedom to prosper as an individual and as a collective, freedom to ensure that these self-evident truths remain intact for all our citizenry and future generations.

To outrightly dismiss Barack Obama’s loyalty to the United States of America is naïve at best, dangerous at its worst but remains an intellectually prudent exercise.  To not look upon the Inauguration of America’s first African-American President, to deny the struggles of this Nation in its quest for equality is a cynical exercise on a historical day.  So with the breadth and the depth of the history made today, and with the struggles and triumphs of a Nation of people, all people, we will exercise our prudence and at least look if only for a moment at the important question of loyalty, specifically, loyalty to the United States of America.

Barack Obama was born to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan native and British Subject and Stanley Ann Dunham, a Kansas native and resident at the time of his birth of the 50th state of the Union, Hawaii.  Barack Obama’s father left his mother when President Obama was 2 years old and was never a physical presence in President Obama’s life.  Stanley Ann Dunham seemed to have a persuasion to foreigners as she later married Lolo Soetoro an Indonesian citizen and moved the family to Indonesia.  President Obama lived in Indonesia for several years returning to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.

I provide this brief parentage synopsis to point out that President Obama did not have your standard issue American life and was subject to a more global world at an early age than many of his fellow citizens.  Like those before him with a world view and who have lived outside of the United States, you either grow a deeper appreciation for our country or recognize and learn from the world outside of ours or you do both.

There are many questionable characters in President Obama’s life including but not limited to:  Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, Samantha Power, and the list can go on.  Many of these characters we would not categorize with the American loyalty crowd; however, it may yet to be seen how their influence will affect Mr. Obama’s Presidency.

On this day, at this time, I do not possess the energy nor the inclination to tackle the question of President Barack Hussein Obama’s loyalty to this country.  The occasion is too great, the stakes too high to make misstatements or contort the record. 

What I believe we saw today is the representation of who we are as Americans.  We cast aside our racial bias to elect the first African American President.  We see represented in our 44th President a diversity of background.  We find ourselves with yet another lawyer as President of the United States.  And we see the common man elevated to our country’s highest position.  For that we are grateful.

If you feel this day does not warrant the above reverence, if you are still concerned about holding the highest office of the land requirements be met, if you fear the liberal left will lead this country to damnation, then you should start today to change the ideological views of its populace from as our President states “the bottom up” rather than the “top down.”  For no one man can entirely change this country in just one term or two.  No one man, no matter his power, can thwart the will of the people in a free and just nation.  No man is the bastion for what is right or what is wrong, what is good or evil.  The citizenry of this country are free; we will remain free, and will fight for that freedom regardless our leadership.  That is the promise of our Constitutional Republic, and our promise to ourselves.

Written by KJ Kaufman

January 20, 2009 at 11:58 am

The Purported Facts About Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship Issue

I have read a plethora of blog posts (including their associated comment sections), a few newspaper articles and even, as recently as today, main stream media coverage on the Obama citizenship issue, and it never ceases to amaze me how much inaccurate information is out there regarding this topic; therefore, I decided to provide a simple bullet point list of the facts surrounding this controversy.  Please note that when I use the term facts, I am claiming that these are the facts of those making the claims, not the veracity of the conclusions these claims make.  It is left for those far more educated than I in the laws of this land to come to the legal conclusions of the claims.

First we must detail that the one thing the lawsuits and claims have in common, i.e., they allege that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of President of the United States.  Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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. 


The Purported Facts

With respect to this requirement, here are the purported facts as argued by the lawyers filing the cases, lawyers analyzing the cases, and the general Internet public at large:

  • Some argue, to be a natural born citizen, you must have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth and be born on U.S. soil.  Since Barack Obama admits that his father was a British Subject/Citizen of Kenya at the time of Barack Obama’s birth, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen.”  One of the comments on this post by “RightWinger” provides a thoughtful link to this argument that can be found at The Heritage Foundation.  This is the crux of Leo Donofrio’s case and he argues in part that even Obama’s own website substantiates his claim.
  • On Barack Obama’s website Fight the Smears, they quote FactCheck.org as verifying his citizenship: 

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obamahas neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

  • Obama has not produced a long form Birth Certificate.   Obama has produced a Certification of Live Birth.  These two documents are not synonymous.  A Certification of Live Birth is often used in place of a long form Birth Certificate; however, it lacks pertinent additional information found on a long form Birth Certificate.
  • Some argue that the Certification of Live Birth found on Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website and other sites is a forgery.  This topic is obviously debatable; however, for more information on the veracity of the claim, you can view this video.
  • Many have cited that Hawaiian officials have stated that they have seen Barack Obama’s original Birth Certificate, so therefore, he was in fact born in Hawaii.  What’s curious about these reports is that even though the reporters claim the officials state that he was born in Hawaii, they make no such statement, rather they state that they have seen his original Birth Certificate.  Some argue that at the time Barack Obama was born, Hawaii allowed foregin born individuals to receive Hawaiian Birth Certificates.
  • Some have argued that many of the early Presidents weren’t Natural Born Citizens and they became President.  Those who argue this point have missed the part of the clause that states “or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”  The founding fathers knew that they would not qualify under the Natural Born Citizen clause so they included this additional verbiage to ensure their own eligibility.
  • Many reporters have lumped in Leo Donofrio’s case with others that question where Barack Obama was born.  Leo Donofrio’s case does not rely on Obama’s birthplace nor his BirthCertificate, long form, or Certification of Live Birth in his case regarding Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status.
  • Another requirement often cited as to whether or not a person is a Natural Born Citizen is that they must have been born on U.S. soil, and some argue that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.  They argue that he was born in Kenya.  This requirement is often argued to be not quite this simple, and further states that at least one of the two parents must be a U.S. Citizen for 5 years following his or her 14th birthday when the child is born if that child was not born on U.S. soil.  In this instance they argue, Obama’s mother was only 18 years of age and therefore unless Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil he is not a Natural Born Citizen.  This is one of the two primary arguments in Phil Berg’s lawsuit.
  • Phil J. Berg’s case is very much concerned about where Obama was born; however, it is not his sole requirement for Obama’s lack of  Natural Born Citizenship status.  Berg’s lawsuit makes two claims against Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status: 1)he claims that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and therefore lacks eligibility based on the arguments made in the previous bullet point, 2)he claims that even if he was born in Hawaii during his time when he lived in Indonesia, he would have been a citizen of Indonesia which did not allow dual citizenship and therefore he lost his Natural Born Citizenship status.  He could have regained U.S. Citizenship when he returned to the U.S., but this would make him a Naturalized U.S. Citizen which is not the equivalent of a Natural Born Citizen.
  • Some argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for Barack Obama’s eligibility, while others argue that the 14th Amendment doesn’t have baring on Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
  • There are those who argue that the only requirement for Natural Born Citizenship is to be born on U.S. soil, and Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is, therefore, a Natural Born Citizen.  This argument may very well be valid, but I’m not qualified to judge its veracity.
  • Some argue the above bullet point is not valid primarily based on Barack Obama’s Father’s citizenship status.  They make a similar argument to Leo Donofrio (and to some degree Berg’s second point above) by expanding the argument.  For example Dr. Kate in her article “Stand By Me” on TexasDarling’s Word Press blog states:  “One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example) they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.”  I encourage you to read Dr. Kate’s rather long but thoughtful article on the entire subject of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.
  • One of the reasons that many argue Obama’s Father’s citizenship is important is because it makes him a dual citizen at birth.  They argue the framers of the U.S. Constitution were adamant that the President not have dual loyalties and Obama’s dual citizenship at birth provides him with at least the potential of dual loyalty and disqualifies him from Natural Born Citizenship status and the Presidency.

Again, the above bullet points are the crux of the arguments surrounding Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status.  I make no claims as to reporting the validity of the conclusions of those making the assertions.  I simply wished to provide you with a bullet list of the facts regarding the claims being made and not the veracity of the conclusions drawn by these claims.

Why is any of this important?  It may or may not be important to you, but as is the case of most posts made on this website, I like to look at the issues through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is often viewed in two ways: 1)as an Original Intent Document or  2)as a Living Document.  These two schools of thought can be summarized as:

Original Intent— Remove as much as possible interpretation application of the law from political controversy.  Set up basic principles that are going to apply and the legislatures and courts have to abide by those principles.  Typically historical legal standards as opposed to present day political policies and desires.  To Constitutionally deal with political questions, you would use the amendment process.  In other words, view the constitution as a contract and to change any of the original terms of that contract you must utilize the amendment process.

Living Document — The opposite of original intent.  It believes that the Constitution changes its meaning in some automatic fashion according to the political or economic or social problems of the time.  There are basically three rationalizations for this view:  1)we can’t really know original intent, 2)the language is a living entity and changes over time, and/or 3)the document doesn’t speak to present day society, so we’re going to interpret under modern day terms.

To view a thorough discussion on this topic, you can view this YouTube Video.

Acknowledging my bias, I prefer original intent over living document.  In my opinion, the Natural Born Citizenship status of Barack Obama is paramount to preserving our Constitutional Law.  If it is determined that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not eligible to be President, and, therefore, cannot be sworn in as President.  If it is determined that Barack is a Natural Born Citizen, then his eligibility is certain, he was elected by the people, and will become the legitimate 44th President of the United States.  It is not for me to determine his eligibility, but the determination of his eligibility is paramount in protecting and preserving the United States Constitution.