Constitutional law expert and professor, Dr. Herbert Titus, shines a 300-year-old light of truth on leftist lies and propaganda about Obama’s illegal presidency further undermining the liberal establishment's criminal scheme to hide facts about Obama’s secret past. While the lame stream media continues to defend Obama, and his political opponents use his covert criminal acts as political currency at the expense of the American people, vintage America is preparing to unleash a particularly savage wrath upon a rogue, obstinate, liberal ruling class.
by Daniel Crosby
of The Daily Pen
New York, NY – Apologists and abettors of the most prolific political crime in American history have attempted for more than five years to conceal the facts about the birth and life of the man known as “Barack Obama”. Now, as part of an ever increasing consensus and growing body of evidence, a formal declaration by one of America’s most experienced legal professionals and a highly respected practitioner of Constitutional law thrusts a dagger of truth into the heart of the obotic deception.
“Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen to hold the office of the Presidency,” declares Dr. Herbert W. Titus, J.D., a Constitutional law expert with more than 30 years of experience serving as a juris counsel and partner with William J. Olson Attorneys in Washington D.C.
“The question of Obama’s birth…where he was born…is an important question. But, the more important question is whether or not he is a ‘natural born’ citizen because he was born in Hawaii,” says Dr. Titus.
“The conventional wisdom is, ‘…if he can produce a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, that would make him a natural born citizen…’ That is not true. That only makes him a ‘citizen by birth’, and there is a distinction between these two terms (‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen by birth’).”
Dr. Titus continues, “A ‘citizen by birth’ is a person who becomes a citizen because he was born within the geographical limits of the United States…and the parents were here lawfully…and therefore, by birth, he is a citizen. Now that’s because, in the first sentence of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, it states specifically that a person who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen.”
Dr. Titus specifically addresses the misrepresentation of the relationship between the 14th Amendment and Article 2 of the Constitution. Many of Obama’s ignorant defenders attempt to argue in favor of Obama’s natural born status by associating his citizenship with the requirements prescribed by the 14th Amendment.
Dr. Titus then explains why the 14th Amendment fails to ascribe ‘natural born’ citizenship to anyone.
“Most people think that (the 14th Amendment) is a definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen, but people forget that the 14th Amendment was put into the Constitution not for the purpose of defining what a ‘natural born’ citizen is, as it applies to the president of the United States, but it was placed in the Constitution for the specific purpose of declaring that people who were part of the newly freed ‘slave class’ (in 1865) were citizens of the United States, and of the state in which they resided.”
Dr. Titus explains that the 14th Amendment was subsequent to the United States Supreme Court ruling in the Dredd Scott case in that a person who had been brought to the United States against their will could never become a citizen of the United States, much less a citizen of the state. This decision was made to prevent anyone from being forced to become a citizen if they did not want to. However, the decision was remiss in that it did not address those who were in the United States without citizenship to any nation and were not able to reintegrate.
Dr. Titus continues, “So, the place of birth which gives rise to ‘citizenship by birth’ was addressed to the question of what to do with this entirely new group of people who would otherwise be ‘stateless’, because they could not, under the Dredd Scott rule, become a citizen having been born in the United States.”
Dr. Titus’ explains that the chronological precedence of a ‘natural born’ citizen as it was predetermined by Article 2 of the Constitution draws a distinction from the era of ‘citizenship by birth’ as defined by the later 14th Amendment because Article 2 was in the Constitution 100 years before the 14th Amendment was ever included in the Constitution. This fact dooms Obama eligibility sympathizers who attach natural born citizenship to the 14th Amendment.
“Natural born citizen, as it relates to the Office of the President, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” says Dr. Titus, “The 14th Amendment’s definition of ‘citizenship by birth’ was not addressed at all to the question of one’s qualification to run for President of the United States. Even the language is different. It talks about a ‘Natural Born’ citizen.”
Those born of freed slaves after 1865 were not ‘natural born’ citizens because there were determined by the Dredd Scott ruling to not be citizens against their will.
Dr. Titus goes on to confirm the historical consensus of how a natural born citizen is defined by natural law, “What is a natural born citizen? Well, there is a law of the nature of citizenship, and if you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in some constitution or statute.”
Dr. Titus then makes a profound confirmation about natural born citizenry which has been well established by historical law, for centuries. He says a natural born citizen is one who holds such status because of the very nature of their birth and how the circumstance of that birth relates to the nations in which we are born. This is a very significant understanding because, as Dr. Titus describes, it draws a distinction between those who might never find citizenship with any nation due to either voluntary or involuntary circumstances, and “your relationship to the nation as a citizen.”
This is profound because only a President, among all other position of American government, is required to be a natural born citizen. Therefore, only a president must be born under circumstances which prevent him or her from being subject to any circumstance, voluntary or involuntary, which might disqualify them from a full and verifiable ‘natural born’ status.
Dr. Titus explains that, order to determine whether someone is a natural born citizen, we must understand the “laws of nature” as they apply to one being born into citizenship. These laws are those which are subject not only to the geographic location of birth, but, most importantly, to the biological identity of the birth. The citizenship status of the mother and the father at the time of birth.
“That is precisely what a natural born citizen is. One who is born to a father and a mother, each of whom is a citizen of the United States…” says Dr. Titus.
“What we have learned from Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was. But, Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of the presidency.”
The Daily Pen’s editor, Penbrook Johannson, echos Dr. Titus’ mordant exposition, “It’s funny. Many people ask, in reference to defending Obama, ‘What if a candidate does not know who their father or mother is? Does that disqualify them?’ In the case of being president of the United States…’Yes, it does.’”
Johannson expounds, “In their ignorant prejudices, Obots fail to see the exclusivity requirement in citizenship for the president, while completely failing to realize that such a candidate is permitted to serve in any other capacity in our government. The first condition is too strict, but the second is not good enough. They are hypocrites and ingrates. They want a pristine constitution to protect their selfish sense of entitlement, but when that same rule disqualifies them from their selfish grandeur, they seek sophomoric and illegal recompense. It’s quite disgusting.”
As we proceed toward the 2012 election, remember, this is the most revealing part of the liberal establishment’s true ideology about Obama’s eligibility. They have sold their souls to the vile edict that Barack Obama is entitled to be president, regardless of whether or not he is lawfully eligible. This is their premier symbol of the 50 year long reparative justice movement. Entitlement based on a cultivation of hatred for those who have what they do not have.
Moreover, they express nothing less than a haughty contempt for the Natural Born citizenship requirement. It is this very contempt which will unleash a savage justice wrought with wrath and blood ransomed redemption.
Those kept in the cage of liberalism exist in and feed upon a delusion that Obama was elected by a majority and, therefore, a majority a president makes. Lasciviously, thought, they refuse to be saved by the righteous truth that Obama would have never been elected by a majority if that majority had known beforehand that he was never eligible to hold the office in the first place.
Dr. Herbert W. Titus currently serves in counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional and common law for nearly 30 years at five different ABA approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.