A Birther Recants

article top

BY PROFESSOR RD SKIDMORE – Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised the legitimacy question on Mr. Obama’s birth certificates and location, only to recant. A media inquisition whereby one will be labeled a birther is intimidating, but it is standard fair for anyone who is serious about the Constitution and its requirements for the office of President.

The Constitution in Article II defines the duties and qualifications for President of the United States; Section 1, paragraph 5 declares:


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.

Thinking persons have to ask why the founders differentiated between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” We know that George Washington, the first President of the United States fit the qualifications for President as a “Citizen…at the time of the Adoption of [the] Constitution” and not a ‘natural born Citizen.’ In fact the first seven Presidents, from Washington to Andrew Jackson, met the Constitution qualification of President as a ‘Citizen’ under Article II and not as a ‘natural born Citizen.’

Martin Van Buren was the first ‘natural born Citizen’ meeting the qualifications for President of the United States as well as the next 35 office holders.

The talking heads, in their ignorance have equated ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’ and insisted that ‘natural born citizen’ has never been defined—which is not true.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1874 defined “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett as children born of two parents who are United States citizens. Without regard to the location of the child’s birth the court unanimously declared:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

The findings of the Supreme Court in 1874 was unanimous; there was no dissention or opposition among the Justices as to the findings, and the definition has not changed.

The issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?”

By Obama’s own admission, and demonstrated on the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is “NO”. Therefore, by Constitutional definition, he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen” as required, and thus is ineligible to be the President.

Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth and The British Nationality Act of 1772 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of their birth location are themselves British Subjects:

“That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, … are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom:”

Our nation does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person. As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Court’s unanimous definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged.

Our congress and courts have refused to confront this issue and it is a Constitutional crisis for our nation and troops. The media and candidates refuse to ask the right questions, insisting on affirming Obama was born in the USA while disregarding the Constitutional requirements.

Where Obama says he was born is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Oath many of us have taken especially those in public office to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Thanks for reading.


1787, United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

1787, United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 6.

Amendment XII, U. S. Constitution, ratified July 27, 1804

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MINOR v. HAPPERSETT,  88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162 OCTOBER, 1874, Term; https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html, accessed 25 October, 2011; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875)   Refer to paragraphs 17-19.

British Nationality Act, 1772; Anno Regni decimo tertio G E O R G I I III. 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI.;  https://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1772.htm, accessed 26 October 2011

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790). ; Harvard, https://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5596748, 26 October 2011; Indiana University, https://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, 26 October 2011

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).; Indiana University, https://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, 26 October 2011

Oath of naturalization for citizenship; https://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD, accessed 26 October 2011

Oath of Office for President, US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, adopted 1787,

Oath of Office  Congress: TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00003331—-000-.html, accessed 26 October 2011


Professor Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.





  1. Newsflash: Wonder Woman should not be anywhere in this article. She is an Amazon Princess, and at no point is ever an "American." She is an ambassador from Themyscira AKA "Paradise Island" and never ever considers herself an agent of the USA, affiliated with it, or any such thing.

Comments are closed.