One of the questions I keep coming across is about the Constitutional legitimacy of Barack Obama as President. Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen? The answer is yes or no depending on whether English common law, natural law, or principles of impeachment are being considered.

The US court system recognizes English common law as the rule of law when determining if an individual is a natural born citizen. According to English common law, the geographic jurisdiction is the determiner. If a Mexican citizen crosses the border from Mexico to the US, has a baby on US soil, and returns the Mexico the same day, the baby is a natural born US citizen. There is little doubt that according to English common law Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. He should enjoy the rights of citizenship in the United States.

According to natural law, only when both parents are citizens of a country can their child be considered a natural born citizen. By natural law Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. His father was British at his birth. There is no doubt that according to natural law Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. This natural principle is only applicable in law if historians and lawyers can show that the Founders intended the natural law interpretation of the phrase.

According the principles of impeachment legalisms cannot protect the President from impeachment. The relationship between the US citizens and the President are not one of country and citizen. Rather, it is a relationship of employer and employee, with the citizens being the employer and the President being the employee. The Congress is the representative of the citizens. Impeachment is equivalent to terminating an employee. As with any condition of termination of employment, the law does not require that a President break the law as a condition of impeachment.

The Constitution states that the President must be a natural born citizen. This Constitutional requirement is not a consideration of whether an individual may enjoy the rights of citizenship. It is a requirement of employment. The intent of the Founders was not to create a legalism. Their intent was to require as great a degree as possible that the President is loyal to the people, his employer. Their intent clearly was to ensure that the President was free as possible from political intrigues in his relationship to other nations.

In the case of Barack Obama, he has intentionally and purposefully hidden away his documentation about his history of relationships with other countries. All recent Presidents, with the possible exception of Chester Arthur, have openly provided to the people their documentation of their history of associations. The people, his employers, have requested that he provide this information as all previous Presidents have as a demonstration of his loyalty to his country. He has refused.

What does an employer do when an employee’s position by necessity requires a certain suitability, and requires that the employee provide reasonable documentation to certify their suitability? What happens when an employer requires a specific certification of training and the employee refuses to provide it? What happens when an employer requires a specific certification of integrity such as a security check and the employee refuses to provide it? When the employee refuses to supply certification, the employee is right to terminate that employee.

The fact that Barack Obama refuses to provide the documentation necessary to publicly certify his suitability for his employment by itself disqualifies him from his position. That fact that he actively hides his documentation from his true employer, the American people, not any intermediaries between himself and his true employer, is grounds for termination of his employment as President.

The fact that Barack Obama finds it necessary to hide the documentation of loyalty in defiance of tradition and the will of his employer raises credible doubts of his loyalty. The point of the requirement of being a natural born citizen is the requirement of loyalty to the country, not an arbitrary legal concern about the employee’s class of citizenship.

Because of the great sensitivity of the office of the President, the standard of fidelity is much greater than that of other positions of employment.

As a matter of necessity, the American people cannot afford to employ a President of questionable loyalty. President Barack Obama can and should be impeached for hiding the personal documentation that may demonstrate infidelity.

His rights of privacy are not being infringed upon because his application to be President is freely given with the full knowledge beforehand on his part that he must demonstrate his fidelity, which means providing sufficient documentation, not just of his place of birth, but of his loyalty to his country. Certain documents may show that he has used the identity of a foreigner to benefit himself which would be an indication of infidelity to this country. It is reasonable for his employer to require those documents from him to remove any doubts about his fidelity.

The question about what he is hiding is irrelevant at this point. The substantive issue now is the fact that he is for some necessity hiding his documentation. That is an impeachable offense.

[I am adding this cause for impeachment to The Big List of reasons to impeach Obama as item #29 "He has refused reasonable demonstrations of fidelity to the United States."]

Stumble it!