Obama/Constitution/Eligibility

[MonsterMark]

The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 4, 2009 by naturalborncitizen


Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief. And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago. This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President. They can. But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.

If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us. And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.

We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.

I’m not worried about Obama as President. I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets. The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.

This is the issue before the nation - and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The framers wisely provided us with that check.

By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I told you again and again this is the problem with Obama.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So now, the question is, when is the scotus going to hear this?
It certainly couldn't hurt if you were to make copies of this post you just made above, and mail each member of the court a copy.
It appears it has "teeth" too it, so why not do as I suggest.
Couldn't hurt.
Is it on the court docket yet?
Aren't they the ones who have the final say and interpretation as to what "natural born citizen" is, and what the framers intended?
Bob.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Chris KellyWriter, Real Time with Bill Maher
Posted: August 3, 2009 05:58 AM

Barack Obama's birthday is tomorrow (or is it?) and in the spirit of gift giving, I've got something for the 28% of Republicans who don't believe Obama was born in America: An invitation to common ground.

Here's the first place we can agree: It would be nice if the president would ask Hawaii to release his original, long form birth certificate.

There are all kinds of perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons why he shouldn't, but, frankly, I'm still tuckered out from all the perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons Hillary Clinton wouldn't release the Rose Law Firm billing records.

I'm not going through that hell again.

Here's the second place we can agree: The rule of law is a good thing.

Lincoln said:

As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap - let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges - let it be written in primers, spelling books, and almanacs - let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

That goes double for me. Can't get enough of that Constitution and Laws. When it comes to the Constitution and Laws I'm right there, lisping and prattling like Glenn Beck.

My children may not have primers, spelling books or almanacs -- because they go to school in California -- but they understand that we can't pick and chose which laws we obey and which we don't. If we acted like that, we'd be no better than wild animals in the jungle or Dick Cheney.

Here's the third place we can agree: If the Constitution says Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he's ineligible to be president.

The Constitution is always right because the Framers were infallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, not unlike Horton Hatches an Egg, if it had been written 230 years ago by 55 guys.

The Constitution says:

"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.

And that's what it means.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get Obama on the "natural born" part. I don't know what it means and neither do you, and neither did the Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not letting Louis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as good as mine. And guesses don't count.

The only person I'm absolutely certain is a natural born man is Bo Diddley.

Luckily, we don't have to interpret what they were getting at. That's why God created Originalism and sent us Antonin Scalia.

Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead to thinking.) It says the document is what it is. We'll never know what the Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.

So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matter how oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president who violates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail, and our sons start playing with dolls.

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

In 1788.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.

Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what it literally says?

"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..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying we can't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can't interpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one of those horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.

Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.

 

[shagdrum]

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."[/B]

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

In 1788.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.

Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what it literally says?

"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..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying we can't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can't interpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one of those horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.

Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.

Typical Johnny (and Bill Maher) dishonesty. Cherry pick and take a quote out of context to distort. Maher is distorting the constitution when he quotes, out of context, the line, "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

While that may seem like a valid point in the childish mind of someone like Johnny, it is distortive because of the very mechanism that makes it clever; taking the quote out of context. As such, it is not a valid point but in fact a dishonest, fallacious argument (Maher's typical tactic). What is sad is that Maher's whole argument really hinges on that dishonesty. Later, Maher even gives the full quote a little later which shows that he is in fact taking that portion out of context. But in his mind, he doesn't seem to think that there is anything dishonest about quoting out of context.

There is also the dishonesty (or utter ignorance) in equating the interpretation of the constitution by originalist/textualist judges (like Scalia) which is aimed at clarifying the Constitution as much as possible, with the "interpretation" of activist judges which is aimed at manipulating the Constitution to their political agenda (under the fiction of a 'living' Constitution).

Maybe if Maher stopped trying to impress everyone with how clever he is, he might be able to look beyond his own ego and make a credible argument. But that is unlikely to happen in this lifetime.

 

[fossten]

It's telling that people like Johnny gravitate toward hate merchants like Maher.

 

[TheDude]

Hate sells, look how well it works for Coulter.

 

[foxpaws]

Odd to think that they used to date... Maher and Coulter...

 

[fossten]

Hate sells, look how well it works for Coulter.

Pretty sure Ann's never said anything about somebody's 'lisping baby.'