Posted on 12/09/2008 6:32:38 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…
OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up until now because I have been trying to resolve the dichotomy in my mind between being a Constitutional constructionist and a pragmatist. But, at long last I have realized that the two really aren't as much at odds as it might seem. In fact, I found my answer in the words of Thomas Jefferson -- as well as Madison, Franklin and a few others, but we'll stick with Jefferson quotes for the sake of a sharply focused discussion.
I have discovered that Thomas Jefferson has already told us upon which side we as conservatives should descend over the question concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility for the office of president of the United States. Mister Jefferson would tell you all to shut up, accept cruel fate, and get ready to claim Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.
That's right, forget about it. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Before you get your Constitutional shorts in a bunch, I absolutely agree with you that we are a nation of laws and not men. Jefferson did too, once saying that we must consider what the original intent of the Constitution was before we rush into a decision and the original intent in this case was clearly to make sure every president was a natural born citizen of this country before being eligible to run for that highest of offices. ("The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated [for it]..."-- Thomas Jefferson)
The simple reason that the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen was because they were keen students of history. The phrase "let history be our guide" was not just a trope. The founders knew well the many instances when a foreign ruler had entered a country and, using that country's own laws and customs, immorally proclaimed himself the ruler of a subjugated nation. The founders wanted to prevent that possibility and also wanted to make sure that there were no divided loyalties in an American president, that the welfare of the USA would be first and foremost in the mind of anyone elected to that office. What better way than to preclude the foreign born?
So, yes, the proscriptions against the foreign born candidate are important and should not be cast aside. We should never knowingly present a candidate not born as a citizen of the U.S. Further, we should take pains to verify the provenance of every candidate's claim to natural citizenship.
But... and you knew the “but” was coming. There is an original intent that rises above the Constitution itself. In fact, there are a few, but one in particular comes to bear here...
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
The salient point is that he should have had to produce a birth certificate to get a passport...where is it?
I have three points...obey the law, obey the law and obey the law!
Your submitting this question is ample evidence that you know nothing about him.
Mob rule
Great. A dumbed down herd of violent sheep to control a once free and law following country.
No way, jose.....not even a nice try
Go, tell that to the IRS!
Interesting read and reasoned argument. However I doubt it will win many converts on this forum.
This man is advocating mob rule.
If the “Will of the People” wishes to have non-natural born presidents then we the people follow rule of law and amend the Constitution.
If we allow mob rule we will reap tyranny.
The point, to me, is not so much the technicalities surrounding the circumstances of his birth as it is the false pretenses under which he ran for the highest office of the land. He has taken more pains to disguise who he is, where he’s been, what he’s done — than he has in proclaiming same.
He’s a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, thinking about his nowhere plans for nobody.
He has serious citizenship issues that could be resolved via transparency. Problem is: if they could’ve been resolved in ways that made him look good and his critics look bad, that would’ve happened long ago.
So the issue is, we critics are imagining words on his birth certificate (if it exists) like “Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama”, “Muslim”, etc., and that is why he would not let it see the light of day. We imagine his parents renouncing his US citizenship for him in order to accept Indonesian citizenship. Whether or not they ever managed to re-Americanize his citizenship — these are all mysteries. Why should there be such mysteries surrounding the person who is to be our president?
This is what the movie “Manchurian Candidate” was all about. It just doesn’t set well, and is all so unnecessary.
I don’t like this article at all. It misses the whole point
It amazes me how many recent signuos such as youself support the move along position.
All your fearless leader needs to do is release his BC.
Even you can understand that.
If Nixon had contested, and had the country suffer a little then, maybe we wouldn’t have a democrat party that is even more blatant in their cheating to the point that the republicans have to overcome a known built-in fraud factor.
Mr Huston misses the larger point here. If this facet of the Constitution of the United States is laid aside for the sake of momentary political or social expediency, the force and influence of the entire document is by implication effectively de-sanctified.
I’m not willing to risk or compromise my constitutional rights and protections simply because a political party may have nominated a presidential candidate technically unqualified to hold the office.
What he neglects is that the Constitution is designed to protect unpopular causes and the minority from the “will of the people”. If the will of the people is to have a non-citizen or a non-natural born citizen become President, the answer is not to simply ignore the text of the Constitution, but to amend it.
Nixon refused to support challenges to the 1960 election because he felt it would hurt the U. S. at home and abroad, not because he felt "the will of the people had been heard."
How could fraudulent voting in any way reflect the will of the people? The idea is preposterous.
No, it took Democrat Al Gore to heave aside the good of the country to satisfy his own messianic craving for the office.
Now that you mention it, this makes a good point (though probably not the one you were intending). If we recall, Obama has travelled overseas several times in the past two decades. To do this, he would have needed said passport, since he was not "Mr. Presidential Candidate" at the time, but for several of these trips was "Mr. No-Name", just like the rest of us. If he doesn't have a legitimate birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, then how did he get that passport? After all, a mere COLB wouldn't have worked for him any more than it would for us.
Obviously, he had to have had a legitimate birth certificate, no? Or would you suggest that he just managed to travel to foreign countries and then get back into the USA each time, all on the strength of his sparkling personality?
4 years! The American people do not like to be proved wrong. What makes you think it will be “only” four years. I can even see the “opposition” unable to field a viable candidate in 2012.
Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…
OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up until now because I have been trying to resolve the dichotomy in my mind between being a Constitutional constructionist and a pragmatist.
This is political poison, it looks like sore loser-itis which is why it is shunned by anyone responsible. There is NO practical action to take on this.
Heck, elected republicans are about to sign onto UAW bailout bill, if they cant oppose something so obviously bad for them, how can you expect justices to throw the whole country into a constitutional crisis?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.