Posted on 02/05/2012 9:33:38 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to research by Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election!
If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?
The youtube ……..reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined…….
“Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution…. Obama’s eligibility questions: 1 On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.
8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause.
Co-sponsors of the failed legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?
“This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was turned down by our Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I see you are still espousing commie filth...your entire post is commie excrement. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution, to make legislative changes to the Constitution, as you suggest. The USSC interprets the Constitution. Failed civics class, did ya?
Congress can make amendments to the Constitution. It takes a two thirds majority, and then it must be voted upon, and adopted by the states.
The NBC clause was placed in our Constitution to prevent anyone, with any remote possibility of divided allegiance, from becoming POTUS. “Natural Born Citizen” only appears in this one clause, which sets the Constitutional standard to be eligible to serve as Pres, and Vice Pres. Otherwise, the term citizen would have sufficed.
A natural born citizen has two parents, who are both citizens, at the time of birth. Some, like yourself, have sought to pervert the meaning of NBC. Seeking to make anyone born on our soil, even of illegal immigrants, a citizen eligible to become POTUS.
In his letter to Washington, John Jay wrote:
“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.”
Now come the commies and the socialists, who seek to redefine the intent of this clause, and the meaning of NBC, to make even an anchor baby eligible to become POTUS.
I will agree, a serious violation of the NBC clause has already occured. Since Obama illegally occupies our Whitehouse. A man of divided loyalties. Obama wholly represents what our founders, with the NBC clause, sought to prevent.
It is a grievous violation that most courts won’t even bother to hear it. And when one does, like the recent Georgia case, the court finds for the defendant, Obama. Even when Obama and his lawyer, under court order, refuse to appear, failing to offer any evidence to rebut the testimony of the plaintiffs, the court finds for the defendant, Obama.
Who gives these judges their marching orders? Under what threats are they failing to honor their lawful duty?
That program by Sean Hannity was broadcast in 2009, if memory serves, and was repeated several times. It is not nearly as earth-shaking as the promo pumps it up to be.
And as you can see simply by what happened in that courtroom in Atlanta on Friday; the effect it has had on the law and order climate in our Country is somewhat less than a fart in a hurricane!
Also, that notice has been FALSELY making the rounds again for weeks now. I think Fox is done airing that one.
Windflier is correct.
You, madam/sir are an idiot.
You have no knowledge about what you are yammering.
I am a U.S. citizen born outside the U.S. and still live outside the U.S. I have been through all those different rules of citizenship throughout my life. You have not.
Do your homework and learn something.
This is one of many reasons I don’t want to live in the U.S. because of misinformed idiots like you...which are many...you are not alone.
Was Hussein and the rest of Congress just joking when they signed their names to SR 511 stating they agreed to the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS meaning?
P.S.
“I am a supporter of Jay Sekulow, and have worked with his legal team and with Free Speech Advocates, in the past.”
I wouldn’t hire your dumb friends on a bet either.
Or did the Democrats really foresee that he'd become a presidential candidate with all the amazing foresight that his grandparents showed when they got his birth certificate faked? Did they foresee everything from Senator Fitzgerald's retirement to Blair Hull's restraining order, to other candidates dropping out, to Jeri Ryan's divorce papers going public, to Alan Keyes disastrous candidacy, to Hillary's fizzling, to the stock market collapse? Some of these things may have been orchestrated, but no one could have predicted that they'd all come together as they did to put Obama in the White House.
In 2008 there was more yammering about McCain's eligibility than Obama's, so efforts to change or clarify citizenship questions would have been bipartisan. But why would an Arkansas congressman, presumably a Clintonite want to open the way to Hillary's potential challengers, whether Obama or McCain?
Also, I'd want to see the text of these resolutions. How many of them were proposed constitutional amendments, and how many were simple drafts for laws? How many of them even mentioned the "natural born citizen" provision? How many understood that in the way that birthers do and how many understood it differently?
McCaskill was also on the SR 511 committee, with Obama and Clinton, which “vetted” McCain and agreed to the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.
Yes, in the case of McCain, he is a Natural Born Citizen as he was born out of the country to two Citizen parents.
Yet, those who agree with this statement appear to misunderstand the answer to the question "Why?" If one did, one would know the very reason why the president can not have divided allegiance as it would be a military threat to the nation's sovereignty and its people.
The president commands our military, a fact this ignorant nation keeps forgetting. Are we saying we want someone owing allegiance to another nation to have control over our armed forces?? Do we want our enemies to have an inside track to controlling this force? That would never happen in in this nation, correct? After all, presidents are saints and they never ever break the laws of the Constitution.
Wrong again as usual, Kansas58.
“Yes, in the case of McCain, he is a Natural Born Citizen as he was born out of the country to two Citizen parents.”
Panama Juan was born in Colon, Rep of Panama. He needed to have been born within the jurisdiction of the United States and not in a foreign country although both parents were U.S. citizens.
You are really misinformed.
Here you go, for the 540,205,101st time on this topic:
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.
They excepted Citizens of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution because otherwise there would have been no one to be president.
We had just finished winning our independence from a country called England—The War for Independence/The Damned Rebellion—and many of the new Americans were either former British subjects or born in England.
For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in Barbados. It is unclear where Obama was born, or what his real name is, and his likely father was a British citizen.
In 1860 we fought another war—the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression—and it was fought blah blah blah.
Why do we have to keep re-teaching American history and Con law? Try to keep up!
Giving anyone the final authority on what words mean in the law is extremely dangerous. The courts rightfully have the power to interpret the law, but not to make or change it. That power is reserved to Congress, the States and the people.
The flaw in our system is that we have no effective mechanism to prevent the courts from stepping over the line from resolving ambiguities to actually making or changing law.
But giving Congress the power to make words mean whatever they want (at least as far as the law is concerned) is not the answer.
Nobody is asking the true question. Why would anyone in this nation want a dual citizen to have chief control over our armed forces?
It defies logic. It defies the Law of Nations. It defies everything our soldiers have fought for. I simply do not understand why the Pentagon has not refused to take orders from this dual citizen and demanded an impeachment. What next, Iranian halflings in the White House? Russian halflings? Cubans? Chinese? Pakistani halflings?
It boggles the mind.
It's been asked here many a time. Unfortunately, the question/answer sails over the heads of those who do not wish to hear or think.
I enjoy your posts, BTW ;)
Thank you Las Vegas Ron.
I enjoy all of our discussion. It allows us to flush out the details and get down to “brass tacks”.
There is a big difference between morality and ethics. Our Constitution is based on ethics, yet many dissenting opinions cling to morality. The two used to be separate. Now they are the same. How unfortunate for this nation that we have blurred the lines between what is, and what ought to be.
Utter nonsense.
The Framers wanted the office of president restricted to those with the purest form of citizenship that exists, i.e., those born on US soil, to two US citizen parents.
Call it what you want, but that IS the surest bar against usurpation by someone with divided national loyalties, and the Framers knew it. It doesn't take more than a layman's familiarity with the history of that era to understand why they applied this simple requirement to ONLY that one office in the Constitution.
Your case is very weak. Your attitude, and the nasty attitude of many other Birthers, is why most Conservatives ignore you folks -— it seems a waste of time to point out the flaws in your strategy and argument.
Look in the mirror, friend. It's you who are being nasty in this continuing conversation. I've seen many of your comments to others about this topic, and you are uniformly dismissive and arrogant in your replies.
And my case isn't 'weak', either. It's grounded in the conditions and historical events which formed and birthed this nation. You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating for the right of Congress and the courts to overrule the US Constitution, or to redefine it to mean whatever they want.
That is simply enabling tyranny, and opens the door to revoking the hard-won freedoms that millions have died for. You're not going to find a lot of takers for your viewpoint among a community of staunch believers in the rightness of American values, history, and our beloved Constitution.
It is apparent people are using modern morality instead of timeless ethics.
Here is another salient question with regards to Article II. If citizenship at birth was sufficient to the Natural Born requirement, why did the framers include the residency requirement? Why even require someone to be born here, yet require residency?
Common sense has been greatly diminished in this once great Republic.
That would be a 1,000+ posts thread in it's self.
One could {rightly argue, imo} that the Constitution is based on morality, and it defines ethics...lol....no, I don't want to argue it...right now anyway.
Just asking what you might have to say on it....
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.