Posted on 11/28/2008 5:01:06 PM PST by pissant
via LadyHawkke, Count Us Out Reader
Read this: Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement It is obvious BO is not natural born or his friends wouldn’t be trying so hard to make him one. http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 :
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts
Comment left by: CreativeOgre:
While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
caught my eye, and had to read it…
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf
I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government?
So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com
Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter Smiley. Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)
In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama
So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of :
“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY∗
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citi-zen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal sys-tem. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12
Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0
Where is the sorry dang creepy Main Stream Media? Even Fox News?
Like Clinton in ‘92, Obama’s youthful run could have been thought to be his national preparation for a subsequent, winning run—and so his people could have thought they’d have another four to eight years to get the clause changed.
Come join the existing thread. (not quite the same)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139758/posts
Hmmmmmm³
at the time he ran for the office, he was ineligible he defrauded the nation. He is guilty on many counrs and needs to be inprisoned in gitmo.
redacted to Mozambique
I agree....This run was supposed to be an introduction...when blacks TOTALLY moved to his side...away from the so called spouse of the first black president...he saw a chance...and the party took over. The loyal female vote (cattle vote) would slowly turn to Obama...
bring charges against all of his friends, they knowingly ran this guy for president knowing he was not able to hold the office.
send them all to gitmo.
Look through a few of these threads and you'll find even FReepers calling for us to "move on," "forget this nonsense," etc. The MSM have covered for the left so long that even many on the right are afraid to follow anything that might sound like a conspiracy theory.
Sometimes conspiracy theories prove out, and while I'm very very slow to buy into them myself, I have indeed come to believe that Obama is definitely not a natural-born citizen and probably not a U.S. citizen at all.
BTW, refusing to stand up and challenge the left's advance is exactly how we got where we are now.
MM (in TX)
Since when are liberals interested in abandoning emotion, which forms the basis of their reaction to everything?
I smell a rat...a BIG one.
So where is it going? Here is what I think:
Obama is not going to give up the BC. His lawyers will argue that the Constitution does not define "natural birth" and that a proper definition will be that one or more parents are American citizens. Period. No matter where you are born. That will be sufficient for many if not most Americans unless a very, very powerful argument can be made that there is a clear and strong legal basis for defining it differently.
If the issue of British citizenship/loyalty is brought up I expect Obama's lawyers to argue that the marriage between his mother and his father was not legal because his father already had a wife in Kenya. Obama's wife has declared that his mother was very single when Obama was born. So if you have an American mother and no legal father then they will argue that the requirements of the Constitution are satisfied no matter where Obama was born.
I'm afraid I have to predict they will win the case on that basis and we will never find out what the Birth Certificate says. But ... I hope I'm wrong.
It's only controversial if it blocks their agenda.....
It takes years and years to amend the Constitution. How many times did the ERA go around before right-thinking Americans managed to get it killed?
If this were to happen, Obama would be well out of his second term before the Constitution was amended. Maybe this is for Arnold.
Why on earth would anyone from Obama’s camp be looking at this?
From perspective this is more evidence that he’s not natural born!
Classic Leftist maneuver. Claim something is controversial and it becomes controversial.
Clearly, we are witnessing the results of a vast left wing conspiracy to destroy the United States of America. This crap has been percolating for years. Hillary's slip of the tongue about vast RIGHT wing conspiracy was an illumination of what is actually occurring on the left. They have been plotting since the 1930s and we are now seeing the fruits of their labor.
Hardly emotional...They wanted the President to be “The Most Loyal” person in Office..devoid of any loyalty to another country AT ANY TIME in his/her life.
>Where is the sorry dang creepy Main Stream Media? Even Fox News?
Probably covering-up for sorry, dang creepy politicians. [/cynic]
Ping! This is interesting & Scary!
Ping! This is interesting & Scary!
Like Clinton in ‘92, Obama’s youthful run could have been thought to be his national preparation for a subsequent, winning run
**********************************************
I have had the same thought. He didn’t start out to win this one and now he has to cover his back side.
Jennifer Grandtheft is prominent eh? I guess you could call her that. Governor of a state thats #1 in unemployment and 2 billion in debt.
Thanks, Lilpug15.
It’s-always-something Ping.
If there are rational reasons for this, Ms. Herlihy, then what is the problem? The first part of your sentence renders the second half moot. If there exists perfectly good reasons for this clause, then leave it alone and obey the law. She sounds like a typical, liberal baby boomer/shyster. This group is destroying this nation.
Very intersting info, thanks for your research and hard work. But, one thing - No info is showing up on the listed link:
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845
Just tying up loose ends...
You may be correct, but it seems the logical first step in this process is to release pertinent information/documentation.
The reason why its not a conspiracy theory is because its easy to debunk if the person releases the documentation. Since he has refused, it creates the aura of a conspiracy or something to hide. Easy to resolve if he cooperates.
Without an authentic Certificate of Birth how do we even know his mother is an American citizen? On whose word do we base the “fact” that Stanley Ann Dunham was his real mother? George Soros perhaps?
Thanks, LucyT
Save the Constitution Ping.
Sure...uh huh, someone on obama’s team wants Arnold for President. Pleeeze...
bookmark
They're busy preparing the daily serm0n, and whoreship services for the next day.
Hummmmmmmmmmm! I’ll second that.
Also, you can’t change the rules after the game starts. The Democrats are at it again.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
The left doesn't play fair. In fact they play very unfair.
But they are winning the arguments with an American population who's sense and knowledge of history is declining rapidly, partly because of immigration and partly because of a failed public school system. I'm not supporting their argument. I don't believe it is valid. But I think it will win out in the end. The Supremes may take the case and define "natural born citizen" in the manner I described or, simply make the same argument in their "conferences" and refuse to take the case. Either way we lose, the Constitution loses and the Dems win.
Like I said - I hope I'm wrong.
Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.
Ah. Discrimination rears its ugly head again but in a FAR more serious way this time.
And the eligibility as for being a natural-born citizen is “out-dated”? Since when? Where was I when this great country of ours decided that you can come from anywhere and run for our highest office?
And not to burst the author’s bubble(head), but most would assume that one’s birthplace plays a massively important role in presuming one’s undivided, whole-hearted loyalty to the country of which he’s leader.
What a pile of dung.
Remember John Madden & whoever the guy is in “The Replacements” talking about the exceptional playing ability of one ‘Ray Smith’? There couldn’t find anything out about him except that he’d been a resident of the state of Maryland for 2 years and that he knitted. (hint: think prison)
Sound familiar?
Exceptin polygamy ISTM BillyJeff legal under sHaria law.
Too bad they couldn’t get it fixed BEFORE he took office.
They can call it “stupid” all they want, but it don’t change it.
And this, in my opinion, proves that he is not natural born.
Maybe that was why when pressed about becoming President, they were hesitant. But somebody jumped the gun!
You and me both. I was hesitant and unbelieving because it sounded incredulous that someone would have the nerve!
But after it wouldn’t go away, I started reading all the loopholes and realized this really could have happened!
Now, I don’t think, I believe it 100%.
But what about Ex Post Facto law. If his mom was unable to transfer citizenship at birth, legally at the time of his birth, and he was born outside of the US, then he is not a natural born citizen.
Right. The more logical steps our arguments have to climb, the lesser the chances of a significant number of people understanding them. Your first option of simply stating that natural birth is a foggy term sounds the most clever. Since the term has no strict definition they’ll make it more clear by adopting the thought-not-required definition of either parent being an American. This will have the most appeal. It lets the rock-star candidate win and ensures no intellectual toil.
Ok. Went to the link. Unless I didn’t read closely enough, I didn’t see any citations for the “stupidest” type of claims.
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.