Posted on 06/09/2011 10:07:51 AM PDT by rxsid
"A Conspiracy to Change the “natural born Citizen” Requirement
If you think that our Congress-members do not know about nor understand the meaning of the ‘natural born Citizen’ requirements for one to be President and Commander in Chief, then you must take a look at the efforts they have made to eliminate it over the past decade.
And if you are wondering why Rep. Darrell Issa, as head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, refuses to address the greatest Constitutional crisis ever in the history of our Constitutional Republic, just see below where the illustrious Congressman was a co-sponsor on H.J.R 59 [6] in the 108th Congress in 2003 – to totally eliminate the natural born Citizen requirement:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
And they were obviously aware that this blatant conspiracy to deprive Americans of the original intent to provide this nation with an allegiance-only-to-America President and Commander in Chief would be a major change to one of the original Articles, not even a mistaken Amendment (like prohibition)
...
Our friends at the United States Patriots Union have made it simple and easy for us to contact our State officials and our local newspapers" ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
| Office | Citizenship | Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
|
|
|||
| President - Commander in Chief of the military (1 of 1) | natural born Citizen | 35 | 14 years resident |
|
|
|||
| Senator (1 of many) | Citizen | 30 | 9 years a Citizen |
|
|
|||
| Represantative (1 of many) | Citizen | 25 | 7 years a Citizen |
|
|
"A Conspiracy to Change the “natural born Citizen” Requirement"
If anyone has ever wondered why Issa wont investigate Barry's eligibility...look no further than here (and the fact that he was part of the 111th Congress that counted the E.C. votes for the fraud).
Dude is seriously confused. A proposal to amend the Constitution cannot be “a conspiracy.” It is following the procedure spelled out in the Constitution itself and is certainly far more respectful of the Constitution than ignoring it or “amending” it by judicial fiat. Although Americans can certainly differ on whether any given amendment is a good idea.
Personally, I have no problem with (properly) amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible.
The notion that “natural-born citizens” have some sort of innate loyalty to the country is pretty thoroughly destroyed by the tens of millions of indisputably NBCs who quite obviously loathe and despise their country of birth.
I’ll take a loyal naturalized citizen over one of them anyday.
I would also like to see an amendment that linked two ideas:
1. Make passing an amendment considerably easier than it now is.
2. Place strict limits on the power of judges to rewrite the Constitution at their whim. I’m not sure how to do this, but I think it’s important to find a way.
with (properly) amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible.
I guess we will know for sure about Barry when they make the amendment retroactive.
I would not be for “making it easier to amend” at all. That is one of its strengths in my opinion.
Your post consists of nonsensical ranting.
I strongly disagree. The fact that it is almost impossible to amend has resulted in no truly substantive amendment being passed since 1933, arguably since 1919.
The Founders would have been the first to agree that a changing society requires changes in its system of government.
The problem is not that our system has not changed, it is that it has changed (in the last 70 to 100 years) through unconstitutional and even anti-constitutional means.
your post, and its contents, are one of the many reasons this country is screwed
You may want to develop a new hobby.
Possibly, although I think using constitutional means to change our system of government when necessary is exactly what the Founders had in mind.
As opposed to pretending we can continue on without change and by default allowing that change to take place unconstitutionally.
When the Founders saw they had a system of government that didn’t meet the need, they nor only modified it, as instructed, they destroyed it and created the Constitution as we now have it. They would have been the last people to worship a document when it no longer worked as intended.
Do you disagree with my contention that no truly substantive issue has been dealt with by an amendment for almost 100 years? Do you think this is a good thing?
“That is one of its strengths in my opinion.”
Absolutely right. The Constitution has been festooned with far too many amendments already and think of some of the ones that have been proposed in just the last 30 or 40 years. Good lord.
There are some that ought to be repealed (the 17th for starters) but I don’t expect to see that happen.
Agreed.
I'm not for "watering down" the requirement for the Commander in Chief.
In fact, in this day and age of "globalism," anti-Americanism and anti-sovereignty more prevalent at home today, I'd be in favor of Amending the Constitution to require only "natural born Citizen's" being eligible for the position of Speaker of the House as well as for SCOTUS justices. Perhaps even for President pro tempore of the Senate.
Of course the nbC requirement isn't 100% foolproof. It was never intended to be. It is, however, a "strong check" against foreign influence upon our national government.
16th - Income tax
17th - Direct election of senators
19th - Womens’ voting rights
22nd - Two term limit for presidents
26th - Lower voting age to 18
All these seem substantive to me. The first two should never have happened.
Are you confused about the natural born Citizen requirement?
Look who's talking!
I guess we will have to disagree on what “substantive” means. I take it to be an issue of considerable political disagreement in the country.
This country had a very strong tradition of “two terms and out” for most of its history, part of the “unwritten constitution.” Only FDR broke it, in somewhat unique circumstances.
As I understand it, there was little opposition to the incorporating the old tradition into the Constitution.
But using your criteria we’re still back to more than 60 years since anything important has been done by amendment.
***When the Founders saw they had a system of government that didn’t meet the need, they nor only modified it, as instructed, they destroyed it and created the Constitution as we now have it.***
No, our founders worked and worked and worked, and finally gave us the best constitution the world has ever seen. And YOU think you know more than they did.
***They would have been the last people to worship a document when it no longer worked as intended.***
Our Constitution DOES work as intended, especially when it said no one with divided loyalties should ever become president.
Growing Momentum for Subsidized Guardianship Momentum has been growing at the federal, state and local levels for improved support for grandparents and other relative caregivers and the children they are raising. There is growing recognition of the important contribution being made by relative caregivers who are raising 2.5 million children with neither parent present and the special efforts of relative caregivers who are raising as many as 200,000 grandchildren or nieces and nephews in the formal foster care system. Help is needed for both groups.
At the local level, grandparents and other relative caregivers raising children have established support groups in many states. In some, strong kinship care networks have been established that link family caregivers with others in the state who are working on behalf of grandparents and other relative caregivers. Last year more than 850 grandparents and other relative caregivers from 28 states came to Washington, D.C. on their own to participate in the 2003 GrandRally to Leave No Child Behind® held on October 15th on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. They had an opportunity to talk to their Representatives and Senators about what they were doing for their grandchildren and nieces and nephews and what help they needed from federal policymakers. Since that time, State GrandRallies have been held in seven states and more are planned early in 2005. These rallies help caregivers connect with each other, with others advocating on their behalf, and often with legislators and judges who may be helpful in securing needed changes on their behalf.
State Facts Sheets on Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children, prepared jointly by CDF, AARP, Generations United, Casey Family Programs, the Child Welfare League of America, Brookdale Foundation, the Urban Institute, and Johnson & Hedgpeth, highlight activities underway in each state to support the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of families where grandparents
and other relatives are raising children whose parents cannot care for them.
Great article about this issue by JB Williams:
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm
EVIDENCE BROADENS OBAMA NATURAL BORN CONSPIRACY
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.