Posted on 10/29/2011 1:02:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie
We should be wary of allowing any court to define Constitutional terms. Even more important, for the very sake of representative government, we must resolutely oppose judicial interference with the Presidential election process.
From Madison’s record of the Federal Convention, it is clear the Framers considered anyone born in the US, less slaves and indians, to be a natural born citizen. They did not bother to specify parentage because it just didn’t matter. What was important was to minimize the possibility of a paid foreign born agent becoming President. Yes, I know Wiki says it was to keep foreign aristocrats out. Wiki is wrong.
So, who or what body gets to define NBC? Since Congress has all legislative powers therein granted under our Constitution, it would seem after 220+ years, it would have come up with a definition. But it hasn’t, and actually it doesn’t matter that Congress has been silent. Equally irrelevant are the various musings of the Courts over these past 140 years. NBC applies solely to Presidential elections and the Framers wisely set up a system that kept Scotus entirely out of it.
The reason is called separation of powers. We take for granted (Or have most of us forgotten?) that Congress cannot judge felony guilt or innocence, nor can federal judges make law. The concept was not exactly clear early in the convention. For instance, it was thought a Council of Revision, composed of Scotus and the President should be responsible for deciding which bills from Congress become law. After some heated debate, a majority figured out it would be best to keep Scotus out of political decisions and give limited veto powers to the President.
Nothing is more political than elections, and as per Article II Section I and the Twelfth Amendment, the duty to give us a President lies with State legislatures and Congress.
Federal courts can no more legitimately interfere with the vote of State electors than it can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable. To do so would be a gross, impeachable violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, all liberals and too many Freepers have fallen into a rat trap concocted these past 80 years that any dispute must be settled by a branch of government unaccountable to the people. It simply isn’t true and Scotus cannot legitimately “fill in” when some people become disgusted with the other branches.
But, you say, the Constitution is silent as to ambassador qualifications. Quite right, so who or what body is responsible for keeping a Kenyan, or any clearly foreign born and positively unqualified individual out of the White House?
As I have explained, it isn’t Scotus. The responsibility can only be with the parties charged with giving us a President, State Legislatures which are responsible for the appointment of electors, the electors themselves and perhaps the Senate which counts the votes. That is why it was not unimportant for the Senate in 2008 to find that McCain met the Constitutional requirements. Our Senate must ultimately count the electoral votes and that Senate decided McCain was qualified. Very simple, and no court can interfere with State electoral votes, nor the Senate in its duty to count the votes as directed by the Constitution.
The place to stop Constitutionally unqualified candidates is your State legislature. These are the people our Constitution charged with exercising electoral judgment. Do you know the name of your State Rep and Senator? You should, for he/she is the one who must be satisfied that your State sends votes for qualified candidates to the US Senate. Now, what if it becomes clear after an election the President was born in Kenya as I believe Hussein was? What if the Kenyan Ambassador publicized his Brit/Kenyan Birth Cert tomorrow? The only solution prior to the next election is impeachment and conviction. Don’t even think about Scotus or any federal court; they won’t touch it and shouldn’t. The Constitution provides the means to be rid of him and it is not the courts. Oh, and if for instance Hussein’s Praetorian Guard, aka the Senate makes it clear it will not vote to convict the man who boldly violated the Constitution? Tough. Let the political chips fall where they may.
Finally and actually most importantly, our Leftists Rulers over the generations have so polluted case law, that most politicians and almost all average citizens think the Constitution means whatever the courts say it means. Liberals love precedent and despise our beloved Constitution. If you think federal courts have the power to define NBC, adjudicate the Constitutional qualifications of a candidate, and subsequently deny a candidate or boot a nominee off a Presidential ballot, you will set in motion a process that will ultimately result in judicial selection of Presidents.
Don’t laugh, consider what Scotus did to the innocuous and harmless Commerce Clause beginning 70 years ago. A once well understood enumerated power may become the tool to enslave under Obamacare, the once freest people on earth.
I predict Scotus will steer clear. Be fall-on-your knees thankful, if given the opportunity to substitute its opinion for that of the States, our Scotus pulls back and lets a representative republic do its duty. If you think Hussein & Rubio are Constitutionally unqualified, do YOUR duty and impress your thoughts to your State rep and Senator.
NBC Ping!
Rubio has all ready said he will not run as VP so why waste the effort?
The same would be true for Obama.
-PJ
Natural Born was traditionally taken to mean born in this country to parents who were both citizens.
So Obama does not qualify even if he was born in Hawaii, which is extremely unlikely. Because his father was Kenyan or British at the time of his birth. Assuming that his father actually WAS Obama, or that Obama and Dunham were legally married, both of which are uncertain too.
Rubio doesn’t qualify either.
Just because the Democrats cheated, lied, and committed felonies to put Obama into office illegally does not mean that the Republicans should imitate them. We have too many Rinos doing that already.
No it wasn't.
I decide.
If Rubio is not qualified to be POTUS, then Obama certainly is not as his Father was not a US citizen.
The point of my brilliant, yet humble analysis is that Scotus and precedent have nothing to do with the election of our President, no matter where he was born, or to whom.
>>Natural Born was traditionally taken to mean born in this country to parents who were both citizens.
According to the “Natural Born” Experts at WND, I’m not “Natural born” because my parents were minors when I was born. I hate Obama and everything he stands for, but coming up with all these new restrictions to the definition of “Natural born” is just a distraction.
Can you refer me to an official document or judicial decision which stipulates that a natural born citizen is whose both parents are US citizens?
If there is such a document present, why is then Obama allowed to operate as President? His father was never a US citizen. He was here on a student visa.
In “practical terms” any person born on US soil will never be dis-qualified in future to run for president/vice president. That precedent has been set with Obama signing all the bills passed into laws.
No official group will ever go there because it will null and void every law signed into law by Obama. Never happen in a million years. You can take that to the bank.
“Natural Born was traditionally taken to mean born in this country to parents who were both citizens.”
“No it wasn’t.”
Yes it was. If you read the Federalist Papers you will see the intent of the framers as to Natural Born. 4 SCOTUS cases have already defined Natural Born as born in the US of two US citizen parents.
Barack Obama was allowed to slip through the crack and you see how thats turned out.
I must have missed that Federalist. Which one?
As I said in my post, that is not what the Framers said at the Constitutional Convention.
You sound awfully jolly about the demise of our Constitutional Republic.
....noob.....
just sayin’
By current interpretation of the law, yes, he is qualified.
By a 1790 interpretation of the naturalization act of 1790, he probably would also be qualified.
That would be Minor v. Happersett, the citation to which has been recently discovered to have been expunged from Justia.com by Leo Donofrio...possibly illegally in June 2008 in time to prevent proper vetting of Obama.
If Obama did not have a serious concern that the Minor case would render him ineligible, why would operatives take the dangerous step of bothering to suppress citation to the case and all of the cases that cite Minor...unless, of course, they thought the could get away with it at least until after the election.
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.