ELIGIBILITY OF OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT

letter from senator martinez | 3/10/09 | tatsinfla

[Michael Michael]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land is the only law that cannot be overturned by a simple vote by the voters. That takes a long slow process of a con con and there’s a good reason it’s slow.

A constitutional convention isn't required to amend the Constitution. Nor does amending the Constitution necessarily take a long time.

For example, the Twenty Sixth Amendment, setting the voting age to 18, was proposed on March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1971, and certified on July 7, 1971. Less than four months.

Most amendments didn't take but a few years to ratify. Of course there's always the exception to the rule. The Twenty Seventh Amendment was proposed in 1789, but wasn't ratified until 1992, a whopping 203 years later!

[Michael Michael]

I think the explanation for Obama not showing the original birth certificate from Hawaii, which porobably does exist, is simple.

It was common practice to put the fathers religion as the child’s religion on the birth certificate.

That would be a nice theory of it wasn't for the fact that there's absolutely nothing in a Hawaiian birth certificate having to do with religion, parents, child, or otherwise.

Try again.

[Michael Michael]

If his mother did not provide the father’s name and race, the hospital would default to the mother’s race.

The BC says that Barry is “Caucasian”!

There's no provision for the race of the child on a Hawaiian birth certificate. Race is only given for the parents.

[Michael Michael]

1. then why wouldn’t obama produce the cert that would put everything to rest?

It would put nothing to rest. It would only spawn another generation of conspiracies.

[elpadre]

and a big plus could be significant reduction in campaign expenditures for the senate and perhaps a non-millionaire mayor or school principal being chosen by a legislature for the job. Today's system is broken.

[Michael Michael]

Anybody have some hip waders I can borrow? rivang piles the BS pretty high.

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

De Vattel was of no relevance with regard to citizenship in the United Stats. The foundation of citizenship in the United States was the English common law both during the colonial period, and after our founding. The English common law is jus solis, which meant that if you were born in the United States, you were a citizen of the United States regardless of the citizenship of your parents, unless your parents happened to be ambassadors or foreign diplomats residing in the United States at the time of your birth. In that instance, you were not a citizen of the United States. This too comes straight from English common law.

The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

The founders simply wanted to exclude naturalized citizens. And this too comes straight from English common law, where naturalized citizens were not able to hold political positions such as in the Privy Council, or in Parliament.

The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.

Again, it was simply to exclude naturalized citizens, who would otherwise be able to serve in the House and the Senate.

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

Readers should take note of the fact that rivang is being completely dishonest with you here through the use of selective editing.

What rivang doesn't tell you is that the 1795 Act he cites here has to do with children born OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. Not those born IN the United States.

Further, along with the children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens, it also includes children born outside the United States whose parents were not even US citizens at the time they were born.

Here's the COMPLETE text from the 1795 Statute that rivang dishonestly keeps from you:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling in the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

In other words, children who were born, say, in Russia, to parents who were Russian citizens, but whose parents came to the United States and became naturalized citizens before the children were tweny-one years old, were considered the same as children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

Again, rivang is being dishonest here just as he was with the 1795 Act. Again, this applied to children born OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

Please note that BOTH the 1790 and 1795 Acts refer to children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens. However the language was changed from "natural born citizen" in the 1790 Act to simply "citizen" in the later 1795 Act.

What happened between 1790 and 1795?

The ratification of the Tenth Amendment. That's what happened.

The Constitution only gave Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Tenth Amendment made it clear that Congress may only do that which it is constitutionally empowered to do. Basically, Congress overstepped its bounds in the 1790 Act by declaring certain people to be citizens other than naturalized citizens. After the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, those same persons became simply "citizens." Naturalized citizens.

[roamer_1]

[...] it won't necessarily give us a better senator, just one beholden to a different patronage system.

Yes... 50 of them, all with different interests and needs... much harder to lobby, IMHO.

[Natural Law]

"Yes... 50 of them, all with different interests and needs... much harder to lobby, IMHO."

If your state capitol isn't the corrupt, inept, Gerrymandered cesspool mine is you might be right, but I doubt it.

[roamer_1]

If your state capitol isn't the corrupt, inept, Gerrymandered cesspool mine is you might be right, but I doubt it.

Perhaps so, and perhaps even worse, but not in the same way, and not by the very same "good ol' boys", as is the case in DC...

My point is that it is much harder to influence US senators who are beholden to state houses, which pay their own pipers, and will remember next election whether or not the senator performed accordingly, because their own graft and greed depend upon it.

Furthermore, it is much harder for any lobby to influence the senator, as to do so, the lobby must also influence the state houses that stand behind the senator, and to gain real influence, they must do that in multiple states. Suddenly that is not a single bribe to buy a vote, but many, many bribes. Lobbying becomes very costly indeed.

[smokingfrog]

BHO bc ping

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

How dare you inject fact into my rumor-mongering!

[Michael Michael]

How dare you inject fact into my rumor-mongering!

Sorry about that. It's a rather nasty habit I picked up from the rotten excuse for parents who raised me.

If only I'd been adopted by that nice Goebbels family that lived down the street...

[tatsinfla]

so is it the courts or the voters? if its the voters then by what he said in your letter anyone can run for the office of president and if he or she garners enough votes they can run the country regardless of nationality. these people in washington on spitting on the very paper that was written to protect this country.

[Red Steel]

Hey Michelle what happened? LoL!