Skip to comments.Sure Obamaís ineligible, but itís only the Constitution that says so
Posted on 06/03/2011 8:17:52 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
On April 30th of 2008, the United States Senate proclaimed John McCain eligible to become the President of the United States, passing by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 511 which stated that his birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not violate the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution.
One of the co-sponsors of this non-binding resolution was Barack Hussein Obama.
Though the Constitution does not define natural born, it is clear that the meaning had been based upon principles included in a work quite popular with many of the Founders, the 1758 Law of Nations by Frenchman Emerich de Vattel.
According to the Law of Nations, the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
So because of his birth in a Panama hospital, embarrassing questions were being raised about McCains Constitutional eligibility to serve.
Nevertheless, rather than adhere to the text and spirit of the Constitution and engage in honest debate, members of the imperial senate rushed to put the issue to rest by ignoring the language of the document to which they had sworn a solemn oath of allegiance.
And the true motive for this betrayal of trust is more disgraceful than the betrayal itself. For it was quietly hoped this cynical, bipartisan resolution proclaiming McCains eligibility might insure no question would arise about another candidate, one who was clearly and irretrievably ineligible for the highest office in the land.
In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress; signatory to the Constitution wrote, what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.
Regardless of Barack Obamas birthplace, his father was a British citizen,
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Wasn’t this issue raised over the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. There was, I believe, a question of his own eligibility as he was born in Arizona, BEFORE it became a state, but was a mere “territory”. He was truly born within the United States of American citizens.
Further weren’t McCain’s parents in Panama on MILITARY ASSIGNMENT. If some idiot tries to tell me that the young cousin, born on an AirForce base in Japan, where her father was stationed is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the USA, you know where they can go. I’m not sure, but I think this principle also accrues to children born of missionaries from America, temporarily in a foreign country.
The relevant law is Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001, which states, in part, that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years.
Let’s have a closer look at that Birth Certificate!
The constitution doesn’t “say” anything of the sort. If the founders wanted to require that every president have two citizen parents, it could have said so in plain and clear language. It didn’t. Please also not that NOBODY raised this objection to Chester Arthur even though it was well born that he had an Irish born father.
Don’t agree with you. The founders DID say it in plain language of the day. Chester Arthur’s parents were permanent residents of the US, and who’s going to make an issue of it today, in any case?
An old friend recently forwarded an email from a local Congressional Representative. It concerned Obozos use of an autopen to sign the extension of the so-called Patriot Act. He and his 500 member entourage were on yet another European leg of his taxpayer funded world tour. My reply to him follows.
I share Tom’s concerns and more. Much, much more.
The alien usurper now infesting the White House MUST be turned out BEFORE the 2012 election and EVERY action he has initiated while there declared null and void.
If his occupancy of the office is allowed to stand, this country no longer has a Constitution and every member of Congress who remained silent on this matter should be handcuffed, brought back to his/her district and horsewhipped in public.
During my last 30 minute one-on-one with former Rep. John Linder about 6 years ago, he told me something I already knew. He said that the country was dangerously close to the tipping point where the number of Americans (and NON-Americans) LIVING OFF THE TAX-PAYING PRODUCERS AND BORROWED GOVERNMENT LARGESSE WOULD EXCEED 50%. When we reached the point where those non-producing citizens and non-citizens voted and/or the “progressive” apparatchiksk running the Democrat Party could stuff enough ballot boxes or jigger enough voting machines, the America we knew would be over. The “coronation” of the illegal alien in 2008 is proof that the America we knew is, in fact, over.
I pray for our children and grandchildren. Having said that, given the infiltration of “progressive” indoctrination into the government schools, they probably won’t even know that their former birthright has been stolen by the uninformed, ignorant and the lazy handmaidens of power-mad would-be despots.
When an opponent declares, I will not come over to your side, I calmly say, Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolph Hitler Speech November 1933
Sorry to sugar coat it, but I dare not reveal how I REALLY feel lest I get a 3 am visit by the new Gestapo (aka the FBI).
Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. That xenophobic radical, Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Jeffersons concerns go right to the heart of the vital questions of uncontrolled immigration and, in Obozos case, natural born citizenship, dont they? http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/notes-on-virginia-8.html
There were challenges to Arthur’s eligibility at the time. Quite a few in fact. The lack of a solid paper trail (not unusual in that era) hindered the objectors efforts.
Do you only follow one line - mistranslated- out of Vattel?
Or do you actually follow what Vattel wrote?
Chester Arthur lied about his age and burned his documents to make it look as if he was born AFTER his father obtained his U.S. Naturalization.
The challenges focused solely on claims that he was born in Canada. NOBODY even hinted that his father's citizenship status might be an issue. As to paper trail, it was widely reported in 1880 that Irish father was born in Ireland yet NOBODY even bothered to ask if he was a citizen. Why? You have only two ways to explain this. Either voters in 1880 were ignorant trusting sheeple when compared to today's voters (IMHO, the opposite is true) or they did not see his father's citizenship as an issue that was even worth talking about.
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? I'll bet that not a single person ever challenged Arthur on this issue (e.g. his father's citizenship status) from 1880 (when he ran for veep) to 1885 when he left office?
How do you intend to prove that?
Are you advocating that there should be no two citizen parent requirement for eligibility? If so, why?
Please explain why pray-tell this would make any difference since Arthur's father had lived in the U.S. for a decade prior to Chet's birth, plenty of time to become a citizen.
In any case, this motivation doesn't make sense in another respect. Arthur's papers were burned in 1886. He left office in 1885. Again, you have two choices. If he had really done this as part of a devious cover-up, he woudl have burned them in 1880 (or earlier).
Again, you are stuck with two choices. Because they never bothered to even raise the issue from 1880 to 1885, voters from 1880 to 1885 were ignorant trusting sheeple compared to today's voters OR they didn't think this issue had any bearing on his eligibility.
Arthur readily admitted in 1880! that his father was Irish born yet nobody thought that this issue merited a follow-up question.
Oh....the a”lie” was that Arthur said he was born in 1830 rather than 1829. Big friggin’ deal.
I have the Arthur precedent and I also have a nineteenth century SC ruling on my side, the Kim Wong Ark case. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Well...nobody (INCLUDING ARTHUR'S BIOGRAPHERS AND YOU) has presented evidence to the contrary for your conspiracy theory. If you want to smear President Arthur's reputation, the burden of proof is on you not me.
John McCain lied about being born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone and Congress resolution 511 incorretly states so. Colon Hospital was outside of the U.S. Panama Canal Zone.
Anyway, the legislative Branch of the U.S. Government is not delegated with the power to change the Constitution (States) or determine the the meaning of the wording (SCOTUS) so 511 is legally worthless.