Skip to comments.Academia Shrugs: Obama's Citizenship and the Presidency
Posted on 01/06/2012 5:31:18 AM PST by Smokeyblue
The obstacles in Barack Obama's path to the presidency have been overcome, or covered over. Rather than merely avoiding the contentious question of Obama's "natural born" eligibility, America's academic establishment has muffled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.
The first instance of academia's cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain's eligibility, "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause." The original version was published in 2008. Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum's revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two -- yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.
Solum's unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, "The Great American Memory Hole." That column also described the strange and related story of "JustiaGate" -- the "mangling" of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia's database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett. It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of "natural born" citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen "parents," plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent. In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell -- a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor's statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It is quite a nasty judicial sleight of hand on their part. Won Kim Ark or whatever his name is happens to be a 14th amendment case, not a natural born citizen case.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Academia will not write scholarly articles about Obama’s eligibility as they had for McCain because many of them will conclude that Obama did not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. This will create a constitutional crisis which the academics want no part of!!
FUBO GTFO! 380 Days until Noon Jan 20, 2013
‘the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars’
There is no unanimous consensus!
The constitution is not subject to interpreatation by ‘scholars’ or to ‘consensus’, it is based on the original intent of the founding fathers! The founders were concern with divided loyalty. They want to assure sole allegiance, so they want to exclude people with dual citizenship/divided loyalty. Only people born in the country to citizen parents have sole allegiance. In other words only a natural born American citizen has sole allegiance and is eligible to be the pres/VP!
What amazes me the most, is that so many so-called Conservatives here on Freerepublic have rolled over on this issue, including veterans who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
You are right to an extent, but don’t rule out the troll factor. There are several known Obots posting on eligibility threads. The issue attracts them the way Obama attracts moonbats. Some get zotted and then come back—anti-birtherism is that compelling to them.
If you haven’t already done so, you should consider taking a tour of some of the biggest Obot anti-birther sites on the Web: ObamaConspiracy, Fackcheck.org and Fogbow to name three. You will see every ‘fact’ and argument used by FR anti-birthers spelled out there in easy-to-access form. You will also hear them boasting about their FR ‘stealth’ [as if we don’t know who they are] identities, and how they make us look like idiots.
It’s well worth a few minutes of your time, imho.
One clarification. Most Obot trolls flock to this subject because they genuinely believe Obama is eligible and it’s only ignorant wingnut racists who disagree. I.e.: they see themselves as immeasurably intellectually superior to knuckle-dragging ‘birthers’.
HOWEVER, the rainmaker behind the Obot anti-birther sites—Soros—knows the truth. I.e.: that Obama is not eligible. Thus he’s willing to spend whatever it takes to prevent one of these cases from reaching full blown wide-ranging Discovery. He knows if that ever happened Obama would be kaput—and along w him Soros’ plan for destroying the USA. So he has used every means $ can buy to mock, ridicule, intimidate, threaten and destroy anyone who dares take Obama’s lack of eligibility seriously. So far he has succeeded, but perhaps his methods will fall short in ‘12.
But back to the Obot Trolls. They are among the most deluded, used and clueless people on the entire Net. It’s sad yet funny at the same time. If Stalin were still around he’d have to invent an entirely new term to describe them. ‘Useful Idiots’ is far too benign.
The Marxists have no values, they admit it, and simply seek to gain and keep power. Legal scholars keep archives at Justia so the Marxists change the facts to suit themselves. Did anyone ever charge or prosecute Sandy Berger for stealing important documents from the National Archives? No! It was simply forgotten. You can bet the papers keep in Slick’s trailer park library have been scrubbed also.
Conservatives in general are the only ones with moral values and a desire to live up to the Constitution as written and intended.
Read the Marxist playbook, Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It is replete with advice on how to deceive the public and cheat the system. What about Cloward-Piven, astrategy for overwhelming and destroying our system of government? What about ACORN, a system for stealing elections with fraudulent votes? Do we want those people in power?
We are fighting the lawless who claim there are no rules for themselves but very strict rules for us. Are we going to roll over to that? Standup to them while we still can.
Here is one professor in academia that has not stayed silent.
The Eligibility Dialogue
Is President Obama Eligible to serve as President?
Dr. John Hannigan
West Valley College
Basically it is a documented ‘debate’.
Funny, I seem to have missed the part where "Obama" released his LFBC. I thought the only thing that was displayed was a bullpuckey pdf file posted on WH servers, and which was quickly and thoroughly deconstructed and demonstrated to be a fraud.