The natural born clause in the Constitution is stupid, so says Sarah Herlihy an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm. She has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president must be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
By de Andréa
This long awaited case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court Justices will decide whether they will hear the case.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, not so coincidently; just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis..
Click here to read the article by Herlihy, it is available online under law review articles from Kent University. The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been substantiated accusations that Obama was born in Mambassa Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombassa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.
The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet is not considered by critics to be authentic and thereby doesn’t resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii
There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia which requires Indonesian citizenship, and later when he traveled to Pakistan which didn’t at that time allow U.S. passports. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation's passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.
Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution's demand for a "natural-born" citizen.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
What Sarah Herlihy doesn’t seem to realize, is that one must change the Constitution before the fact, not subsequent to electing a foreign Muslim as president of the United States.
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
Read all the evidence about Obama's birthplace in Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."
She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.” Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
THE BOTTOM LINE: Today, Friday, December 5, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide if they will hear the case of Obama’s questionable citizenship.
A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of: 'If the facts do not support the theory, destroy the facts!"
"Garbage he says"
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This is garbage says a spokesman for the Obama campaign
Ill have you know, Mr. Barrack Hussein Obammah, the Constitution of the United States is NOT "garbage" and furthermore, securing the rights of the people under the Constitution is NOT "garbage" either!The Obama campaign's response is an elitist, condescending ‘hate America’ slap in the face of all Americans, even the ones deceived enough to vote for him. No one is above the law and Team Obama cannot make the question of Obama's eligibility go away by disrespecting the American people - and the Constitution of the United States.
de Andréa
By de Andréa
This long awaited case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court Justices will decide whether they will hear the case.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, not so coincidently; just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis..
Click here to read the article by Herlihy, it is available online under law review articles from Kent University. The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been substantiated accusations that Obama was born in Mambassa Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombassa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.
The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet is not considered by critics to be authentic and thereby doesn’t resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii
There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia which requires Indonesian citizenship, and later when he traveled to Pakistan which didn’t at that time allow U.S. passports. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation's passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.
Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution's demand for a "natural-born" citizen.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
What Sarah Herlihy doesn’t seem to realize, is that one must change the Constitution before the fact, not subsequent to electing a foreign Muslim as president of the United States.
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
Read all the evidence about Obama's birthplace in Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."
She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.” Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
THE BOTTOM LINE: Today, Friday, December 5, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court will look at the evidence and decide if they will hear the case of Obama’s questionable citizenship.
A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of: 'If the facts do not support the theory, destroy the facts!"
"Garbage he says"
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This is garbage says a spokesman for the Obama campaign
Ill have you know, Mr. Barrack Hussein Obammah, the Constitution of the United States is NOT "garbage" and furthermore, securing the rights of the people under the Constitution is NOT "garbage" either!The Obama campaign's response is an elitist, condescending ‘hate America’ slap in the face of all Americans, even the ones deceived enough to vote for him. No one is above the law and Team Obama cannot make the question of Obama's eligibility go away by disrespecting the American people - and the Constitution of the United States.
de Andréa
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment