AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
According to Ms. Herlihy:
Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amend-ment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligi-bility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current Ameri-can perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstand-ings 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. 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 percep-tions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logi-cal Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons pro-moted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow natural-ized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their per-ceptions of globalization’s negative effects, to justify their decision to al-low emotion to prevail over reason.
bookmark
later
These people are just plain evil, there is no other word for it. Where ever there is evil there are lies, such that what is being peddled here is the opposite function of what the US government and it’s leaders are chartered to do for its people. The one and only purpose for the government is to protect its people, and NOT to let its people be assimilated!
By setting a precedent that immigrants can rule office, and subsequent through the following amnesty plans, which will allows immigrants to vote for their agents in US offices, we are screwed as US citizens! The left is not just unpatriotic by pursing this globalization, but evil, by forcing US citizens to give up it infrastructure that was hard earned to others on the planet whom had nothing to do with the prosperity.
Another instance of foreknowledge that this was a problem for Zero was the Senate Resolution intended to bless McCain by declaring him natural born and eligibile. It would have as much meaning legally as declaring day night. A RAT stooge had started this by filing suit claiming him to be ineligible like the idiot Donofrio. McCain simply went to court with his BC showing him born to American citizens. Those running the stooge knew this but it gave the the RATS the chance for the Senate manuver. But its real intent was in a provision McKaskell, Schumer and others tried to sneak in declaring naturalized citizens eligible.
Now why in the world would anything like that have been attempted?
4later
For tomorrow.....
*
bookmark for later
It seems clear Obama knows he’s not a natural born citizen, and has taken the constitutional law track that, in his position, most obfuscates the issue by trying to imply natural born status, via claiming to be a “native” citizen.
http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html : Jill Pryor at yale examines the ambiguities involved with citizenship and the “unresolved” issues of the relativist interpretation of the natural born requirement. By using “native citizen” it seems he hopes the natural born status will be implied.
It’s clear the founders didn’t want “disloyal foreigners acquiring positions of power” to “bring with them, not only attachments to other countries, but ideas of government so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous.”
from http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate :
“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. “
Keywords are native citizen. It could be argued Obama took it upon himself (constitutional lawyer), by running for president, to re-interpret the constitution.
Ambiguities are brought about with -where- someone is born, rather than the real issue of -loyalty-. This is indicative of possible attempts to deceive.
If we follow the relativist interpretation to it’s logical conclusions, what would there to be to stop a Kim Jong-Il or Chavez could marry an american woman, have a child in a state, get the required papers then leave with the child for the next 20 some odd years, come back for the 14 required, and have the son or daughter be president?
At the moment, I don’t see any good reason to compromise, in any way, on this issue.
This amendment anticipated a time when a candidate would have been elected but "failed to qualify" for office. And what are the odds that just such a person would march around for months flaunting his disqualification in front of all of us after the election using the very title "the President elect".
It's just surreal. It's like he is daring us to do something about it.
Pingeth I this Posteth.
Seen this thread?
The man is ignorant about what ‘ natural born’ signifys and the significance of the intent by the Founding Fathers. Their reasons then are just as valid today and even more important today when it is clear that Obama and his enablers have done so much to change what has been sacred over the years.