Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement via LadyHawkke, Count Us Out Reader
Read this: Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement It is obvious BO is not natural born or his friends wouldn’t be trying so hard to make him one.
http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 : (DEAD LINK)
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts
Comment left by: CreativeOgre:
While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
caught my eye, and had to read it…
I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com
Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
KIRKLAND LINK (towards bottom of the page)
In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama
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!”
Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY∗ INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11
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 out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citi-zen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal sys-tem. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
see 9032