Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement

Count us Out ^ | 11/28/08 | staff

[pissant]

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 :

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…

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

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 Smiley. 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.

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (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.

http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0

[Birmingham Rain]

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.

---

Ah. Discrimination rears its ugly head again but in a FAR more serious way this time.

And the eligibility as for being a natural-born citizen is “out-dated”? Since when? Where was I when this great country of ours decided that you can come from anywhere and run for our highest office?

And not to burst the author’s bubble(head), but most would assume that one’s birthplace plays a massively important role in presuming one’s undivided, whole-hearted loyalty to the country of which he’s leader.

What a pile of dung.

[combat_boots]

Remember John Madden & whoever the guy is in “The Replacements” talking about the exceptional playing ability of one ‘Ray Smith’? There couldn’t find anything out about him except that he’d been a resident of the state of Maryland for 2 years and that he knitted. (hint: think prison)

Sound familiar?

[rawcatslyentist]

>"I expect Obama's lawyers to argue that the marriage between his mother and his father was not legal because his father already had a wife in Kenya."

Exceptin polygamy IS^{TM BillyJeff} legal under sHaria law.

[autumnraine]

Too bad they couldn’t get it fixed BEFORE he took office.

They can call it “stupid” all they want, but it don’t change it.

And this, in my opinion, proves that he is not natural born.

[autumnraine]

Maybe that was why when pressed about becoming President, they were hesitant. But somebody jumped the gun!

[BIGLOOK]

To change the Constitution takes 75% approval of the states. Although some SCOTUS decisions wrongly interpreted the Constitution, they were reversed.

How ironic would it be if SCOTUS decided this case in Obama's favor making him the first 5/9ths President?

[autumnraine]

You and me both. I was hesitant and unbelieving because it sounded incredulous that someone would have the nerve!

But after it wouldn’t go away, I started reading all the loopholes and realized this really could have happened!

Now, I don’t think, I believe it 100%.

[OneWingedShark]

But what about Ex Post Facto law. If his mom was unable to transfer citizenship at birth, legally at the time of his birth, and he was born outside of the US, then he is not a natural born citizen.

[philomath]

Right. The more logical steps our arguments have to climb, the lesser the chances of a significant number of people understanding them. Your first option of simply stating that natural birth is a foggy term sounds the most clever. Since the term has no strict definition they’ll make it more clear by adopting the thought-not-required definition of either parent being an American. This will have the most appeal. It lets the rock-star candidate win and ensures no intellectual toil.

[CaptRon]

Ok. Went to the link. Unless I didn’t read closely enough, I didn’t see any citations for the “stupidest” type of claims.

[little jeremiah]

Just in case you haven’t seen this.

[autumnraine]

“Obama is not going to give up the BC. His lawyers will argue that the Constitution does not define “natural birth” and that a proper definition will be that one or more parents are American citizens. Period. No matter where you are born. That will be sufficient for many if not most Americans unless a very, very powerful argument can be made that there is a clear and strong legal basis for defining it differently”

How about this specific one:
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.

I don’t care how much the people don’t care, the law is the law. Once we start avoiding the law and start treating our courts based on a system of emotion, we are screwed and it doesn’t matter anyway.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.

I would like to give this statement the "Dumbest Statement Ever Made" Award for this and the last millennium. There any MANY reasons for this requirement AND NONE OF THEM ARE "EMOTIONAL."

[autumnraine]

Awww, come on FlingWing, you know those founding fathers just hated Mexicans and other immigrants. /s

[FlingWingFlyer]

LOL!

[lacrew]

I also learned what it took to change the constitution, when I was in 8th grade. Unfortunately, I recently read a story about how terribly sitting congressmen did when asked basic civics questions.

With these leftists, nothing is absolute. The media will be a willing co-conspirator. They will say ‘natural born’ is vague, or undefined. They will ask if the will of the people should’t supercede this ‘silly’, ‘outdated’ provision...especially during such an ‘important time’. If the media behaved responsibly, I think we could avoid riots and bloodshed...I predict they won’t behave responsibly. I’m sure some of the same thoughts are going through the SCOTUS heads...I hope they fulfill their responsibilities and defend the constitution.

[Jewels1091]

that would be a constitutional amendment, and that is 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states...won’t happen.

[nufsed]

I think that’s 3/4ths of the states.

[proudCArepublican]

Go figure

[corvus]

I,too, hope it works out differently. Keep in mind that the intent to deceive throughout this sorry tome carries with it the implicit self admission that ‘His’ birth credentials failed to meet the eligibility to serve in office set forth in the Constitution.