Constitutional Eligibility
Posted on 03/27/2013 12:04:37 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
From Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 9:11 am
Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel...
(Excerpt) Read more at obamaconspiracy.org ...
"Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College."
But then a few comments down, he states:
"March 27, 2013 at 9:11 am (Quote) #
"Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel, and that the US is now a powerful and wealthy nation. That said, I see no groundswell of sentiment that would reach the high bar necessary for a Constitutional amendment, so we’re left with what we have."
What you just read is the mindset of a Obama supporter. I do not agree with his opinion, nor with his other supporters who agree with him 100%, that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is no longer relevant. In my opinion, it has become more relevant than ever since we have had a non-natural born Citizen become president five years and counting. The quest to keep Article 2 Section 1 from becoming irrelevant is paramount to the national security of this nation.
Constitutional Eligibility
So their argument is “He was born here, and even if he wasn’t born here it doesn’t matter because ...”
Considering the present situation, I'd say that's about right. Not saying I like it, but reality agrees with that statement.
If there was a law about being a citizen or an NBC and it has fallen into disuse, such facts do not invalidate the law.
If I am ever in court for anything, I’ll just tell the judge that the law he wants to charge me with breaking is no longer ‘relevant’.
Will that work?
on the contrary, the Founders were very, very astute to address the issue of keeping enemy agents out of the White House
and there have been few, if any, times when this part of our Constitution has been MORE “relevant”
By the way, how many people have lost their jobs as a result of Fast & Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi or EPA's shadow Email scandal or fraudulent CBO estimates presented by Nancy Pelosi during 0bamacare? By the way, Pelosi COMMITTED FRAUD when she certified 0bama eligible to be a presidential candidate when she was Speaker of the House. Blah blah blah, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, too numerous to mention, etc, etc, and so on and so forth.
Dr. ‘Zot Clown’ CON has come a long way.
If the GOP cared about the Law (they do not)
and America (they do not), they would not have
allowed non-NBC (Mexican) Romney to run.
But they did, because the GOP supports ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE,
gay marriage, and the rest of the Mexican Romney agenda.
It failed to keep FDR out of the White House ~
If he really believes it, and thinks he can convince a enough other people it is, he should call for a convention to amend it out.
It isn't, he doesn't, he can't, and he won't.
Well f, let’s just allow anyone to run for president. I wonder Raúl Castro would be interested?
Or to quote SOS Clinton, “What difference does it make”?
Well hell’s bells, let’s just go see if Putin and/or the Iranian guy Mark Levin calls yabba dabba do are interested.
Those guys are boring. Let’s get Kim Jung Un and have President Gangnam Style.
“I do not agree with his opinion, nor with his other supporters who agree with him 100%, that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is no longer relevant.”
Do you consider Senator Santorum to be a natural born citizen?
And he's not the first leftist to declare that a specific part of the Constitution that impedes his intended agenda is no longer relevant, although specifically attacking the "Natural Born Citizen" clause in this fashion is something kind of unique to the Obamatons.
Efforts at deligitimizing the Constitution by pronouncing disagreeable pieces of it "archaic" or inapplicable to the current day - as an alternative to pursuing much more difficult amendment process - were common throughout American history. Franklin D. Roosevelt did this with the "interstate commerce" clause, describing it as a relic of the horse and buggy era, because it (temporarily) put limits on congressional power to control the economy by enabling the SCOTUS to nullify some of his New Deal legislation as unconstitutional.
In many ways, the Obama era is a rerun of the 1930s. Not so much a coincidence, but because the intellectuals in the Obama camp are well aware of that earlier era and have a similar policy approach, especially on the economy.
1. Limiting voting to citizens.
2. Advice and Consent of the Senate.
3. Unlawful search and seizure.
4. Unlawful takings.
5. Self-defense with one's own arms.
6. Petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.