Obama Finance Committee Member's Lawfirm Floats "Repeal" of Natural Born Citizen Requirement

scribd.com ^ | 2006 | Sarh Herlihy

[capacommie]

"The natural born citizenship requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution, has been called "the stupidest provision" in the Constitution...

So writes Sarah Herlihey in 2006, an associate attorney specializing in litigation at the Chicago law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Kirkland law partner Bruce I. Ettelson was a “Former Member of finance committees of U.S. Senator Barack Obama.” Floating the idea of "repealing" (which cannot be done) the natural born citizenship requirement, she "acts stupidly" in insisting that it's "racist" to not consider an alien for the presidential slot.

[Jukeman]

We are being raped by this marxist Kenyan bastard and I damned sure don’t like it. We need to kick his ass back to Kenya and undo everything he’s done. Better yet, he should be tried as a terrorist and then executed (legally of course).

[David]

Well this is sort of a modern view. And yes, you could repeal the requirement--just amend Article II to say that the President has to be a US Citizen over age 35 or whatever. Doubt at this point, you could pass such an amendment.

The whole idea is to eliminate American Sovereignty over the United States--we are all now World Citizens. A World Citizen can be President of the US even if he isn't a citizen; much less natural born.

Probably in our interest if people like Kirkland Ellis partners push the idea of amendment the constitution to delete the Natural Born requirement. People will see right away that the reason these Obama lawyers from Chicago want to eliminate the requirement is because he doesn't pass. They should be encouraged.

[little jeremiah]

;-)

[El Gato]

Floating the idea of "repealing" (which cannot be done)

Why not?

Sure it would take a Constitutional amendment, but it would not be the first part of the original Constitution to be repealed or modified.

But Good Luck with it getting it done.

[El Gato]

Sarah, you cannot "repeal" part of the Constitution, idiot.

Of course you can. But it's not easy. It's only been done a couple of dozen times, much less really because most amendments were not a "repeal" but rather an addition. One of the "repeals" was not of the original Constitution, but of a ill considered amendment. (21st and 18th amendments). The 17th amendment as well as the 12th and 20th were definitely repeals and/or modifications of parts of the original Constitution.

[capacommie]

You can only amend the Constitution to repeal the Constitution, you cannot just “delete” parts out as Sara proposed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html
The repeal of any part of the Constitution requires an amendment to the Constitution - this includes the repeal of a previously passed amendment. So, the process is well defined in the Constitution, and is detailed on the Amendment Page. In reading that page, you can see that you were almost right - the biggest mistake you made is that the President is not involved in the amendment process in any way.

[TigersEye]

From Feb. 22, 2006? And we're not supposed to believe that this had/has anything at all to do with 0bummer's eligibility? ROTFLOL

Anyone who isn't a birther is a traitor or a moron.

[pandoraou812]

Exactly!

[IntolerantOfTreason]

Agreed. I’m frequently disgusted at how many so-called “conservatives” on this site say that we ought to discard the Constitution for political convenience. After all, we wouldn’t want the leftist media to laugh at us, right?!

As far as I am concerned, these treasonous conservatives are not a welcome sight on Freerepublic, nor at the Tea Party, but they’re probably welcome in the Republican party.

[opentalk]

bttt

[opentalk]

Why was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II? from article

...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

"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.

"In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’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."

[opentalk]

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 unAmerican,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”4

[lwd]

Secret Service knocking at your door in 3.... 2.... 1....

(-:

[Uncle Chip]

When amending something is impossible, the lawless just run roughshod right over it and pretend that it doesn't exist --which is what the lawless Obamanoids and their enablers have done here.

We can fully expect the next argument to be that since Obama was not a natural born citizen and yet the majority of Americans elected him anyway, and all attempts to get him removed failed, then the natural born citizen clause is dead.

That is why they hate We the Constitutionalists because we remind them daily of that Article II clause, and that open breach of our Constitution that makes those who just go along to get along, and those who are paid to try to convince others to look the other way on this issue, with it complicit in the breach itself. As Proverbs says:

"They that forsake the Law, praise the wicked".

[Peter Libra]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

Article II of the Constitution.

Just a little bit of sedition on the part of the President's supporters here. I hope he means what he was pledged to do.

[Josephat]

After he’s waterboarded.

[ronnyquest]

He screwed that up, too. Remember?

[Peter Libra]

On the President taking the oath of office, your comment.

He screwed that up, too. Remember?

Yep, and if one thought it was deliberate, I suppose, speaking for myself, one could get a little suspicious about that.

[TigersEye]

As if the leftist media would stop demonizing conservatives if we only dropped the BC/records issues. I guess that’s why they were doing it in 1980 when Reagan ran or when Nixon was President. When anyone floats that reasoning I have to suspect mental impairment or deliberate sabotage. Nothing else explains it.

[etraveler13]

I wonder what would happen if all the Republicans and Independents in congress and the senate stood up and stated that they demanded that Obama prove that he is qualified to be President of the United States.

---

They can do that, can’t they?

---

I think it would bring the Healthcare issue to a grinding halt...

Thoughts??? Anyone???