Who would win in primary if this happened? And, the Clintons do not care for BHO and vice versa.
HRC would have all kinds of reasons for bringing BHO down.
She hasn't produced anything. I'll bet she tried to find something. If she couldn't find anything, well, maybe nothing is there. Drat.....
Hillary knows all about Obama’s eligibility issues. It seems quite possible that Obama was always intended to be a one-term president, doing the unpopular things that could endanger Hillary's chances at a second term - remember, her big play was Hillarycare, single-payer, socialized medicine during Bill's first term.
Any proof? Every US Senator in March 2008, when Hillary was a senator, signed Senate Resolution 511 in which they all agreed with the statement, repeated several times in the minutes of the Senate Archives:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Senate Res 511 was yet another attempt to whitewash McCain's ineligibility. It is a whitewash because had legislators been serious, an amendment to Article II Section 1 would have been proposed. Resolutions are non-binding. Even laws cannot affect provisions of The Consittution. There was, two months prior to SR511, in February 2008, a bill, SB2678, also trying to remedy McCain's ineligibility, and sponsored by Obama and McCaskill. It was a bill "To make foreign-born children of military citizens eligible to the presidency."
There were nine attempts to amend Art II Sect 1 between 2002 and 2007, two of them by old socialist John Conyers, perhaps to pave the way for Barack, one by RINO Orrin Hatch, who wanted to make Schwarzenegger eligible, and six others. Now, of course, no one seems to recall the their own amendments, let alone their involvement and signatures on SR511 - “...if you are born of American parents.”
Our legislators fear the press, the unions, racial allegations, and assiduously avoid any cogent discussion of constitutional eligibility. What cogent discussion there has been, besides Donofrio, Appuzo, Taitz, and a few others successfully isolated by Alinsky techniques, have come from Democrat law professors such as Gabriel Chin at U of Arizona "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President." Alinsky’s fifth rule that “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon” has served the left well. What we can do is to learn the truth, as many here at FR have done very thoroughly. But there are a number of paths to the same truth, and one seems more direct than the others.
Many are already aware that Marco Rubio has questionable eligibility. Marco could speak up, but has probably been counseled to stay quiet. Should he become the candidate, his candidacy, as did McCain's, would provide cover for Obama, who also was not born to citizen parents. There are enough conservatives who understand that Rubio is ineligible (as is Jindal) to make a third party, as Ross Perot demonstrated, a credible threat to guarantee the election of a Democrat candidate in 2012.
Leo Donofrio has shown that, fascinating though they may be, historical examinations of our common law are not necessary since our Supreme Court confirmed the common law definition without doubt, making the natural law definition legal precedent. Donofrio, who also discovered the ineligibility of Chester Arthur, has shown the advantages both of being very bright, and of having no institutional attachment with which to threaten his status. Those legal authorites who depend upon political largess are not unlike the climate scientists who sold their scientific independence because they knew there would be retribution if they didn't tow the global warming nonsense. Carbon credits will be worth trillions to those intent upon fleecing the naive proletariat. Donofrio pointed out a truth which is probably understood by most legal "scholars," but he had less to lose by telling the truth.
Judging by the discussions in this thread, not many have made the effort to understand Donofrio’s observation, so this will be an attempt to explain why any further discussions about legal eligibility are moot. The question remaining is whether we will require that our representatives and judiciary respect their oaths, or whether we will tacitly let this Constitutional violation stand?
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
This statement from Minor v. Happersett by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who wrote the decision in 1874, has been treated like John Marshall's in The Venus, considered “dictum,” not essential to the decision and thus not having established precedence for future decisions. But Waite explicitly uses the natural born citizenship of Mrs Minor to construct his decision - in fact as the heart of his decision. Here is the reasoning, (not necessarily replicating Donofrio’s arguments, but absolutely a result of reading his revelations and Minor v. Happersett, a dozen or so times!:
Chief Justice Waite:
“The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter...”
Waite tells us that this case depends upon the effect upon voter rights of the 14th Amendment. Both judicial restraint and logical consistency argue for not basing a decision about Constitutional interpretation upon a class of citizens which is not completely defined: “As to this class there have been doubts.” To even reference citizens in his decision, other than natural born citizens, required Waite to resort to dependence upon the 14th Amendment for a judgment about the scope of the 14th Amendment - not quite a penumbra, but this was 1874.
Then Waite told us how he would resolve the uncertainty issue and decide the case without depending upon unsettled law.“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Waite told us that this class of citizen, the one to which Mrs. Minor belonged, were “natives, or natural born citizens.” He told us that this was never doubted common law with which our framers were familiar. He then constructs the remainder of the case upon the “never doubted” status of Mrs. Minor as a citizen. To have used as an appellant any other class of citizen would have required the examination of naturalized citizens, a class which was in the process of being defined since the 14th Amendment. Tangling with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment wasn't necessary for determining whether the Constitution addressed suffrage. If Mrs Minor couldn't vote before the 14th Amendment, and she was a citizen, nothing about the 14th Amendment changed her privileges.
He further argues and proves that sex was never discussed as a limitation to citizenship, and had nothing whatever to do with the 14th Amendment.
Having a claimant who was a natural born citizen required confirming the common law definition. That is what precedence is all about, and that is excactly what Chief Justice Waite did - reiterate the common law definition of a natural born citizen. He never mentions Vattel, but Vattel certainly understood the same definition, as did dozens judicial authorities including all of our framers, none of who disputed founder, framer, chief justice Marshall's similar statement. Waite's unquestioned and often referenced definition established legal precedence.
As Donofrio and several of his readers discovered. Obama’s team knew all about this, and went so far as edit supreme court cases on justia.com, a commercial site, the most frequently referenced repository of constitutional decisions, removing references to Minor v. Happersett from a number of cases in October of 2008. The owner of justia.com is a Harvard Law classmate of Obama, and an active Obama supporter. Once Justia.com’s criminal acts (they are officers of the court knowingly misrepresenting The Constitution) were discovered a few months ago Justia restored the references, but Donofrio’s readers and Leo himself had already captured the modified documents.
The end justifies the means. Minor v. Happersett established perfectly clear precedence and for perfectly clear reasons. Obama is Constitutionally ineligible and both party's legislators, certainly all senators, knew exactly why. Obscuring where Obama was born was most likely an intentional distraction. Even the supreme court clerks who wrote the Minor syllabus specified, in their first two points, that the decision to follow was based upon natural born citizenship, which definition they reasserted in the text, a definition upon which the decision was based.
Syllabus
1. The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.Before the 14th Amendment natural born citizens were citizens. The Article 1 Section 8 class of naturalized citizens, in particular those made citizens by the 14th Amendment, added nothing to the privileges of citizens, and in fact, nowhere mentions natural born citizens. Thus with this construction C.J. Waite built his decision with no dependence upon the 14th Amendment, making it impossible for subsequent changes in who could be citizens to conflict with his decision!2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.
Since suffrage was not mentioned in the Constitution, it took an amendment to give women the vote. But it is interesting to note that while she couldn't vote, Mrs. Minor could have become president!