Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama's concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: "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,".

The second reason for Obama's concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

"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." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

The state of Hawaii's role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.

It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:

"A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship.

Yeah, you are right Stat man, the constitution is irrelevant, its just an old piece of parchment...

SNAP OUT OF IT!

You go right ahead and keep spouting insanely stupid things like this. Marco Rubio is no more a Natural Born Citizen than Obama is. If you think that is irrelevant, then you are a hypocrite. Simply put. The law applies to everyone or no one. If only applies to certain persons based on their power within government, then we have a Tyranny, and the United States no longer exists in anything resembling a constitutional legal form.

Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about it, but some of us do, those of us who believe in the absolute nature of the Constitution. It isn't a "living document" or any sort of flexible, situational, set of loose guidelines. Either it applies to us all, or it applies to no one. Which is it?

"Yeah, you are right Stat man, the constitution is irrelevant, its just an old piece of parchment..."

I never said that, and don't believe that. You are an ass for ascribing offensive beliefs to someone who doesn't believe them.

"SNAP OUT OF IT!"

Do you always scream at people who disagree with you? You are a double ass.

"Marco Rubio is no more a Natural Born Citizen than Obama is."

By your definition of "natural born citizen", which isn't mine, and isn't most people's, and, most importantly, isn't the legal definition in this country.

"If you think that is irrelevant, then you are a hypocrite."

I think YOUR definition is irrelevant, since it isn't in use, and you have no hope of changing that in our lifetimes.

"The law applies to everyone or no one. If only applies to certain persons based on their power within government, then we have a Tyranny, and the United States no longer exists in anything resembling a constitutional legal form."

I agree with all of that. So what? The law goes by the definition I'm using, not the one you're using.

"Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about it, but some of us do, those of us who believe in the absolute nature of the Constitution. It isn't a "living document" or any sort of flexible, situational, set of loose guidelines. Either it applies to us all, or it applies to no one."

I agree with all of that too. But we are required to accept the interpretation of the courts as to the meaning of the absolute words in the Constitution. That's the mechanism supplied by the founding fathers, in the Constitution. Like you, I don't agree with every decision the judicial branch makes. I would like to see a new Supreme Court correct some previous bad decisions, like Roe v. Wade. However the 14th Amendment established the legal principle of jus soli as U.S. law, generally that all persons born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens. And in the 19th century, BEFORE the era of activist judges, the "natural born citizen" definition that you object to was enshrined into legal precedent by the Lynch v. Clarke case.

Now, personally, I don't believe that even a Supreme Court composed of nine ACTIVIST conservatives would even overturn over a hundred years of precedent on something most people would consider a minor matter of law, and wish you would harness your passion and venom towards causes that actually matter and could change the world, but you go on and have fun chasing windmills.

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.