AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

Kent Law Review ^ | 2/22/2006 | Sarah P. Herlihy

[SatinDoll]

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 ...

snip

The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons.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...the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Just a small point. Although there is plenty wrong with this article (the reliance on “globalization” is just one of many problems), I would argue there’s nothing wrong with using the term “repealing” with regards to a Constitutional provision.

Just read the 21st amendment: “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

[Congressman Billybob]

The 21at Amendment went through the amendment process, rather than a repeal by Congress, or worse, by a President or by five Justices of the Supreme Court. Once the 21at was duly ratified, then it was in the constitutional stature to strike down the Prohibition Amendment, however that was phrased.

John / Billybob

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Right. But the author of this article (wrongheaded as she is) is not advocating for a repeal by Congress, a President, or the Supreme Court. She is advocating for the repeal of the natural born citizen requirement by amending the Constitution. The result she seeks is improper, motivated by a dangerous notion of the role of globalization in domestic law, and her proposal would do great harm to this country. However, she seeks to implement this dreadful goal through the proper process, amendment of the Constitution.

Just look at the title of the article: "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement . . ."

[Grampa Dave]

The Chicago Tribune has a great ad that addresses Obama’s probable fraud re being a viable candidate re his citizenship.

This is the search link in Yahoo. Easy to use and easy to “light up links”.

Please bump, ping and email this to your friends.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=Chicago%20Tribune%20Ad%20demands%20Obama%20prove%20citizenship&type=

[Brown Deer]

Here is a copy of the original document that is now missing:
Herlihy.pdf

[SatinDoll]

Thank you, Brown Deer. I see it was posted by me originally and I lost it when my hard drive contents was stolen and wiped.

I’ll make another copy, this time hard copy.

[SatinDoll]

The Progressives have been trying to subvert the Constitution for quite some time and particularly the Article II requirement of natural born Citizen. This is proof.

The contents of the original link has been scrubbed.

For a copy, go to #165, click on Herlihy.pdf

[Kleon]

The Progressives have been trying to subvert the Constitution for quite some time and particularly the Article II requirement of natural born Citizen. This is proof.

I disagree with parts of the article, especially the idea of getting rid of a natural born citizen requirement for the highest office, but the definition of what natural born would have been uncontroversial on this forum before Obama ran for office.