Posted on 12/03/2008 6:53:51 PM PST by dascallie
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'
December 03, 2008 9:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily
An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes they are.
Unfortunately so are the liberal judicial activism supporters on free republic (in the name of libertarianism) who are mostly in lock step with the ACLU, especially when it comes to judicial activism concerning social issues.
Wow! Obama is going to be defrocked?
Ignore it? I think they're bound and determined to tear it up.
Excuse me - does the fact that it is a provision of the US Constitution matter? If she doesn’t like it, offer up an amendment.
This crunchy bitch isn’t even 28. What the hell does she know about Constitutional law?
Outsiders who came to rule a nation do not make for a favorable precedent. Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin were all born outside the countries they came to rule. I think our Founders were very wise to include this provision.
I don’t think it took a decade to get the income tax amendment through.
too bad it is still there...
Sarah: E.S.A.D.
After we remove all of the stupid people in politics and the media, we can remove the stupid provisions of the constitution.
I cited the constitution and the dates relevant to Hamilton. If you disagree, say so and explain. That some of Hamilton's contemporaries did not want him him to be president is irrelevant as to his eligibility.
That was more or less what happened under Clinton, though his citizenship wasn’t questioned. But we got hit again, and again, and again, and never struck back against anyone. We gave peace a chance, we got 9-11.
If the Indians give peace a chance, they’ll get more Mumbais.
All you have to do is pass a Constitutional Amendment - but until then, DO WHAT IT SAYS!
And by the way, any member of Congress or state legislator who votes FOR such an amendment will catch HELL for it.
“Its a living document!”
You may know that Biden believes that to his core. He was the Chair of the Judciary Committee when it nailed Judge Bork.
It’s not stupid at all. It keeps Arnold Schwarzenegger out of the White House!
That was a different America. There's no way states like Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma ...you get the idea.
We're two nations, now, whether we want to admit it or not.
yes, up to the forth generation
Ummmm, idiotic statement deserves brief response.
No, it isn’t. It’s one of the best things in the constitution.
They are worried the Obama birthplace really isn’t here, so now they are trying to build up hatred for the thing that could disqualify him.
absolutely, because of their view of the human condition as "unconstrained" by limitations, they believe that they are capable of making the right decisions based only on what they currently know, and dismiss any previous decisions by others as inadequate and invalid.
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.