Thomas Jefferson Says Forget About Barack's Birth Certificate

Publius' Forum ^ | 12/09/08 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…

OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up until now because I have been trying to resolve the dichotomy in my mind between being a Constitutional constructionist and a pragmatist. But, at long last I have realized that the two really aren't as much at odds as it might seem. In fact, I found my answer in the words of Thomas Jefferson -- as well as Madison, Franklin and a few others, but we'll stick with Jefferson quotes for the sake of a sharply focused discussion.

I have discovered that Thomas Jefferson has already told us upon which side we as conservatives should descend over the question concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility for the office of president of the United States. Mister Jefferson would tell you all to shut up, accept cruel fate, and get ready to claim Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.

That's right, forget about it. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Before you get your Constitutional shorts in a bunch, I absolutely agree with you that we are a nation of laws and not men. Jefferson did too, once saying that we must consider what the original intent of the Constitution was before we rush into a decision and the original intent in this case was clearly to make sure every president was a natural born citizen of this country before being eligible to run for that highest of offices. ("The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated [for it]..."-- Thomas Jefferson)

The simple reason that the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen was because they were keen students of history. The phrase "let history be our guide" was not just a trope. The founders knew well the many instances when a foreign ruler had entered a country and, using that country's own laws and customs, immorally proclaimed himself the ruler of a subjugated nation. The founders wanted to prevent that possibility and also wanted to make sure that there were no divided loyalties in an American president, that the welfare of the USA would be first and foremost in the mind of anyone elected to that office. What better way than to preclude the foreign born?

So, yes, the proscriptions against the foreign born candidate are important and should not be cast aside. We should never knowingly present a candidate not born as a citizen of the U.S. Further, we should take pains to verify the provenance of every candidate's claim to natural citizenship.

But... and you knew the “but” was coming. There is an original intent that rises above the Constitution itself. In fact, there are a few, but one in particular comes to bear here...

Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...

[mkjessup]

You said — "We’re not talking about Iraq and Afghanistan pal, and don’t forget that “charity begins at home”.
It’s the same “tree of liberty” that Bush says he is promoting around the world...

It's because of that RINO-loser that our Republic is teetering on the precipice.

I stand with the Constitution, where do YOU stand?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Can you get a passport if you were born in another country to an American mother?

No. You either have to be born on US soil (including military bases, etc.) or BOTH parents have to be US citizens.

You would have some sort of birth certificate. I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think the argument is that he’s not an American Citizen.

Well, my point is that, if Obama doesn't have a birth certificate because he was born in Kenya, and since we have no indication that he ever was naturalised as a citizen, then he would have to be an illegal immigrant. BUT, since he obviously got a passprt in the past, then he obviously had a legitimate birth certificate at some point, so he is a natural born citizen.

I know this disappoints the conspiracy theorists, but it is what it is, nevertheless.

[Turbo Pig]

I note here that Nixon DID go on to become president eventually.

A failed and disgraced President. Maybe, had Nixon stood up for the rule of law in 1960, he would have saved the country, and himself a lot of heart-ache, turmoil, and threat of danger in the long run. Instead, he did not act a leader, and he let the "will of the people" decide the fate of the nation.

All those black folk who voted for the Chicago Ghetto Thug need to get down on their knees and thank God that other Presidents before him didn't buckle to the "will of the people", or they would still be slaves, or living in a segregated society.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Just a thought.

[brytlea]

But, I guess what I’m wondering is what would be the process for a baby born out of the country to an American mother? Would that child have to go thru the naturalization process? My sister was born in Germany but of course both my parents were American citizens. I do think I recall that she could have become (or retained?) a German citizen when she turned 18.

susie

[brytlea]

I won’t be disappointed if he turns out to have a legitimate BC. I don’t think anything will happen even if he’s proven to have been born in Kenya (or the moon for that matter). I simply don’t like the precedent being set. If candidates don’t have to prove qualifications what’s next?

[prismsinc]

Exactly what i was saying a few days ago. 65 million idiots want this? Don’t come back to me for what you’re going through. I didn’t vote for Eclair!

(I’ve often thought that I should buy the a flag of the Soviet Union and fly it in front of my house. It’s a dead country, I shouldn’t get in trouble, right? Just to make the point...)

Anyways, my point is when we have too many stupid people, they need to be made to suffer to understand their own stupidity. It’s unfortunate, but all too true. The American liberal is the most intolerant and impatient soul in the world. I don’t see Eclair to be skillful and cunning enough to tame this beast. NO ONE in world history would EVER be able to tame the liberal American beast. Not Hitler, not Stalin, Marx, Lenin,....

If anything, the system that might quell the American liberal would be Fascism. Socialism doesn’t account for the everyday elitist. Fascism does.

[autumnraine]

“Well, no the President doesn’t have the authority to specifically instruct a State governor to seal and hide a document that was issued by that State and has no on the federal gov’t, does he? This seems to be a case of the Hawaii governor going along with something she didn’t have to, but CHOSE to....”

I’m afraid you misunderstood what I meant. She is bound by law to NOT release that document without the express permission of Barack Obama unless a court of law orders it. Now since no court of law has, she is BOUND to not release it. She SEALED it to protect tampering. But she is not releasing it because she can’t unless ordered by court, or Obama.

This isn’t an issue of Barack having governmental authority, this is an issue of a human resources law prohibiting releasing private documents. This is a PERSON law that Obama has as the right of a PERSON. Not the right as in governmental authority.

[Star Traveler]

You asked — “I stand with the Constitution, where do YOU stand?”

I stand with the same, but as I pointed out before (in another post) there are two levels to how I think about this (and I’ll abbreviate it here from that other post). One level says that we can’t have a President who is not qualified (i.e., “under the Constitution”). And then, the other level says, that no one in power or the majority of the voting electorate or the Congress or the Electoral College or the Supreme Court is going to do anything about it.

I post at both levels and they are both true. So, you had better get ready for Obama for many years, because that is what is going to happen.

It’s the same thing that Rush Limbaugh has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Bush has decided is going to happen, the same thing that McCain has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Palin has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Republican Party has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Electoral College will decide is going to happen (being “packed” with “Obots”), the same thing that the controlling majority of Congress has decided is going to happen (being packed with Democrats), the same thing that the majority of the voting public has decided is going to happen (voted for Obama by a large margin), the same thing that the Supreme has apparently decided is going to happen (i.e., “Denied...”) — and so — why do you think it’s going to be different because you want to adhere to the Constitution?

—

As far as that “tree of liberty” — it is *definitely* that very same tree of liberty that has been watered in the blood of patriots and tyrants and that has been promoted around the world..., and that includes Iraq and Afghanistan..., which I support, in that action, too...

[Vendome]

Maybe the points are well taken but the Constitution and the formation for the basis of impeachment the following statements outline why it should be necessary to prevent Obama from taking office or why impeachment would be necessary:

The discussion is between the framers who are trying to shape the words and meaning of the Constitutuion with Mr. James Madison taking notes:

excerpt

Mr. Davie. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself
re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.

Mr. Govr. Morris. He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who mav be punished. In case he should be
re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to impeach? Is the impeachment to
suspend his functions. If it is not the mischief will go on. If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a
displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach

Col. Mason. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any
man be above justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injusfice? When
great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors. There had been much
debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first,
namely of referring the appointment to the Natl. Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their
being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office.
“Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be
suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?”

Again:
“Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be
suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?”

[353FMG]

>The salient point is that he should have had to produce a birth certificate to get a passport...where is it?<

Presently, I am not too worried about his passport but I am most concerned when I think of the security clearance that he should not be allowed to pass. Yet he will have free access to highly confidential data and our nuclear arsenal. I also think about his possible allegiance to the country of Kenya because his many relatives (in kenyan politics) that he is still in contact with.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

What's new with that? Nobody has seen his school records either, maybe they list him as a foreign student on a F1 visa. You have to agree with one thing, not having seen any kind of records from BHO does not mean a thing!

True, we haven't seen his school records, but we DO know that he went to school and that such records do exist. Likewise, if BHO had been naturalised as a citizen, then there would be SOME record that such documentation existed, even if he isn't releasing it. To date, I've seen NOTHING, nada, to this effect. It is entirely and perfectly legal for someone to spring the $20 to obtain any potential Obama naturalisation records from the US Archives, since unlike census records, you don't have to wait 70 years to get access. Given the furor surrounding all this, I'm pretty sure somebody has already investigated along that line - and found nothing.

Look, it's getting to the point in this conspiracy theory where the lack of evidence for the theory MUST IN FACT PROVE that the evidence exists, but is merely being hidden, not that it doesn't exist. That's bogus logic, IMO.

[MaggieAtlanta]

Here is my senator’s response to me regarding Obama’s citizenship:

Dear Ms. Marlowe :

Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Barack Obama’s eligibility to become President. It is good to hear from you.

Article II of the Constitution states that in order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, any person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen.

Senator Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, which makes him a U.S. citizen and at age 46 he meets the minimum age requirement. He has also resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years. While I do not agree with many of Senator Obama’s policy positions, he does meet the Constitutional requirements to be President of the United States .

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.

[NOBAMA in 08]

How well stated by a wimp! “Dont do anything that might upset the rowdies!” Hell, We do what is Right and Legal!
If someone chose to violate Our Constitution and commit multiple Felony Frauds in so doing, We dont reward them with the power to destroy that which We hold near and dear, They are forced to beTried and if found guilty, to pay the consequences, no matter how harsh!
Simpson was and is a good example as of last Friday!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I’m afraid you misunderstood what I meant. She is bound by law to NOT release that document without the express permission of Barack Obama unless a court of law orders it. Now since no court of law has, she is BOUND to not release it. She SEALED it to protect tampering. But she is not releasing it because she can’t unless ordered by court, or Obama.

Yes, you're right, I did misunderstand what you said. And you're right, BHO is the only one who can release his own birth certificate. Why he hasn't done so remains a mystery, but I do think he almost surely has one (or HAD one).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I simply don’t like the precedent being set. If candidates don’t have to prove qualifications what’s next?

I agree, in principle, but I would ask - what previous President has had to prove his qualifications in the same way? Did Reagan have to produce a birth certificate from Illinois to prove that he was a legitimate natural-born US citizen?

[TheThinker]

Publius is an idiot. Indeed, the sovereign people ARE the ultimate authority, but the way their authority was to be undertaken was by means of the processes defined in the Constitution.

And it's those processes that we must follow now regardless of the consequences.

[cripplecreek]

I simply don’t like the precedent being set. If candidates don’t have to prove qualifications what’s next?

It sure looks like Jenny Granholm is being groomed for the job. All she needs is a precedent set with "no harm" done and one more liberal judge on the supreme court.

[Eagle Eye]

Excellent point. Do we need race riots now? 0bama won. Let's move along. Let America face her consequences.

On the one hand you want to avoid the consequences of a disqualified obama but you are urging us to face the consequences of an elected obama.

Do you not see the vast inconsitency?

[Oatka]

In 1960 it was pretty clear that the Kennedy’s stole the election in Chicago and that LBJ stole it in Texas in order to put Kennedy into the White House. Nixon could easily and legitimately have contested that election. But Nixon did not dispute the 1960 election so as not to undermine the entire system.
This is the eternal problem with the Republicans - be the gentleman and refuse to protest while the clothes are stolen off your back.

He [Nixon]felt the will of the people had been heard and for the good of the nation it should stand.
What a lamazz excuse! If the election was stolen, HOW is that the voice of the people and HOW is that good for the nation? All it does is send the signal, "Hey! We CAN get away with it!"

As for Obama's true status, for cryin' out loud, why doesn't he just come out and PROVE it? There's been enough hue and cry over this that any solid proof on his part would thoroughly discredit his attackers. Waiting any longer implies he's trying to stonewall and cover up. This situation, IMO, is like the dog that didn't bark. To take the approach that yeah, he's in violation of the Constitution but we don't want any trouble is jusr another step on the road to National Suicide.

Fight every damned inch of the way, otherwise years from now when some other non-citizen runs and there is an outcry, it will eather be another successful stonewall or "Well, you didn't protest Obama so you have set precedent."

[Arguendo]

Good article. To everyone who will not let go of the BC issue:

In other contexts many of you have bitterly complained that the Republican Party routinely disregards “true conservatives” like you, but by hanging onto issues such as this you only push yourselves to the fringes of the party. If you want any respect from most of the country (and no matter how “right” you may technically be, you can’t govern without the respect of the country), and if you want any influence in your own party, you have to recognize when an issue is futile and focus instead on issues that can actually attract broad support.