Posted on 12/09/2008 6:32:38 AM PST by 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...
Mr Jefferson was well known as a “democrat” by his peers. That term was an insult in those days, because it had the connotation of MOB RULE. In the quoted passages you see that mentality shining through.
The majority of our Founders were very much against democracy as a form of government, because like the mob, it is inherently ignorant and unstable. Democracies are invariably vulnerable to demagoguery, and quickly turn into dictatorships. Our founders knew this and therefore established a Republic where THE RULE OF LAW was supreme, not rule by the whims of those in power, not matter how popular!
First is the argument about the will of the people. No bargain is valid when there is fraud committed by one of the parties involved. The people have not been asked if they wish an ineligible candidate to become president. Had the media actually done their job and vetted this issue, the will of the people would be clear. However, the media chose to participate in the potential fraud.
Second is the notion that the issue can be ignored and it will go away. If Obama does not have the documentation to demonstrate valid eligibility, there is no question that we have a constitution crisis. The only question is at what time and in which venue it will flare up. I fervently hope that Obama has a birth certificate in that vault in Hawaii that puts the question to rest. Until the time that he shows it, and the issue is legally vetted, it can be ignored temporarily but it will come up again and again as explained by Edwin Vieira, a constitution lawyer with 4 Harvard degrees. Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis
Nobody, including the Republicans, wins if Obama does not have the necessary documentation. The damage is less if it exposed sooner than later. When this does explode, I hope the principal members of the media are subject to the popular wrath they deserve.
And what did the US get by Nixon stepping aside?
A fairly screwed up president who finally got his head blown off.
“But Nixon did not dispute the 1960 election so as not to undermine the entire system.”
Recently, I heard that that the above was “the story”, but the truth was that he’d been threatened by the Joseph Kennedy thug machine.
I’m with you on the Czech Prez — I really like him, except I did read that he supported Russia’s invasion of Georgia. If true, that seems out of character for him.
Thanks---it's been a while since I read the actual text. But that only amplifies the teaching of the Founding Fathers that any change to the Constitution had to comprise a VERY WIDE consensus across all of society, and not just a simple majority vote in a single election.
“The people who would engage in race riots dont care what the Constitution says.”
You are right. Those that riot even riot over the results of a football game. We can deal with it. The anger will be soon placed where it belongs, with the fraud, Obama.
Just wait until the truth comes out with the arrest of the Governor of Illinois. Me thinks Obama is not real happy this morning! And after Friday, he will be even more upset.
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.
That there are divided loyalties involved now are not a subject of speculation or wild guesses.
Obama has made it clear that he is a black first, and an American third.
A close second is his covert and overt embrace of islam.
It's not as if the USA has a dearth of truly qualified leaders who are American first; yes, even many black ones.
My president?
I don't think so.
Probably not, however, to my knowledge no one called his qualifications into question. I rather think it’s an oversight, if we have stipulations but don’t ever check to see if they are met.
>I think the job falls on the congress to vet this guy.<
Our emasculated congress? They’re still groping around finding what they lost or never had.
I'd like to know if we even have a process in which somebody checks that sort of thing anywise?
Funny. You just joined today to push this crap? Don't tell me what to refrain from newbie.
I agree, so if this is swept aside can the rest of us ignore the 16th amendment?
You asked — “So when push comes to shove, are you going to help water that tree here at home?”
I’ve already stated the answer to that (before, in another post) — I’m not going to an armed revolution against the Obama Administration if he gets into power. That’s not going to happen by my hands. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to support him politically or other means at my disposal — but that is not going to include any armed revolution...
And if you think you’re going to participate in an armed revolution if Obama gets sworn into office on January 20th, you’re crazy.... basically...
—
And then you followed up with — “Or let it wither and die?”
It’s not going to wither and die because of Obama — not when you consider the *basis* and the *foundation* upon which the founding fathers established it (i.e., the Constitution and this country). It’s founded upon the basis of the *truth of God* and that He is the one who establishes and maintains governments — and that we should appeal to our Creator God for His support in our just cause. It’s not going to wither and die because God is not going to wither and die...
—
And then you said — “And I fully understand if you have to couch your response carefully in order to adhere to FR posting guidelines.”
I’m not couching my response. If I was going to take up arms and engage in an armed revolution, then I would say so. I have absolutely no intention to, because of the stance I take with a higher order document, than the Constitution — which is the Bible, the Word of God...
If there is a “source” for our “salvation” (personally and on behalf of our country, too), it lies with that document — the Word of God, the Bible, primarily, and then the Constitution, secondarily...
Well... America has finally elect Kingfish as President
AND he has selected Shaphires maomma as Ssec. of State.. The fats in the fire now..
The Convention 3 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09QHDWLgo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFM5PStH6Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO_o2BAa1M8&feature=related
“...So, while the Constitution is mighty important, the will of the people is supreme.”...
Oh, I get it now...
We are a nation of men and not one of laws.
So if the majority (aka the “will of the people”) decide to jump off a cliff (i.e.: throw out the Constitution), because they are thoroughly brainwashed by a liberal-dominated media and a corrupt government-run school system that inculcates the Constitution is a “living document” (how convenient!)...
Well then let us all go along and all drink the socialist kool-aid. Hooray! I feel better already!
This opinion is idiocy trying to provide itself a cover of legitimacy by tainting the founders with its scatology.
The Constitution is THE supreme law of this land. If the “will of the people” require some deviation from its tenets, then let them work for a constitutional amendment.
You hit my point exactly...How did he travel to Kenya to campaign during the recent elections??? Or other excursions?
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.