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...

[benasawin]

>... if “the people” wanted the provision removed, the Constitution should be amended to remove it.<
Exactly. Let us also add, should the ill-informed masses be deluded into voting for the elimination of the 2nd amendment, should this also simply be taken in stride as the will of the people and thus “supreme” over the Constitution?
Makes just as much sense. Rule by illiterate mob rule (majority vote) rather than the Constitution. Somehow, I just don't think this is what our Founders were looking for or intended.

[stuartcr]

Did you read the letters Jefferson wrote?

[Taichi]

So, while the Constitution is mighty important, the will of the people is supreme. And the will of the people has been clearly heard in this case.
***********************************************
So in other words, screw the Constitution the majority has spoken.
************************************************

“Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” - James Madison, Federalist 10

[bimbo]

Barack Obama won, fair and square in the minds of the electorate.

Excuse me for stepping on this parade, but Obama would have never won "fair and square" if his inelegibility to hold the office had not been hidden from the electroate.

[benasawin]

Though I disagree with Publius on his stand regarding this issue in particular, Publius IS NOT an idiot.
He certainly is 180 degrees out-of-phase on this point, he has stood well for many years regarding conservative issues offering insightful perspective for all of us.
For this, I thank him. He just happens to be wrong this time, seriously wrong.

[Prokopton]

So, while the Constitution is mighty important, the will of the people is supreme.

This would be true if we had a pure democracy not the Constitutional Republic which we do have. If it was true we also would not be a nation of laws but would be a nation of individuals only. This author misses the entire reason our Founders created the government they did.

[Bigh4u2]

Yes,,,I did.

Even so. Jefferson laid out what he perceived as a safe guard against any ‘foreign’ control of the U.S. by a ‘non-citizen’.

Which is why is was included in the Constitution.

The safe guard is there, irregardless of what anyone thought then or later.

If not, then why include it?

[Paratrooper]

Thomas Jefferson Quotes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Very Interesting Quote

In light of the present financial crisis, it’s interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.’

[mkjessup]

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...

In other words, you're going to sit on your ass, bitch and do nothing, until the 0bamunists show up to drag you away.

Thanks for playing.

[ethical]

NA. I’m not buying it. The will of the people should not trump the Constitution unless it goes through the Constitutional Amendment process. And if the will of the people trumps the rule of law then we have anarchy and I don’t like anarchy.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “In other words, you’re going to sit on your ass, bitch and do nothing, until the 0bamunists show up to drag you away.”

You’re obviously not reading what I said.... LOL..

I’ll repeat..., I’m not taking part in an armed revolution against the Obama Administration. And if you think that someone should, then you’re basically crazy...

If you read that this means I will do nothing, then I can’t help your reading comprehension...

[Bigh4u2]

I like this one in particular...seems appropriate for our time...

"I repeat again, that we ought not to schismatize on either men or measures. Principles alone can justify that. If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents. But while our functionaries are wise, and honest, and vigilant, let us move compactly under their guidance, and we have nothing to fear. Things may here and there go a little wrong. It is not in their power to prevent it. But all will be right in the end, though not perhaps by the shortest means.

Kinda sounds familiar....

[Bigh4u2]

Sorry..

Post #172 was meant for you...not me...

I already read it.. :0)

[Political Junkie Too]

Did Jefferson say anything about General Motors, too?

-PJ

[Star Traveler]

You said — “NA. I’m not buying it. The will of the people should not trump the Constitution unless it goes through the Constitutional Amendment process. And if the will of the people trumps the rule of law then we have anarchy and I don’t like anarchy.”

There two different things here..., one thing is that many who are in positions of authority (to be able to do something) have chosen to do nothing about this issue. By them doing nothing — this does *not* change the Constitution. It remains the same.

The second thing, that you’ve mentioned is that it takes certain and specific measure *to change the Constitution* (which is true) and that is *not* being contemplated here.

—

Now, having said that, and continuing — it’s apparent that *in practice* the Constitution can be trumped — by the will of the people (obviously by the voters who voted for Obama) — when none of the others in authority will do anything about it.

But, even so, that still does not change the Constitution. It’s still the same Constitution and it can still be enforced at a different time and a different place with the same wording it has now.

[TomasUSMC]

Obambi is a homosexual cocaine freaking murdering baby killing muslem lovin scumbag. Other than that, he would make a great................................................................................................................................................................................................ Community Organizer.

[Doohickey]

The road to socialism is paved with “intents”.

Personally, I don’t care what Jefferson or anyone else intended. I do care what they wrote, as in a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution. Intent is for sale; it gave us Kelo and Roe and an imperial Federal government, amonst other things.

[devistate one four]

That is so true

[Migraine]

We need to focus on the simple fact that he got elected because the PEOPLE are lulled into somnolence, that is, too many of the people. That’s our problem. Obama is not our problem. That he could be elected is our problem. That the MSM could elect him. That people are so blind—that’s our problem.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. And you said it eloquently. Look; there are some on here who are desperately trying to abort baraq's office-taking.

I, on the other hand, realize we're not going to put that toothpaste back into the tube. Like abortion itself, it is a fait accompli. I, however, like many others on here, simply desire to delegitimize him; he is illegitimate, he ran for office illegitimately; his past (because it is virtually unknown) is illegitimate. I want scores of millions of voters to muse, over and over, "We've been had; the emperor has no clothes; he was all talk, and we've been had!"

To that end, I want him delegitimized in the minds of the people (just as much as the MSM wanted to legitimize him during the campaign; just as the MSM and the left sought and achieved the delegitimization of the presidency of a fine and decent but ill-starred man, GW Bush -- payback is a bitch). Perhaps that will kill two birds with one stone -- the credibility of the MSM, and baraq's pseudo-presidency.
BTW, I dream of (and work for) the delegitimization of abortion, de facto, as opposed to its abolition, de jure. In order to do that, I think we need to hammer away at showing abortion for just what it is -- murder and genocide. Similarly, we need to show baraq for just what HE is; hence the agitation about documenting his past. It's NOT about unhorsing him. That's just where we are in history, IMO.

[Kevmo]

But better to have a single president’s legitimacy undermined due to his actions than to undermine the entire electoral process.
***According to the 20th amendment, “if the President Elect shall have failed to qualify...”

That means he could fail to qualify, after the election, and even after the Electoral College meets — because he isn’t even yet the President Elect.

The constitution spells it out: election results are subordinate to a president elect qualifying. This author simply hasn’t read his constitution.