Friday, May 6, 2011

A VERY INTERESTING COLUMN

Obama’s ineligibility and the coming second American revolution

 By Lawrence Sellin  Friday, May 6, 2011
 
The truth is hiding in plain sight. At some point in 2008, the political elites decided to violate the Constitution. I know of no better explanation.

In September 2008, Lawrence B. Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”

The text of the Constitution, the intent of the Founders, judicial precedence and the historical background support that definition.

Every high school student, who paid attention in history class, knows that. Every elected President since the early days of the Republic has met that criterion. That is, every one except Barack Hussein Obama.

By his own admission, Obama is not a natural born citizen and is, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.

More and more Americans believe that in 2008 some Republicans and Democrats illegally circumvented the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship for both John McCain and Obama, choosing the phony Senate Resolution 511 to cover the former and adopting willful ignorance in the case of the latter.

Many Americans question why Obama has been using a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived or even had a mailing address.

It is also claimed that Obama’s selective service registration form contains that Connecticut number 042-68-4425, which the Social Security Verification Systems indicate that it was never assigned to him.

An increasing number of document experts are raising questions regarding the authenticity of Obama’s recently released long form birth certificate i.e. it may be a forgery.

Despite the mounting evidence against Obama and the increasing belief among Americans that many in Congress are lying, a wall of silence persists and no official investigations are underway.

It seems that the political elites now consider themselves above the law with the power to interpret the Constitution according to their own political whims and concurrently disregard the will of the people.

That is what got King George III in trouble.

Whether through cowardice or arrogance, both Republicans and Democrats fail to appreciate the fact that ordinary Americans are reaching a tipping point. Imagine a Tea Party on steroids.

If the Constitutional crisis is not soon addressed, the present political polarization will inevitably lead to political fragmentation. Erosion of the Constitution will inevitably lead to the collapse of the rule of law.

The only way to avoid further degeneration of the US political system is for the leadership of both major parties to tell the truth. Their continuing lack of candor directly feeds the creation of the same conspiracy theories that they so often criticize.

The 2008 election scam is beginning to unravel.

When Obama’s house of cards finally falls, it will provide political theater the like of which the US has yet to see.

The political elites will be scrambling to justify their complicity, assert their ignorance or re-write their history of malfeasance.

If there are any honest politicians left in Washington, D.C., they should decide now on which side of history to stand.

Those choosing to continue the charade will be swept away in a tidal wave of voter retribution.

If the political elites now fancy themselves successful tyrants, then the words of Thomas Jefferson provide an appropriate metaphor: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We will be unforgiving.


Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

3 comments:

  1. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    ReplyDelete
  2. The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens.

    This is not a political issue. It's a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.

    [For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: "rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens."

    Answer. No. It rests on your belief that there were Supreme Court cases that held that two US citizen parents are required. In fact, there are NO US Supreme Court cases that have held that two US citizens are required, and the key Supreme Court case, the Wong Kim Ark decision, ruled six to two (one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA--except for the children of foreign diplomats--is Natural Born.

    Yes, it is a legal issue, but the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther and two-fer case, all of which had the allegation in it that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.

    And the Electoral College gave Obama every single vote that he won in the general election, meaning that not one single Elector agreed that to be a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. And the US Congress voted to confirm Obama UNANIMOUSLY, meaning that not one member in the 535 Senators and members of the House believed that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents.

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    ReplyDelete