“The very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid”, Part 1: Barack Obama is Illegally Occupying the Oval Office: He is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Office (and so are Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindahl and Marco Rubio)

The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”-Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley

Constitution

As we watch millions of Americans continue to suffer in this horrific economy, losing their jobs, their health insurance, and for those of those gullible enough to believe Barack Obama’s risible slogans and promises, any “hope,” it’s a good time to re-visit the 800-pound gorilla in the room; specifically, the fact that Barack Obama is illegally occupying the office of President of the United States. Too harsh? No, I don’t think so. Read on.

I hope that you will all indulge me for a few minutes while I express my love and devotion to that outdated document, the U.S. Constitution, drafted over 200 years ago by DWEM (Dead White European Men) who stuck their necks out to make it happen. It has been pronounced “quaint” by none other than liberal wunderkind/twit, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. If I a guy ever looked like he was about to be on the receiving end of an atomic wedgie, it’s this guy, the “whippersnapper apparatchik,” Mr. Klein. He finds the Constitution “confusing, because it was written over 100 years ago. Yeah, that Gettysburg Address is also a stumper, right, my lefty friend? That’s obviously a fine education they give you at UCLA. In fairness to Ezra, I hear that he has mastered every level of World of Warcraft.

Unfortunately, it’s not only the silly, callow Mr. Klein who regards the Constitution as a relic of a bygone age. Barack Obama himself is no fan of the document of “negative liberties,” a way to obfuscate what he really thinks; specifically, that the Constitution is deeply flawed because it is primarily a restriction on the federal government, and that’s bad. How is the government going to do all the great things it can do for people with all that Constitution throwing up a bunch of obstacles like keeping it from spreading the wealth around? How far would Castro have gotten with that sort of thing holding him back? Precisely! Good thing for him that a sufficient number of Americans have been dumbed down by government schools and pop culture laden “news” that they don’t have the slightest clue what the Constitution requires of anyone who aspires to the office of the Presidency. “Natural born citizen?” “Article II?” To quote that great democrat and aspiring president Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

 

As we are seeing, it makes a huge difference if the person in the Oval Office is a patriotic American whose heart beats true with red, white and blue versus one like B. Hussein Obama, whose heart just beats red. Bottom line: ideology aside, he is not an Article II “natural born citizen” because both of his parents weren’t American citizens at the time of his birth, assuming that his biological father was actually Barack Obama, Sr., and not Frank Marshall Davis. Like everything else about the current occupant of the Oval Office, the circumstances of his parents’ marriage, if they were even married, remain murky. If the American communist, and not the African communist, was his actual father, then I’ve got nothing.

tshirt

Click here to get the Official Teri O’Brien Shirt

I concede that my opinion that Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President is just that, as in, my opinion. Not all intelligent, educated legal analysts agree, as I’m sure you know. Prof. William Jacobson, of the terrific Legal Insurrection, who has appeared as a guest on The Teri O’Brien Show, disagrees. I do agree with him that, since the Founders didn’t clarify precisely what they meant by the phrase “natural born citizen,” it’s a gray area, which means we all have to decide how it shakes out. He’s also spot on about the Alinskyite use of the derogatory term “birther” as a way to try to silence anyone who questions the background of these completely unvetted president. I think that the Founders believed that this phrase was so well understood that no clarification was necessary. I believe that they were well aware of the Vattel treatise and the definition of “natural born citizen” he put forth, the one that defined the term as the child of two American citizens born on American soil. It seems inconceivable to me that they would use the phrase “natural born citizen” in one and only one place in the Constitution, when defining the requirements for the office of the highest office in the land, and not have it mean something other than being a non-naturalized citizen. Yes, I also know that even mentioning this issue is kicking a hornets’ nest. Like that’s ever stopped me.

At the end of the day, the issue of eligibility is a political question, so even if I am correct, if the voters don’t care, it’s a moot point. Clearly, since Rubio and Cruz are always mentioned as potential GOP nominees for President, unfortunately most Americans don’t share my punctilious interpretation of Article II. If they did, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Let’s assume you agree with Prof. Jacobson that we should give the benefit of the doubt on the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article II to not only Obama, but Rubio, Cruz, Jindahl, Nikki Haley, and anyone else who is a “citizen,” because ultimately it’s a political question up to voters. What if the voters were deliberately deceived? I’m not talking about the usual political puffery we expect from all politicians. I’m talking about the brass knuckle tactics of the Chicago Way, enunciated by Saul Alinsky and practiced by the Cook County machine, intimidation, fraud, and outright lies. Would that be enough to render the beneficiary of that strategy illegitimate? Stay tuned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama. 

How did a thin-skinned narcissistic empty suit with a history of illegal drug use, radical

Have you checked out my new ebook? You can read it on your Kindle, iPad or on your computer? Learn more. Thanks for your encouragement and support!

Have you checked out my new ebook? You can read it on your Kindle, iPad or on your computer? Learn more.
Thanks for your encouragement and support!

mentors and hostility toward the U.S. Constitution end up occupying the White House? Find out in The ABC’s of Barack Obama: Understanding God’s Greatest Gift to America

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

 

19 comments

  1. NEITHER parent has to be a US citizen when someone is born. All that is necessary is birth on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders). The term Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (not from Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise). And in the common law Natural Born status came from the place of birth, not from the citizenship of the parents. Even aliens who were just temporarily on the soil of the country gave birth to Natural Born offspring—and that included even children who were dual citizens at birth.

    “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).

    “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.]

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    • Forgive me if I don’t accept Sen. Hatch and Sen. Graham as being able to channel the Founders. Can’t imagine why. Ditto the WSJ editorial board, who is notoriously suffering a raging case of East Coast Brain Rot.

      If being born on American soil was the only thing required, why the use of the qualifying phrase “natural born?” My inner lawyer tells me that that makes no sense.

    • Based on the sources you cite, an anchor baby could be President. Not buying it.

      • Re: “An anchor baby could be president.”

        Answer: Convicted murderers and convicted serial killers CAN be president. Surely the writers of US constitution did not want serial killers to become president, you may ask. The answer is of course not. BUT the principle is to allow THE VOTERS to choose.

        Therefore, so long as a person is over 35 and has lived here for 14 years and was born here, even if he is the Unibomber, she or he is ELIGIBLE to become president. EVERYONE born on US soil is eligible to become president except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.

        The writers of the US Constitution did not even exclude TORIES–the people who had fought against the American Revolution. Naturally, they did not want them to become president. But they figured that the voters were smart enough to make that decision—and if they weren’t smart enough, then the burden of the choice should be that of the voters and not the choice of the writers of the Constitution, decades and in time centuries before.

        So, Tories were eligible and criminals are eligible and atheists are eligible and communists and fascists are eligible, so long as they are Natural Born, and we the voters have to make the choice. So, why not Anchor Babies? Yes, they are Natural Born Citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. If an Anchor Baby runs for president, you do not have to vote for her or him—but you have THE CHOICE. (Do you think that it would be a good thing NOT to have that choice?)

        The meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law—-not from Vattel, who was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise. Its meaning in the common law referred to the place of birth and included ALL children born there, even if the parents were merely passing through (so long as they were not foreign diplomats or enemy invaders). That is what the legal scholars at the time who KNEW the writers of the US Constitution wrote:

        “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)

        (Notice that the above refers ONLY to the place of birth, no mention of parents at all.)

        And:

        “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)

        (Notice the word EVERY, well that is exactly the same word—every child—used in the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case about 70 years later, and it is considered the key ruling on the subject of Natural Born Citizen status. [And, BTW, it was AFTER the Minor v. Happersett case, so it is the final ruling, and the Minor v. Happersett case did not say what birther think in any case].)

        So Tucker and Rawle, both of whom knew the members of the Constitutional Convenition (and Rawle was a close friend of Franklin AND Washington) used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way as it was used in the common law. A search of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and adding such other leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, finds that they NEVER used the term Natural Born other than the way that it was used in the common law, and John Jay, who first used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, so if he were using the term any way other than in the common law, he would have said so—and he didn’t.

        That is why birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul). Not one of them believed either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

        Tucker and Rawle and the Heritage Foundation book and senators Hatch and Graham, and Black’s Law Dictionary and TEN appeals court rulings on McCain’s and Obama’s eligibility and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case all say that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen. And, the simple fact is, that they are right.

        • Wong Kim Ark is not on point. The case is often cited by those who take your position re the meaning of “natural born citizen,” however the language quoted is dicta.
          One thing you’re definitely right about. The Founders never disqualified communists from holding the office of President, and the irony is, now that we have an occupier who is not an Article II natural born citizen, we also have a communist there. Go figure.
          I think my point about the anchor baby makes it obvious what “natural born citizen” means, but I concede that you disagree.
          As for politicians being unwilling to wade into this issue, OF COURSE they didn’t. They are all about politics, not constitutional law. If you’ve read my other writing on this issue, you know that I have conceded many times that this ship has obviously sailed, as in everyone has conceded that it’s a political question and the people can disregard the protections the Founders gave us. That doesn’t mean I’m not right. Nor does it mean that we aren’t seeing the result of what happens when we disregard the wisdom of the Founders.

    • Reasonable minds can disagree on the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen.” It has not been defined in the Constitution, and I have great respect for Mr. Meese. I will tell you that I am not persuaded by the opinion of Sen. Graham or Sen. Hatch, who are proponents of amnesty. The opinion of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, is worthless on the issue. Pre-9/11 they ran an editorial that said that the immigration policy of the US should be: “the border is open.” Nuff said there. They’ve been trying to distance themselves from that ever since.

  2. Smrstrauss,
    Methinks thou doth protest too much, as so many do every time anyone expresses the slightest bit of skepticism about President Obama’s eligibility to hold office or the status of his citizenship.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

book
%d bloggers like this: