[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: 10 reasons why some don't care about eligibility > by Joseph Farah 1) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they value his presidency higher than they value the Constitution. 2) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they believe it would be dangerous to the stability of the country to pursue it. 3) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they understand it is dangerous to do so. 4) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they simply don’t believe a national fraud of this magnitude could have been pulled off. 5) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they don’t care about the integrity of the Constitution. Period. 6) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because pursuing it means damaging your personal reputation due to ridicule by the political and cultural establishment. 7) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they have in mind future candidates of their own who might not qualify if the provision is taken seriously. 8) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they don’t care about politics. Period. 9) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they don’t believe “it’s a winning issue.” 10) Some people don’t care about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they think this particular provision is “an anachronism.” It’s this last group I want to discuss today. Do you think this debate started in 2008? You’re wrong. It started way back in 2004. On Oct. 5, eight years ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a long-forgotten hearing on the subject of “Maximizing voter choice: Opening the president to naturalized Americans.” This was two years before Obama was even elected to the U.S. Senate. One of the advocates for the plan was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. When WND revisited this hearing in 2009, his comments were still are available in an audio file posted at Talk Radio News. That posting, like so many others involving this issue, has since mysteriously been scrubbed. Here’s some of what he said on the subject: “I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish. People say, ‘Well you’re amending the Constitution.’ The fact is in 1789 the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed. Clearly in terms of world history the people who came to the American continent … they went for the first time to self-governance, but they didn’t go all the way. We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction. We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, ‘We don’t trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you’ll be too dumb to notice.’ I don’t think that’s accurate and I don’t think that ought to be the governing principle. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as president of the United States someone they wish.” It should surprise no one, of course, that Barney Frank is wrong about this. He’s wrong about everything. But take a look at what others had to say at that hearing so long ago: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. Now, that does not seem fair or right to me. Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to a U.S. serviceman overseas would be eligible. This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars any other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the president’s most trusted Cabinet officials. The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of our borders.” Keep in mind, these comments were being made by a Republican four years after a fellow Republican senator born overseas to an American serviceman overseas had sought the nomination of his party for the presidency. Sen. John McCain would seek the presidency again four years later – and face a barrage of hostile media raising the issue of constitutional eligibility, culminating in a unanimous Senate vote of approval of his qualifications. Sen. Barack Obama voted in the affirmative, but avoided any media scrutiny of his own credentials except for WND. MORE ----- http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/10-reasons-why-some-dont-care-about-eligibility/ > Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#6. To: ndcorup (#0)
You’re wrong. It started way back in 2004. Actually the debate was going on as early as 1787. I found the following quotation from Madison's account of the proceedings of the constittutional convention in the book "American Aurora": Thursday August 9, 1787. Today at the Federal Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia James Madison records: Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert 14 instead of 4 years citizenship as a qualification for Senators: urging the danger of admitting strangers into our public councils.... Doct. FRANKLIN was not against a reasonable time, but should be very sorry to see any thing like illiberality inserted into the Constitution... We found in the course of the Revolution that many strangers served us faithfully and that many natives took part against their Country. When foreigners, after looking about for some other Country in which they can obtain more happiness, give a preference to ours, it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence and affection.
Note on sources. The footnote from the book in which that quotation is reproduced reads JMAD II, 363-368
Madison's Notes are the best way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It matters not that the Constitution is well over 200 years old.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||