The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Published:

Barack Obama's birthday is tomorrow (or is it?)and in the spirit of gift giving, I've got something for the 28% ofRepublicans who don't believe Obama was born in America: An invitationto common ground.

Here's the first place we can agree: It would be nice if thepresident would ask Hawaii to release his original, long form birthcertificate.

There are all kinds of perfectly good moral, legal and politicalreasons why he shouldn't, but, frankly, I'm still tuckered out from allthe perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons Hillary Clintonwouldn't release the Rose Law Firm billing records.

I'm not going through that hell again.

Here's the second place we can agree: The rule of law is a good thing.

Lincoln said:

As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of theDeclaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution andLaws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacredhonor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample onthe blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and hischildren's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by everyAmerican mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap - let itbe taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges - let it bewritten in primers, spelling books, and almanacs - let it be preachedfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced incourts of justice.

That goes double for me. Can't get enough of that Constitution andLaws. When it comes to the Constitution and Laws I'm right there,lisping and prattling like Glenn Beck.

My children may not have primers, spelling books or almanacs --because they go to school in California -- but they understand that wecan't pick and chose which laws we obey and which we don't. If we actedlike that, we'd be no better than wild animals in the jungle or DickCheney.

Here's the third place we can agree: If the Constitutionsays Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he's ineligible to bepresident.

The Constitution is always right because the Framers wereinfallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote.The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, not unlike Horton Hatches an Egg, if it had been written 230 years ago by 55 guys.

The Constitution says:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen ofthe United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Personbe eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the UnitedStates.

And that's what it means.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get Obama on the "natural born"part. I don't know what it means and neither do you, and neither didthe Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not lettingLouis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as goodas mine. And guesses don't count.

The only person I'm absolutely certain is a natural born man is Bo Diddley.

Luckily, we don't have to interpret what they were getting at. That's why God created Originalism and sent us Antonin Scalia.

Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead tothinking.) It says the document is what it is. We'll never know whatthe Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.

So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matterhow oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president whoviolates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail,and our sons start playing with dolls.

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. Accordingto the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution,Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, becauseHawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

In 1788.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, theFramers made a rule that says you can only be president if you wereborn in one of the original 13 colonies.

Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford,Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant,William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman,Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2,Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what itliterally says?

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of theUnited States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shallbe eligible to the Office of President..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying wecan't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can'tinterpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one ofthose horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.

Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.

Chris kelly,

Entry #38

Comments

Avatar konane -
#1
Interesting argument, however this phrase seems to set a benchmark of time when it comes into effect and carries forward so long as the United States of America is in existence...... "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."
Avatar joker17 -
#2
Point taken Konane, but what kind of example does this set in the first place? I think the author was trying to show how easily interpretation can be a major factor. Those who want to be so specific about every T that's crossed and a dot over every "i" from a time where mind sets like slavery pointed out by the author, among others, were flawed and that maybe......they couldn't conceive of future events that may need tweaking of the laws.

Just like the right to bear arms. It specifically said a "Militia" not individuals. Yet despite over whelming evidence, special interest groups manage to stupify millions. Incredible !.

I'm sure you can agree that when it comes to any agenda's need to justify itself, laws are broken every single day of the week.

One is the government no longer needing a warrant to search your home......all under the guise of"' Homeland Security".

If one wants to break hairs, I can easily point out a laundry list from both sides. The gestapo elite wouldn't like it too much though...lol




Avatar joker17 -
#3
Point taken Konane, but what kind of example does this set in the first place? I think the author was trying to show how easily interpretation can be a major factor. Those who want to be so specific about every T that's crossed and a dot over every "i" from a time where mind sets like slavery pointed out by the author, among others, were flawed and that maybe......they couldn't conceive of future events that may need tweaking of the laws.

Just like the right to bear arms. It specifically said a "Militia" not individuals. Yet despite over whelming evidence, special interest groups manage to stupify millions. Incredible !.

I'm sure you can agree that when it comes to any agenda's need to justify itself, laws are broken every single day of the week.

One is the government no longer needing a warrant to search your home......all under the guise of"' Homeland Security".

If one wants to break hairs, I can easily point out a laundry list from both sides. The gestapo elite wouldn't like it too much though...lol




Avatar joker17 -
#4
Opps...double post...I'm all thumbs today...lol
Avatar jarasan -
#5
adopt:

•choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans; "She followed the feminist movement"; "The candidate espouses Republican ...
•take up and practice as one's own
•assume: take on titles, offices, duties, responsibilities; "When will the new President assume office?"

It means adopt from this day foward. Once it becomes our set of rules, this is how the game goes.
Avatar joker17 -
#6
I see you slipped one of your own in Jarasan...lol

OK, I get your point.

Do you happen to have any explanation on the "Right to bear arms" law? I'm not trying to be cute. I like learning and welcome new ideas. So far I've learned that I don't know everything..lol, and I'm just curious to see some explanation because to this day I haven't read anything satisfactorily.

I think my point is that the mere fact that we're even debating the issue of interpretation leads me to believe that if it was so cut and dry, we wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The same argument revolved the net for years with religion. If it was so obvious that a God was in existence, why the centuries of debates?


Avatar konane -
#7
Believe adoption or establishing time-frame is fundamental to any law or legally binding contract.

Both parties have had at it in the past 30 years undoing perfectly good laws .... one example Glass-Steagall Act of 1939 .... so that greed could run behind the scenes ponzi schemes unimpeded which are responsible for tanking our economy. Multiply the above actions a thousand fold and you have an unprecedented world economic crisis.

All of them were holding it when it broke!!!!!
Avatar konane -
#8
Weren't most citizens of the young United States part of the militia, which in effect 'grandfathered' the right to bear arms with citizenry?
Avatar joker17 -
#9
Right Konane, but does a later bill passed by Phil Gramm go without scrutiny? He had the president sign a bill easing the lending practices.

Look, even you say in your reply above that both parties are at fault.

Avatar jarasan -
#10
It has 27 amendments, so it has been expanded as culture and circumstance have evolved. The issue of birth requirements is just so simple to satisfy that it is almost weird he hasn't done it. Bill Oreilly couldn't answer the question this evening yet he says it isn't a problem......... It would just shut up his critics and give him some cred. The reason people are so pi$$ed at the Prez and the congreff is that they are fundamentally trying to usurp the tenets of the role of govt. in the lives of
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Not what the f'ing congress and president want. This the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Avatar joker17 -
#11
Grandfathered the right to bear arms? See what I mean?

Does that logic apply to slavery too?

We no longer have the need for militias. We have the National Guard.

Why should the constitution be exempt from adapting?

Times change. Laws should change without making the basic principles compromised. But quirks and ideology morph throughout time. A set of events may or may not be applicable 200 plus years into the future.

But the issue here is not semantics, at least through my eyes. To me it implies that even though I'm aware that the law, no matter how much I disagree with, needs to be the the rule of the land, somewhere deep inside of me says that these nit picks are just distractions to the plethora of similar events going on multiple times everyday in govt. Some that make this event miniscule in comparison.



Avatar konane -
#12
Joker, the deeper I dig the madder I become at having been betrayed by those I've supported provided what I'm reading is valid. It's certainly backed up with expanding information. All the hidden stuff is coming tumbling out no matter how much damage control is being applied to keep it under wraps.

I'm was independent voter when voting for Perot both times because he told the truth and I do believe has the best interest of the nation at heart. Am lots more politically savvy now and ready for new people to be elected.
Avatar Rick G -
#13
Don't worry about gun ownership. Your elected official is likely to do you much more harm.
Avatar jarasan -
#14
The right to bear arms is to protect against the likes of the national guard taking up arms against the citizens! The second amendment is to protect against an oppressive govt.! How in the world do you think Chavez took Venezuela? Or the Chinese control a billion people? They took the peoples weapons away! If you take the 2nd amendment away only criminals and the govt. will have the ability to subjugate and terrorize the citizens. The police and govt. can't protect everybody all of the time.
Avatar konane -
#15
Slavery is a human rights issue which should have never come into being in the history of humanity in the first place. However it still flourishes today in the middle east and other nations if you'd like to do a search on it. The US evolved past it and changed laws to reflect that.

We may have evolved past needing militias but definitely need self protection given an increase in home break ins, carjacking, home invasions, murders, armed robberies. Perps don't acknowledge or obey gun control laws in case our genius government hasn't noticed.
Avatar joker17 -
#16
Yes jarasan, but it was law back then because of constant instability during such turbulent times. We no longer have to worry about an entity like the National guard to go off the deep end.

Do we really have to take everything to the letter of the law no matter how out of date it is? Should we still stone folks for crimes commited, since the founding fathers took credence in the Bible?
Avatar joker17 -
#17
Konane, I read a study years ago that showed increase of deaths because of self defense. it also showed that if even if all guns were to magically disappear, offenders could still hit you over the head with a tire iron. If there's a will......


Avatar jarasan -
#18
You're kidding right? The National Guard is an entity? The second amnedment a law? The founding fathers took credence in the bible?

http://books.google.com/books?id=K6dIvTFsDMkC&dq=gun+rights+books&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=E7R3StGYH8eltgfLitSWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false


copy/paste read the intro
Avatar konane -
#19
Not buying it Joker, been instances on the news lately that robbers, home invasions and carjacking have been thwarted after Georgia's carry law changed. People are able to defend their lives and homes themselves once again. Much of the rise in crime is snatch and grab, shooting on the street or break-ins or home invasions where people haven't been able to defend themselves.

Understand when applying for a carry permit you have to be fingerprinted and those prints are sent off to the FBI for screening, background check before that permit is issued. Also understand it's legal to keep a shotgun or rifle in ones home to be used to counter deadly force if necessary.

Going to hit a perp over the head with a tire iron, fire poker or stab him with Jarasan's butter knife if they kick in your door brandishing an assault weapon or Glock full auto hot off the black market??????? Am sure it would work like a charm.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=glock+full+auto&search_type=&aq=0&oq=glock+f
Avatar joker17 -
#20
Whatever jarasan. You're splitting hairs. I was making a comparison to your statement about the national guard taking up arms against it's citizens. You're trying to justify the your point with times which were different a couple of hundred of years ago. Again, times change as so do the laws. I can't put it any simpler dude.

And yes, even though some of the fathers were agnostic or whatever, the mind set back then was supported with christian beliefs and idealisms.

@ Konane, I didn't mean the victim having a tire iron, I was referring to a criminal using any kind of weapon if all the weapons including ones in the black market were to magically disappear. Criminals would still find other ways to overcome the victim. They can use a can of hairspray and a lighter.

Anyways, the debate wasn't so much whether I agree or disagree with the right to bear arms but was just making a point about interpretations that can be skewed, which was the premise of this to begin with. I totally support a business owner having a gun to protect him or herself. It's just that the conversation was going off track from the original premise. But i did read that in general, it was much safer to let the robbers take what they wanted rather risk a shoot out, which the study claimed to promote more deaths in the process.
Avatar jim695 -
#21
I'd hate to put a damper on this spirited exchange of ideas and arguments, but you're all overlooking one very important point: As an enforceable foundation of law in this nation, The United States Constitution is no longer worth the parchment it's printed on. The High Supreme Court began "tearing it asunder" in the 1990's, and they continue to rule that it has very little or no direct application to the common citizen in most cases (exceptions are rare).

Here's one bizarre example:

Indiana has never ratified the Fourteenth Amendment so, even though Indiana is what's called a "Shall Issue" or "Must Issue" state (when speaking of handgun licensing), the courts here have long held that the Second Amendment cannot be implemented by individuals desiring to own and/ or carry firearms. Therefore, State, County or Local police can take our weapons (and our civil rights) any time they want to, and they're NOT required to justify their actions. All that's required is that the officer or department allege that they believe the gun owner MIGHT be capable of committing a crime at some point in the future (even if that individual has NEVER been arrested before in his life).

Face it folks; if you're going to debate constitutional issues in America, the argument is essentially over before it begins. We, the people have precious little to say about the actions of an all-powerful government that has segregated itself from those they purport to represent, and one whose mantra has become, "There's Nothing You Can Do About It!" You can gain some comfort by telling yourselves, "Well, we'll just vote them out of office!" Ha! Think again; congress has made it perfectly legal for lobbyists, special-interest groups and industry leaders to effectively "buy" electoral votes and those delegates who control them. Just one of their votes can be worth tens of thousands of ours, so "voting them out of office" as a viable means of controlling your government is an empty and pointless effort, like trying to remove pee from a public swimming pool.

But I digest ...

Fascinating discussion. Please continue; I promise I won't interrupt again.

     Jim

Post a Comment

Please Log In

To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.

Not a member yet?

If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.

Register