The following statements were written by Constitutional lawyer Peter J. Spiro when discussing John McCain’s eligibility problems to run for the office of President.
Substitute Obama’s name for McCain’s and it is easy to see how we have arrived at this moment in history with America’s first knowingly ineligible President. The names and comments inserted in parenthesis are my mine & not Mr. Spiro’s.
[...] Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors, including Congress (Frank, Hatch, Kennedy, Waters, Graham, McCaskill, Conyers), editorialists (NY Times, MSNBC, LA Times et al), leading members of the bar (Turley, Dean, Epstein, Toobin), and the People themselves (can you say Kool-Aid?) manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it. In cases such as this one, at least, that seems to be an acceptable method of constitutional determination. (Acceptable? In a country that is supposed to function under and revere the rule of law? May I state for the record that you Sir are an arrogant SOB!)
[...] On the contrary, it would define the Constitution. The episode would supply an authoritative source for the determination of constitutional meaning, circa 2009. The presidential eligibility of those with similar citizenship pedigrees would be conclusively established. (President Schwarzenegger)
These statements provide the game plan used to knowingly elect a man clearly ineligible to serve as POTUS. Look at these statements. Read and re-read them again. Let them sink in! Once they do, there cannot be any question as to the extent of the betrayal by people in whom the citizens of this country placed their trust. The actions (or inactions) of these actors may not rise to the legal definition of treason, but IMHO their behavior remains unconscionable at best.
The question isn’t which Congressional members knew Obama was ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. The real question is, who didn’t know Obama was ineligible and yet remained silent.
Why would any member of Congress or any elected official sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution do nothing and allow a man who lacks the requisite natural born citizen qualification under Article II Section 1 to become President?
The answer is simple; because there are members of Congress, who are themselves lawyers (and should possess a better understanding of the NBC clause) who don’t like the natural born citizen clause. That is actually an understatement. As stated in Part One, numerous legislators, along with an assortment of other actors in the media and elsewhere believe that the NBC requirement is no longer necessary, is discriminatory, and consider the clause to be “un-American” in a land of immigrants. (Say what?)
These are people who believe in the New World Order, or consider themselves to be citizens of the world along with Obama, and/or believe (or want us to believe) that the significance of citizenship is fading! They would have us believe that this country no longer faces threats from outside sources intent on destroying this country and our way of life so having a President that isn’t a natural born citizen is no big deal.
We have varied Congressional actors who knew Obama was ineligible and did nothing. They include:
- those who knew Obama was a fraud, not wanting to be “the one to take down The One” or simply didn’t care as long as their political agenda was met
- those who knew and were already comprised when they supported McCain with the non-binding Senate Resolution 511because making an exception for McCain gave them an excuse to make a bigger exception for Obama
- those who knew that the MSM would savage them for speaking the truth and could point to it without leading the charge. Is there anyone who believes the Clintons could have brought Obama’s citizenship status to the forefront without being viciously savaged and being called racists?
- those who support Arnold Schwarzenegger, knowing if Obama’s phony presidency is allowed to stand that precedence will have been set for him to run for POTUS.
The NBC clause has been a cause of concern dating back to 1860′s. At least 2 dozen attempts have been made to change the clause over the years. Despite the MSM propaganda on the topic, attention to the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS didn’t begin with Obama and it has not one whit to do with the color of his skin.
Since 2000 there have been accelerated attempts to address the conundrum of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The most serious attempt was a hearing to discuss H.J.Res. 88 and held on July 24, 2000 by Congressman Barney Frank. Take of look at the names on the committees … any of them look familiar?
Before you review these names let me point something out. While H.J.Res. 88 dealt with an amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to become President, one cannot review the hearing notes without recognizing that these same points pertain to McCain and Obama equally.
Some of these people are still in office and some are not, but all understand the meaning and consequences of the requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen.
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida (late of MSNBC & who disparages the “birthers”)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Constitution
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MAXINE WATERS, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York
Who else we can point to? How about Ted Kennedy who said he would support a constitutional amendment that would enable his niece’s foreign-born husband, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to run for President.
Or Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who succeeded Hatch, said of Schwarzenegger: “The guy has become governor of California. What more credentials could you ask?”
Or Orrin Hatch who sponsored the “Arnold Amendment” in 2003 or John Conyers in 2006.
You want more? Do you know how many members of Congress hold law degrees? The number is 132 in the House of Representatives and 60 in the Senate.
1. Thirty-eight law schools have graduates serving in the senate.
2. Harvard Law boasts the most U.S. senators, with eight (Schumer, Stevens, Crapo, Dole, Obama, Feingold, Levin, Reed,). UVA Law is a close second, with seven (Bayh, Warner, Whitehouse, Kennedy, Bond, Cornyn, Nelson).
3. Four schools have two alumni serving in the U.S. senate, Alabama (Sessions, Shelby), Catholic (Casey, Harkin), GWU (Inoyue, Reid), Mississippi (Cochran, Lott).
4. Following schools have one each; Michigan (Salazar), Chicago (Klobuchar), Georgetown and NYU (Alexander)
5. Yale Law (Clinton, Lieberman, Specter); Georgetown (Durbin, Leahy, Webb)
Why is listing the number of Congressional members with law degrees so important? Because these are people who have more than a basic understanding of the Constitution and the requirements to hold the office of President. And if all of this wasn’t enough, let’s not forget about the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean; all who have sworn to the public that Obama is eligible to be President at the same they have worked with Obama to keep his every record verifying his citizenship status (at the time of his birth) from the public.
Is it necessary for me to point out that one doesn’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep records secret if there are no secrets to keep?
If you do nothing else this weekend, download a copy of the H.J. 88 hearing chaired by Barney Frank in July 2000. Pay particular attention to Frank’s objections to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution; then review pages 17 through 25 and the comments of Mr. Vazsonyl. You can jump to pages 42 though 50 and read the comments of historian Forrest McDonald.
Both men talk about the beauty and majesty of our Constitution, the rationale and significance of retaining the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution, and point out that being able to run for the office of President of our country is not a right.
As Mr. Vazsonly, himself a naturalized citizen, points out:
Our Government consists of three independent branches. In the legislative branch with its two Chambers, one of them has hundreds of Members, so a few foreigners among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.
Alone, the executive branch of this Government is vested in a single person. I don’t think that it is an excessive requirement of the office for that person to have grown from the American soil.
I come back to my statement, which is not particularly palatable in today’s political climate, that Americans are different. We like to believe that all people are the same. In my experience, they are not.
[...] It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency.
I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust, to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.
I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for.
Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with.
Not logged in