I am not a "birther."
I am a Constitutionalist. The
Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to "advisory"
status, just as some have done with the Bible.
I am not a religious person which
emphasizes that this is an
intellectual, legal and historical argument but very pertinent to us today. The
US Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of "Natural
Born Citizen" once and for all since the issue is not going away. (e.g.
Jindal and Rubio as finalists for Romney VP.)
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the
US Constitution states that only a "natural born citizen" is eligible
for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition
of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement
were and still are well understood.
And, that is the rub for it requires
some study of the the history of the Founding, the political philosophy of the
era, what influenced the Founders, subsequent precedent(see Minor v Happerset
1875, among others) and plain, old, regular US history to understand the
seriousness of the issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion. Regrettably,
few seem to have done their homework. But even those that do, disagree. And
that's ok. But for an ultimate resolution I look to the US Supreme Court
to decide it. Ergo, my suit.
By the way, it is interesting to
consider the story of Chester A. Arthur, 21st President though he, too, was
illegitimate:
from http://www.art2superpac.com/ --a
fantastically informative site with lots of facts and legal arguments
Chester A. Arthur - Not an NBC
[Natural Born Citizen] maybe not even an Citizen (just like BHO). He was NOT an
Article II NBC since he was born of before his father's naturalization some 14
years after his birth. (He was installed in the office of the president
due to the assassination of President Garfield.) But based on the facts
uncovered in later history, Arthur was unconstitutionally seated because
he had falsified his nativity story and fraudulently held himself out as a
Natural Born Citizen.
Chester Arthur's crime was not fully
discovered and proven until long after his death as he had burned all his early family
records to cover up the deceit. He was born in 1829, in VT(though
this, too, is in question.)
Smells and tastes alot like Barack
Obama--hiding facts and documents in SEALED records (not much different from
BURNED, if the records are never un-sealed even one hundred years from now),
disputed birthplace and born of alien father.
Barack Obama Sr., widely known,
accepted and admitted by Obama, Jr. himself, was a Kenyan
National/British Subject who returned to Kenya after his education in the US. He
was NEVER a citizen of the US, naturalized or otherwise. Therefore,
Obama, Jr. was born of an alien father which disqualifies him for the office of
president of the United States. (Per Vatel, in Law of Nations (1758) and
codified into our jurisprudence by the US Supreme Court in Minor v Happerset
(1875), one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to
be a natural born citizen. So, even assuming that Obama, Jr. was born in
Hawaii, it matters not at all since he is NOT a natural born citizen by virtue
of his father NOT being a US citizen at the time of his birth.)
There are counters to my line of
argument that employ the 14th Amendment (1868) to the US Constitution, United
States v Wong Kim Ark (1898) and others that have detractors and supporters
among very astute and brilliant legal scholars.
Now, it is clear that the final
arbiter of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of the United States must have
the final word. Politics of the day should not influence so critical a
Constitutional question.
L. Todd House, MD
No comments:
Post a Comment