Why Obama is Ineligible to Run For President in 2012

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."  -- Patrick Henry
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -- Patrick Henry

I Confess...

I am a Constitutionalist. But what does that mean really? I believe in freedom. I believe in family. I believe in compassion. I believe in less-government and I believe in God. I further believe the Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and our public servants. The same contract created our nation.

The Constitution likewise defines the limitations of our public servants in the commission of their duties. We largely call them rights. The U.S. Supreme Court makes its decisions in accordance to the Constitution as each case may require. Sometimes judges misinterpret such limitations and make unconstitutional rulings. Sometimes, they do it on purpose to serve their own agenda. Regardless, ignorance of the law is no excuse. All the writings concerning our Founders intentions are readily available. Any stooge can look them up and understand what the intended purpose and result is regarding any issue. I am of the opinion that anyone who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in a public servant role and fails to do so, should be suspended from their duties immediately and face permanent removal from public service depending on the outcome of an extensive independent inquiry.

Our forefathers were more serious. They preferred such abuses of the government trust be resolved with an immediate public hanging. We still have laws on the books instructing the local sheriff to do just that upon a guilty verdict.

But we are more civilized today. We are kinder and more gentle to those who betray the public trust. We are so civilized, we often let them completely get away with their illegal abuses of power. For example, selling guns to Colombian Drug Lords.

The simple fact is, "We the People" are the government. Those working in a government capacity, are our servants. Our Constitution is a contract that guarantees this arrangement between We the Government and the public servants who serve us.

The President is our servant in chief. I admit, I do not care to see Obama re-elected, but that is not my motivation here. My motivation is the backswing of this two-edged idiom.

Unless of course its the public servant who is ignorant of the law, then that is ok.
Unless of course its the public servant who is ignorant of the law, then that is ok.

Ignorance of the Law, is NO Excuse...

When you're in trouble with the law, a police officer or judge will occasionally tell you, "Ignorance of the law, is no excuse." How many times have we had this "golden nugget" laid at our feet? This is usually said just before they send you down the legal river without a paddle.

When you consider that Congress alone has passed over 4.6 million laws since its inception, plus all the nation's court rulings, state, county, city laws, ordinances and precedents, its completely impossible for any human being to know them all. Regardless, your inability to do the impossible, is no excuse for your failure to do so. So one has to ask, does that rule apply to public servants in their duties?

And What If You're the President of the United States?

Only the dead, "might" have trouble recalling an obvious case
where the law doesn't apply to everyone; especially everyone in high places. They quite often, seem to get a pass. But you, do not. And, if it becomes an issue, an army of lawyers are standing in the wings with an arsenal of lawsuits, appeals and loopholes; the privileged seem to make little if any effort to hide it.
------------------------------------------
Update: 2-1-12 Case in Point...
On January 26th, 2012, President Obama and his Attorney were subpoenaed to A Georgia court trial involving the premise of this artcile. Obama refused to show, instead, he went campaigning in Nevada. Did the judge issue a warrant for Obama's arrest? I can find no account of such an occurrence, however, if you or I had not shown up, the arrest warrant would have been issued. No Virginia, the law does not apply to everyone, only the little people of lesser importance.
----------------------------------------

But this ruling isn't about loopsholes, priviledge, place of birth, or birth certificates. Its about black and white Supreme Court Rulings. Four of them in fact.

The U.S. Supreme Court Says So...

Immaculate Misconception does not count. Two Legal U.S. Citizen Parents Required to be President. Ignorance if the law, is no excuse!
Immaculate Misconception does not count. Two Legal U.S. Citizen Parents Required to be President. Ignorance if the law, is no excuse!

The Back Swing

The Liberty Legal Foundation, a non-profit organization who's goal is to enforce government adhereance to the U.S. Constitution through legal challenges has filed two lawsuits requesting the Federal Courts follow current, valid Supreme Court rulings.

At the heart of the case is the long-standing Minor vs Happersett [88 U.S. 162, 168] that specifically defines a "Natural Born Citizen" as children born of TWO US Citizen parents - not one.

The problem at hand is the well publicized fact that President Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a suit arguing that since Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen, Obama is by legal definition and U.S. Supreme Court ruling, not a natural born citizen, making him ineligible to be president, or run for president in 2012. Where is the watchdog media on this? Instead of going on and on about Hawaii and his photoshopped birth-certificate, why are the media not talking about this?

Framing the Argument

The Constitution itself specifically mentions "Natural Born Citizen" but does not define it. Therefore it was left to the U.S. Supreme Court to make a determination. The Court ruled in "Minor vs Happersett" that a "Natural Born Citizen" is a child of two U.S. Citizens at birth.

Like a Fox guarding the hen house, each political party is responsible for certifying the eligibility of their candidate. If the Democrat Party certifies Obama for the 2012 election, Liberty Legal Foundation's suit will seek to hold them liable for fraud and uphold the law.

So what does Minor vs Happersett say exactly?

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Microscope on Legalese

For those who prefer Law for Dummies note the following excerps: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also..."

The key words here are "PARENTS," and "CITIZENS" - plural, not singular. This means BOTH parents. But there is an exception in the ruling. Does it apply in Obama's case?

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

This applies to children of whom one or more parent is unidentifiable for reasons of death or separation.This clause is immediately followed by: "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

In other words, we can make some exceptions for children of unknown parents. We make them a citizen and move forward. When we know who the parents are, we do not - the law is then applicable.

Coincidentally, we know exactly who Obama's parents are, there is no mystery about it.

Barack Obama Senior, maternal father of U.S. President Barack Obama. Born in Kenya.
Barack Obama Senior, maternal father of U.S. President Barack Obama. Born in Kenya. | Source

Meet Barack Obama Senior

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (1936 -1982) was a Kenyan senior governmental economist, and father of former Illinois Senator and President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Obama Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya. He was the son of Hussein Onyango Obama (c. 1895-1979) and his second wife, Akumu Habiba.

Ann Dunham Soetoro, mother of U.S. President Barack Obama. Born in Kansas.
Ann Dunham Soetoro, mother of U.S. President Barack Obama. Born in Kansas.

Meet Ann Dunham Soetoro

If alive today, Ann Dunham Soetoro, would be 67.
President Obama's mother was portrayed in Obama’s presidential campaign as both a “free spirit” and the “moral bedrock” of her son’s idealism. Dunham was a cultural anthropologist who worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia.

The Bottom Line

Aside from controversy surrounding Obama's birth place and his birth certificate, there is no variable of question here because we know who Obama's parents are and where they were born is well documented. Obama's father was born in Kenya, not Kansas as was his mother; making Obama, by law, ineligible to be or run for president in 2012.

Other Supreme Court Rulings Defining Natural Born Citizenship

The Venus: 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Shanks v. Dupont 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242
A case concerning Anna Scott and the Citizenship of her immigrant father...
"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649
This case concludes with the same ruling found in Minor vs Happersett.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

From the Constitution Itself...

We see the U.S Supreme Court has ruled upon like cases in a like manner but what exactly does the Constitution have to say on the matter?

Article 2, Section 1 : “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

The Final Nail in the Coffin

SO unless Obama can produce a birth certificate issued in 1775 from one of the original colonies, I think the final nail is hereby driven into the coffin. While the Governor of Hawaii may or may not have whipped up a photoshop birth certificate from Hawaii, its going to be very hard to explain how Hawaii issued it in 1775. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they tried.

Will Liberty Legal Foundation prevail? If everyone involved follow and adhere to the law, then yes, I believe they have every chance of success. However, there is a lot at stake here. There are several multi-gazillionaries who have invested a fortune in Obama, what's a few more zillion to buy an army of lawyers and 4 years of litigation?

"Some pigs are better than other pigs." - Orwell.
"Some pigs are better than other pigs." - Orwell. | Source

But Ignorance Is No Excuse!

We are constantly told by our public servants that Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse.
Now as the sword is poised to swing the other way, I wonder if they will sing the same tune?

Or will they try to slap some lipstick on that pig?

This is going to be interesting to watch. It would be nice if the media shed a little light on this instead of sweeping it under the rug.

- Harlan

Lipstick on a Pig Poll

Will Liberty Legal Foundation prevail? Or be ignored?

  • They appear to have a good case. They may prevail if the court will hear them.
  • No, the powers that be will sweep them away like yesterdays trash.
  • Wait, what shade of lipstick is that? It looks like my color!
See results without voting

Constitution + 4 Supreme Court Rulings

Should "the people" even have to file lawsuits to force our public servants to follow the law?

  • No, this is a waste of time and money. Public servants who fail to follow the law should have to serve some prison time. Our freedom is not a joke.
  • Yes, our public servants know what is best for us. They are only doing the very best they can do.
See results without voting

Have you ever read Orwell's book Animal Farm? Are familiar with the metaphor used here?

  • No. I have some relatives who have a farm with some animals, but I don't know about pigs or the book either.
  • Yes. I remember the book and am fully aware of the connection here.
  • What? I'm a vegan. Get off my back already.
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 56 comments

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Brilliant! You should be on the short list for the next Supreme Court vacancy.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

Ralph, I know we disagree on some things, but I do enjoy your perspectives and comments. They keep me on my toes! Best wishes,

- Harlan


ccrugg profile image

ccrugg 5 years ago

Puh-lease. After stating that your intent had nothing to do with your opinion of Obama, you did nothing but use inflammatory and outrageous pictures to rationalize an obscure argument that has no chance of going anywhere. Give. It. Up. No matter how hard others try to deny him, he is the legitimate president. Period. You may not like it, but you don't have to. You simply need to accept it as fact.

If you want to discuss ineligible candidates, then let's discuss the good governor of the state of Texas. If you remember, he thought it would be a good idea for Texas to secede from the union. Now he wants to be the leader of that union?

I'm sorry, but these claims to illegitimacy are wearing thin, and are pointless diversions from real issues plaguing this country.

If you believe, as you state, that disregard for the oath taken to follow and protect the Constitution should result in discharge from public duties, where is your rebuke for those in the Senate who have twisted the "majority" to mean 60 members when the majority is clearly 51? Those actions that stall progress and delay meaningful legislation are ultimately more destructive to this country than a legitimately born president of this country.

And to be honest, I am offended by the pictures you chose to create/use in your hub. I'm equally offended by your argument, but I respect your right to think as you will. The pictures, however, are inappropriate.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Harlan,

Uze airtight bro. We talked about this last night and it's a thing of beauty. Call me tomorrow my man!

H-e-l-l-o Ralph. (in my best Jerry to Newman impersination from "Seinfeld") lol

jim


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

ccrug,

Politics ain't pretty. Get off your high horse and answer the specific point. Instead of doing that, you draw someone or something from nowhere to divert the attention away from the objection or point itself. The Constitution doesn't say anything about Texans talking about seceding from the union for crying out loud. That's why I quit wasting my time debating people who dance around instead of facing up. Yeah, one picture is questionable, but this hub isn't about a picture. It's about the Supreme Court ruling. Talk about that if you can. I don't care what color the sky is in Bangor. What do you think of the law and how it pertains to someone running for president.


dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 5 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

Eligible or not he has run our economy into the ground and we cannot afford any more


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 5 years ago from USA

Do you mean that Obama is less of an American than you? So let's extend your thought that a native American (with both parents)is more of an American than you. Never would you question the relevance of laws that were made 224 years ago? You behave exactly like those judges who accuse people not to know the law! Isn't the law made for the common person not understand? This way they won't represent themselves in pro se!


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Max,

That stunt with the Indians was bogus. Did you read the law? Forget Obama and try to get Indians out of your mind. Just comment on what the law says. If you doubt the wording, look it up and come back. Once you've established that the wording is correct, then just tell us that a supreme court rulling is irrelevant. It's that simple. Obama's got the job, and may very well keep the job another 4 years so he can finish us off. Sad but true. All we're asking is, is he eligible by the law? Read the law again, and answer the question. This old bull of you guys getting off subject or semi off subject to object won't win you any debates. If you don't want to debate, and just think the law sucks, just say that. You're boy ain't going no where. Now come on. Be a rock star and do this.

jim


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 5 years ago from USA

What I'm saying is who cares! He's an American and was elected. If you don't want him next year, it's up to you!


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

max,

I have a tendency to think that way. Judge Roy Bean was a hero of mine. "but your honor, they didn't read him his Miranda rights!" "I don't give a shit, four people watched him steal that horse, hang the sonofabitch!" Yeah, I love that stuff, but it doesn't work that way, or we're in trouble if it does. If the law becomes irrelevant on one thing, then it's up to the whims of whoever to say it's irrelevant anywhere else. That's what is being done here. One side has decided it's irrelevant and the other side ain't fighting it, so it's irrelevant and your boy rolls on. Not trying to be insulting. I'm not, but I think we are, in fact, in trouble.

jim


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ Ccrugg: I used the picture of Puppet Obama on Soros lap because I think it makes a point. You cannot effectively argue that the office of the President is not in many regards a puppet to big money, not matter who is in office. The second picture illustrates my comment on the Immaculate Misconception that Obama is eligible for office. The law clearly states he is not.

I am happy for blacks who felt second class, Obama's election did much to correct that. If for nothing else, I appreciate Obama's Presidency for that reason alone. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. They are truly equal and they need to know it, live it and walk in it as do all people of all walks of life.

Secondly, saying Obama is a legitimate president sets a very dangerous precedent. You are saying 4 Supreme Court rulings showing otherwise are immaterial and mean nothing. Well there goes Roe v Wade because they ruled on that too. Regardless, what I hear you saying to me is: the law doesn't matter when it gets in the way of what I want. This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution warned us about. The law is the law. You cannot sidestep it or ignore it just because its inconvenient for you.

Like it or not, we're in this boat together and when the nation swirls down the toilet, all those pillow pampered congressmen will not lift one finger to feed, clothe or comfort you, they will be too busy flying around in Nancy Pelosi's private tax-payer funded jet, watching porn and eating caviar.

As far as the Sentate, I believe a 2/3rds vote has been required since the signing of the Constitution. If 10 guys voted to kill another 8, under our system they wouldn't win. Under your idea of a majority they would. Our current system keeps a simple majority from trampling over almost half the people. A super majority as in 2/3rd vote makes sure most people agree, not just half+1. It's a safeguard mechanism to protect YOUR RIGHTS.

Thanks for commenting, all comments are welcome. Pro or con.

- Best wishes,

- Harlan


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ Jim: I'll give you a ring. We can figure out how to help save our government from being overthrown by corrupt public servants. Thanks for comments.

- Best Wishes

- Harlan


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@dahogland: Very good point. If this is a legitimate argument, then why not grab hold of it and demand the law be followed? We'll see how the lawsuit comes out.

- Best Wishes

- Harlan


maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 5 years ago from USA

In a smart hub called "voting theory", the hubber underlined the irrelevance of the collegial vote. Many laws fall under the rubric obsolete. Changes have to come.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

max,

Rubric Obsolete pertains to something like the law in Kansas City that says horses have the right of way on city streets. No one wastes the time removing the law, because its a mute issue due to the fact that the conditions surrounding the law no longer exist. This doesn't fall into that category. The conditions surrounding this law still apply.

j.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ maxoxam41 "Do you mean that Obama is less of an American than you?"

Thank you. I don't think I could have said it any better. Yes he is less of an American. The man won't say the pledge of allegiance, he disrespects our flag and our traditions of national respect, he has anti-American activists in his circle of close ties - He disrespects our military and veterans - I think a better question is, "What makes this man a good American?"

The leader of a nation should set the example of the ideal citizen of that nation, its traditions and its founding values.

Secondly, "let's extend your thought that a native American (with both parents)is more of an American than you."

Foremost, that is not my thought, it is a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling not once, not twice, but FOUR times. AND, it says nothing about a Native American.

Your parents could be Martian immigrants, as long as they were BOTH legal U.S. Citizens when you were born - you can run for president. This is the LAW. Obama's father was Kenyan, thus the law says he cannot be, or run for president - PERIOD.

Third, your right to free speech is 224 years old too. Shall we trample over it because its so old its now irrelevant? How about your right to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness? Those rights contained in the same document are also 224 years old. Are they too old to be relevant for you? Shall we take those away? Or do you think maybe you'd like to hang on to them for awhile? HMMMM?

However, I do agree with your final point. The law is NOT made for the common person to understand. This is how they take justice hostage and sell it back to the highest bidder. They really hate Pro Se too.

Thank you for your comments

- Harlan


ccrugg profile image

ccrugg 5 years ago

Actually, @ManWithNoPants, I was addressing the point of the hub. The point was the legitimacy of the current president by dragging out a tired argument 3 years into his administration. My point was asking about the legitimacy of someone campaigning for that position when they've argued in the past for their state to secede from that same union. If legitimacy was the point of the hub, I had questions of my own.

@HarlanColt, I actually believe stating Obama is NOT a legitimate president sets the dangerous precedent. You cannot honestly believe one makes the decision to run and bingo! boingo! that's all it takes. You're wrong. It takes a substantial vetting process once you are determined to the candidate of the party, and a little consideration like legality of citizenship by birth is one of those issues explored.

As far as the 2/3s majority is concerned, for a constitutionalist, you should be aware of the role the vice-president serves in the Senate. That role is to break voting ties. Voting ties do not occur with 2/3 majority votes. They occur with 50/50 votes, which, surprisingly enough, is the number of senators who vote. The 2/3s majority became an issue with the Republican members of the Senate under this administration who could not stand the thought of that man making profound and necessary changes to this country, and who brought out time and time again the "cloture rule" which is nothing more than stonewalling and keeping changes from being made. They drag that out which forces the 2/3s majority. The Constitution does not mandate that majority.

You're alluding that OBAMA is the corrupt one in your vision of government?!? We may never fully untangle all the damage done and subversion engaged in under the previous administration, but Obama is the problem.... it never ceases to amaze me how much fear the most honest and decent man to hold that office in decades instills in people. He's upheld more of Bush's policies than people like I can stomach, and yet he gets no credit for anything. He says up, the GOP roars down...he goes in, they come rushing out. It's become nothing more than an elementary school game of cooties and opposites. It doesn't matter what he says or does he will be penalized by a narrow minded view of what he's trying to accomplish, and compared to a caricature that in no way represents or reflects reality. I have no problem with the fact you don't like him. I'm just calling you on the fact that your hub was nothing more than your dislike of him.

@ManWithNoPants, I'm tired of the dance, too...all you folks can do is backstep...there's absolutely no leading...


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

ccrugg,

I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I really am not. Perhaps I could have been more gentle. If you've ever read me, or know anything about my organization, you know I don't like conservative politicians much better than I like liberal ones. I assign value to everyone besides the crooks who are ripping us off, and although I lay to the right of center, I don't go around calling liberals "socialists" or any of that crap. My organization won't touch this campaign or any of the ideological cannon balls that separate liberals and conservatives. (almost 30 % of our members ARE liberal) It's about corruption on both sides of the isle. I'm involving myself in this discussion because I make decisions not with respect to color or label, but hard core facts, numbers and results. I've been in business a long time, and I trust numbers. Not the numbers that Fox or CNN give me, rather the numbers I come up with doing my own research or my analist gives me. Liars figure, but figures don't lie.

If this president were the coach of a football team, or the CEO of any company, he would be fired because of his results. Plain and simple. We're in the business of winning games, and he ain't winning. I can bury you with numbers, if you like numbers, and unlike everyone else, I don't use junk math. Let me know.

Regarding the law. I asked a simple question. I asked you to read the law, and tell me if you feel the Supreme Court ruling is relevent. That's all. If that's dancing or back stepping in your opinion, don't answer the question. Peace and good luck in any case.

jim


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Personally, I think the "Shadow Government" appointed Obama to the Presidency so Black Americans would not riot and rebel if they saw "one of their own" in the White House. No group has been hit harder than the African-American community these past few years and this was a brilliant strategy to keep them in line.


Chad Claeyssen profile image

Chad Claeyssen 4 years ago from Loveland, Colorado

First of all I agree with 100 percent of ccrugg's comments. The pics are inflammatory, but I thought it was ok when people were photoshopping Bush43's pic, so I'll keep my mouth shut about that.

As to your actual argument, you are using your own interpretation of "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”. I only read what you posted, but I didn't see where it said this means when one parent is dead. Also, "parents" can mean two parents of one child or parents in general as in the sentence - "the parents of all students are required to attend.". I don't know, but for the sake of argument, isn't it possible?

I'm new, so I don't know, but were you publishing hubs railing against Bush 43 the whole time he was using the constitution to light cigars?


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

Harlan, the inmates re running the asylum. Obama certainly isn't eligible to be president because he is incompetent. That is more than enough to get him booted out! Well done up, useful and awesome.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

ccrup, when exactly did Perry say he wanted to sucede from the union? Of course I believe many states should do this in order to get away from the people paying CA,and New Yorks union pension plans and bailing them out of trouble! I don't believe Perry ever said that in seriousness or in the context you propose.


Chad Claeyssen profile image

Chad Claeyssen 4 years ago from Loveland, Colorado

My politcal beliefs are left of center, but just an observation. If as many people were worried about strictly adhering to the constitution as say they are, Ron Paul will be the next president, but instead he's made to look like a bafoon, and ignored by the media, even "fair and balanced" Fox News. For some reason when it's time to vote people put aside the rhetoric and vote for the same old politicians, left and right, and then complain.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

Chad said, "For some reason when it's time to vote people put aside the rhetoric and vote for the same old politicians, left and right, and then complain."

---------------------

Chad, I agree that the status quo in Washington D.C. never changes. I believe the reason is that the voters have little to do with the selection process. I think, if the truth were known, you would find out that these politicians are appointed, not elected.

Do you really think mega-rich families like the Rockefellers, who are reportedly worth $12 trillion dollars, are going to allow the people in America to choose their leaders and policy-makers? Not on your life!

Benjamin Disraeli said in the House of Parliament in the mid 1800's, to the effect, that the common man would be surprised to find out that the one's responsible for running the governments and calling all the shots are far different than the ones he thinks is calling the shots.

And this is what David Rockefeller had to say: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty; and am proud of it." - David Rockefeller

Then again, Former British Defense Minister, Denis Healey, stated, "World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings."

Hope this helps to clear up some things - L.R.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ccrugg: Let's say for a moment that you are correct, it sets a dangerous precedent for me or anyone to say Obama is an illegitimate president. Now, in the grand scheme of political things, I am at best, a fraction of a hair above immaterial - a grain of sand upon the beaches of the world. But what about the Supreme Court and its rulings? Do they not set a much more dangerous precedent under your logic? If such be a valid and legitimate argument, why doesn't the DNC file a lawsuit to have such rulings over-turned? The obvious answer is: Why bother, when you can simply ignore the law and get away with it. I think that is a much more dangerous precedent, where does one draw the line on ignoring and breaking laws?

The true root of our national problems began in 1871 when the government incorporated itself and began the gradual elimination of dejur standing and replaced it with defacto. The United States of America, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are two completely different legal entities.

Until people come to understand the full breadth of what this means to their rights, themselves and our nation, our efforts, comments and activism are little more than an entertaining and ineffective diversion.

You are wrong in that I hate Obama and love GW. Actually, I have an equal amount of political disdain for both parties because I know that the Dems vs Repubs contest is nothing but a diversionary ruse. Divide and conquer. We do not have two major parties, only one but look at the result, a great division in America. We have people carrying Dem or Repub signs, spitting on each other, cussing and yelling in anger over issues they don't even control.

Why on earth would anyone throw a rock or a set of keys at someone protesting abortion? Their protest is not making any difference in Roe v Wade. At the end of the day all it boils down to is "I'm better than you because I believe X."

As it is, no matter who is in office the nation seems to keep moving the same direction - and its the wrong one, many liberals see it and agree. Applying a bit of reason, one may come to understand its because some other think-tank is pulling the strings at the highest levels.

I do not dislike Obama, I do dislike the idea that he has sold out to non-American interests and agendas, probably long before he went to Washington. In fairness, so did Bush Sr. Slick Willie, and GW, another sign of a puppet master behind the curtain.

Thank you for commenting. Agree or not, your comments are always welcome.

- Best Wishes

- Harlan


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

Harlan:

The pictures you used to get your point across are not only funny, but they're awesome! Where do you come up with these works of art and priceless treasures? Or do you have to have some insane computer skills and a wicked imagination?


SanXuary 4 years ago

He is already President so lets make this no issue an issue. Can we get the last President for war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention as well? Personally I think he has done a fine job of doing nothing just the kind of leader I like. He is no different then all the other ones we have had and proved the point that our leaders run nothing in this country. Still he never started any wars based on lies and never acted like a dictator. The next guy if he does not win will probably be a nightmare. Over time you notice that past agendas never go away but return when the party leader returns, I guess we better get ready for invading Iran next and some financial nightmare that is coming real soon. The deficit is not going away it is simply being put off until the next election is decided then the ugly truth will have to be settled. Happy New Years I can hardly wait.


PJ Jones profile image

PJ Jones 4 years ago

Amazing, if only people would use their knowledge for the good of mankind....ask the supreme court how can a corporation be people...people is corporation...


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

PJ, its because they have made us all sub-corporations that the head corporation can choose whether or not to adhere to the Constitution, when, where and if it wants to. This is why you hear judges in court rooms now and again tell a defendant, " If you mention the Constitution again, I will throw you in jail for contempt." It is also why, that despite there is no law requiring you to pay any taxes, you have to pay them anyway.

Good comment

- Harlan


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

SanXuary:

I do not know anything about you, but I cannot find anything in your post that I disagree with.

Regards - L.R.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ Lone Ranger: Funny pics.

Honestly, every time I see the pic which I have dubbed the Immaculate Misconception, seriously, if one cannot see the various layers of humor in that photo... what do they laugh at? Anything at all?


SanXuary 4 years ago

We can not change an establishment that is above the laws of the land and its own citizens. The same people who make the laws do not even hold themselves to any of their own edicts. There is them and then there is us and we are ignored. There is no argument when are complaints go unheard, ignored and they really do not care as long as they get what they want.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

Harlan, I'm sure you know a dead horse when you see one. Why don't you stop beating this one. You are wasting your time.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ Ralph & Sanxuary:

I am like two-face here from the Batman comic, I completely agree and yet there us just enough sovereignty left in me to demand servitude from those who would enslave us. Thus, if we do not focus our eyes past the bogus fisaud of Dems vs Reps, then yes, we are truly lost and we shall reduce ourselves to stocking up on 5 gallon buckets of beans, rice and peas from the bulk foods isle to winter the coming fall of the once great and prosperous ideal, enjoyed by our forefathers in which we call freedom. God save us all for there is nothing left to hope for. But again, I am an American, how can I in good and livable conscience submit to the shackle, to live enslaved by MY SERVANT?


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 4 years ago from Tucson, Az.

"Democracy will not die from ambush. Rather it will die slowly from neglect and apathy." ~ The old dude who was the dean at Yale (I'm tired and can't remember his name)

Harlan,

Never give up the fight. Breathe fire and thank God for the ability to fight. The fight is more important than the victory in His eyes, and should be in ours too. When we take our last breath, we'll have a smile because we'll go out knowing we were a warrior, and never laid down. Grab your sword, get on your horse and smile. It's been a good day and tomorrow will be even better.

jim


SanXuary 4 years ago

This does not mean we take it on the chin, it means we pick a fight that actually changes things. These battles should not be along party lines or at anyone. Both parties have been sharing power since who knows when and have been enjoying the same rewards for their status regardless of legality. They choose who anyone is in power and we vote on their choices and not ours. They represent there status and not the ordinary people of America. I am dying to see just one petition by the people for the people that forces their hands in our direction to some kind of real representation. Forcing the Corporate lobbyist out of the money game, from approving their own research and revolving door of hand picked members who pose a conflict of interest from Government Agencies, would be a great place to start. This can be peacefully done provided a petition that is passed by the people is actually allowed to be approved. At the very least it would be a true test to determine where the people truly stand in terms of any real representation.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

SanXuary:

Again, I will say that I cannot find anything you have written that I can disagree with.

Regards - L.R.


Lone Ranger 4 years ago

TMWNP a.k.a., Jim, eloquently said, "The fight is more important than the victory."

Well said, Jim, damn near brought tears to my eyes!

---------------------

Harlan poetically wrote:

"But again, I am an American, how can I in good and livable conscience submit to the shackle, to live enslaved by MY SERVANT?"

I think it was Ben Franklin who said to the effect that the people should not fear the government; rather, it's the government that should fear the people.

Easier said than done when you have a standing army of a few million, well-trained military personnel who have been brainwashed to take orders only from the "Commander in Thief" to attack whatever, whomever, and whenever he says (both foreign and domestic without prejudice).

Best wishes - L.R.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ LR: There are organizations like Oathkeepers.org a group of police and military etc who believe in the oath and reach out to others who have taken that oath to educate and encourage them to keep it.

My view: if you are in any kind of public service and break your oath, you should loose your job. Once a few of them do, they will start looking into what it actually means beyond a warm fuzzy tradition before assuming your duties.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

@ Ralph, I suppose it is a dead issue in many ways, but Liberty Legal Foundation does have a lawsuit moving forward on this very premise. The hub is largely intended to point out that they have a lawsuit filed against the DNC for fraud in falsely verifying Obama's legitimacy for office. Honestly, I doubt they will succeed. Am I cheering-leading for Liberty Legal? Not intentionally, but yes, I feel like a major step in saving America would be made if they did win. However, I am not grinning with uncontrollable glee and jumping up and down with such expectations either.

@ ccrugg - if it makes you feel any better, I never voted for GW in either term. I didn't trust him either. And I think you make a good point, I should find some corrupt right-wingers to beat up just to show some balance. God knows several of them could use a good beating. Thanks for the idea, I will work on that.

- best wishes,

- Harlan


Chuck Bluestein profile image

Chuck Bluestein 4 years ago from Morristown, AZ, USA

Have you heard the latest news? A court in Georgia is considering taking Obama off of the ballot for the above reason. It should be big news in the next couple of days. At a recent debate, they asked Romney a question about the constitution. He said that they should ask Ron Paul because he is the constitutionalist!

So you did a great job with the above article and it should get more attention now that it is becoming big news. I saw this article since I wrote about what is happening in Georgia and this article showed up on the side. Of course why didn't anyone catch the above in 2007? Have you ever heard the word 'sheeple'?


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

Chuck, actually I have, and I am considering either updating this hub or writing another. Still mulling it over. As for your 2007 question, there are two reasons: Some did but were swept under the rug and the other reason, you have already provided the answer... sheeple. Have you noticed none of this has hit the mainstream media at all? And its a real court case... not one peep on NBC, ABC, XYZ etc etc.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

From your presentation, HOW can this be argued? You make a clear case. It is written with a common sense approach. But, I think the media will do its best to ignore this and sweep it under the rug.

It is this simple....either we follow our constitution or we don't. Many are trying hard NOT too....it is up to us, to see to it, that we apply this document to the laws of this country.

I don't know how I missed this jewel, but I love it.

Chris


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 4 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

Chris, the Constitution is the Highest law of the land. It is also a contract between WE the government and those public servants who do our public business; it clearly defines the limits of their authority of which many are out of contract and acting illegally. Oddly, they all take an oath to uphold and defend it, then ignore it.

We the People ARE THE GOVERNMENT, what we often call the government is not - it is our servant - not our master. Our servant is serving itself and needs a good house cleaning. Sometimes people tell me - "You're anti-government..." I say, "I absolutely am NOT. I love government, I Love Good Government, I am, however, Anti-Corrupt-Government,".

From Harlan's Dictionary:

Constituent: Employer, The Boss, person of authority.

You are right, it is up to us. We either do it, or we will soon all be prisoners of something very unlike what America was meant to be.

Thanks for the comments, best wishes,

- Harlan


CJ Sledgehammer 4 years ago

Excellent article, Harlan, voted up across the board!!!

You said, "Oddly, they all take an oath to uphold and defend it, then ignore it."

----------

I think the Constitution is an impedement for those who have grown too big for their britches. The Constitution is great for the average guy and gal, but it just doesn't serve the wealthy elitist/internationalists who run our country.

The Constitution, therefore, poses a threat to their way of life, so they either ignore it or try to erase it one stroke at a time.


Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Can I say good effort, but Obama is a citizen. His mother is American, he is a citizen. Having lived abroad and known people who have dual citizenship, America being one, this is a moot point. This is you hub and it is not balanced but very biased. I do not want Obama for president, but not because I support fringe groups trying to question his citizenship.

My great grandparents don't have birth certificates or proof of citiizenship other than their great grand parents were slaves. That's another issue though.

We need to get rid of President Obama in an election and not by some technicality. If America votes him into office again, we deserve whatever happens as consequence.


Motown2Chitown 4 years ago

Harlan,

Can't believe it took me this long to read this. Seems as though the 'case' is cut and dried. But I have little faith that anything will actually come of it in the long run. Public servants for some reason do seem to be above the law. Sad, but terribly true. This article was inspiring, however, and HIGHLY informative. So glad I got to it. Up, useful and interesting!

Peace,

Mo


drawingssitets 3 years ago


Alexandr 3 years ago


Chuck Bluestein profile image

Chuck Bluestein 3 years ago from Morristown, AZ, USA

Actually I read this story about Bill Clinton was planning on releasing this information before Obama was elected. His best friend was Democratic Operative Kam Kuwata (who set up the 2008 Denver Democratic convention and ran Hillary’s West Coast campaign). Kuwata was helping him investigate Obama's birth certificate. The following is a fact.

Kuwata was found inexplicably murdered. That is a fact. A message came to Clinton saying that if he continued to challenge Obama's birth certificate then his daughter, Chelsea would be found dead. Chelsea is alive and Clinton never did challenge the birth certificate like he said that he would.


CJ Sledgehammer 3 years ago

Apparently the media and most of America failed to read this well-written essay. Too late for us now...what's done is done. :0)


BekaS1974 3 years ago


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

This Hub attracts a lot of looney tunes characters such as chuck above.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 2 years ago from the Rocky Mountains Author

I recently read a good article explaining how all the "birther advocates" were mislead. It said, " No, Obama was born in the US. The confusion comes from him lying on his entrance papers to college so he could qualify for foreign aid. But that really has nothing to do with this forum.


Christopher Jay T profile image

Christopher Jay T 17 months ago from Fort Worth, TX

A natural born citizen is someone born in this country. Ity has Absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your parents are citizens. If you were born and France, you are not considered a natural born citizen just because both your parents are citizens. The theory that Obama was born is Kenya doesn't seem as crazy as your ridiculous theory.


msv 3 months ago

This article is ancient but I'm so disgusted by the intellectual dishonesty that I had to comment. There's nothing I hate more than someone who holds themselves up as a an example of clear thinking and rebukes others with missives like "ignorance is no excuse" moments before they proceed to say ignorant, incorrect statement after ignorant, incorrect statement.

I can't believe no one called you on your obvious mistakes!

First of all that line you're quoting from Minor v. Happersett. You're not even parsing the grammar correctly! Either that or you're not thinking about what it means at all. It says "It was never doubted..." What is this saying? No one doubt thats if you have all this you are a natural born citizen. Okay. Cool. What about the part where you if you don't have that then you're NOT a natual born citizen? Where is that idea in the quote?

It isn't there. Did it ever cross your mind that there may be more ways to be a natural born citizen than the one they identified as being universally accepted? No one doubts that if you if you get marriage license from an autherized judge then you are married. Does that mean common law marriages aren't true? Of course not. Same (absurdly obvious) logic applies here. The court did not rule on the exhaustive criteria for NNC in Minor v. H. If you had actually read the case you'd know the reason they are even bringing this up is to get the idea that Minor is definitely a NBC out of the way. The next paragraph sasys (Paraphrasing) "Minor meets these criteria and so we will consider an NBC and not further consider the question of citizenship as it is not germaine to the case." They literally say: "We're not tackling the question of citizenship here." And uyet you think they are... ignorance i no excuse, remember?

And fwiw, you might want to read the 19th amendment as it overruled Minor vs. H.

You also fail to notice that the idea that there is doubt in the case of unknown parents implies there is support as well. And then you ssert unknown parents refers to death or mising whereabouts. Where the hell you got this idea is beyond me. Did you just make that up? it's certainly not true.

Bottom line: The SC has never ruled on the definition of NBC (and likely won't for complicated reasons) but the consensus of 211st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include those born in the United States regardless of parental citizenship.

You're either not diligent enough or honest enough to be trying to write opinion in areas of constitutional law.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working