Of Presidents and Constitutional Republics
Posted on December 6, 2008
Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook
First, a small update on the Supreme Court Conference on the Leo Donoforio case challenging Obama’s citizenship status. There’s no news on what the Supremes plan to do, but WorldNetDaily has the best, easily understood discourse on what Donoforio is alleging. If you are confused about the issues and specifically about Donoforio’s suit, this will be of interest.
The following, written by Alan Keyes, is a finely crafted look at our Constitutional Republic and specifically at the authority under which our President governs:
The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first “African-American” president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of “race” relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.
Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.
Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the President of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution’s authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?
Read Mr. Keyes article in its entirety at WorldNetDaily, along with the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Note Keyes’ comments about the civil rights cause and the authority given to civil rights and citizenship, which depend solely on the Constitution.
Thanks to Thoughts on God for leading me to Mr. Keyes and other discussions of the citizenship issue. This is an amazing blog. Be sure to visit.
In the meantime, we must await the Supreme Court decision on a yea or nay for hearing Donofrio’s case. You’ll find some interesting commentary on that likelihood at America’s Right.
Related:
More from Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen blog
And research on other possible ineligible Presidents, and the one who probably was ineligible, by virtue of a calculated lie: “President?” Chester Arthur et al – Why they aren’t precedent for Obama’s Eligibility
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Democrats, National Security, News, Obama Birth Certificate, Representative Government, The United States of America, U.S. Constitution
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “Of Presidents and Constitutional Republics”
Leave a Reply
Dr. Keyes is the man who SHOULD have been our “first black president”. I’ve campaigned and supported him for eight years. But you know what? It was REPUBLICANS who said “Americans would never elect a black man”… and VOTED FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS EVERY TIME. Why? Because the MEDIA was telling them who would win.
You know how much sympathy I have for conservatives and Republicans now? …..> 0
“people get the government they deserve” is just as true of the “right” as it is of the “left”.
The choice facing the Supreme Court on Monday boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.
Thanks so much for the link and the kind words about my site. I’m patiently waiting for Monday to see what happens along with everyone else.
Peace,
Madcap
http://GetWith.us/PJB-1.htm
The DNC has admitted that Obama is an illegal alien.
That’s why they did not answer the Supreme Court of The United States
They are getting ready to go to Jail for taking 750 million dollars from donors to back a L__r. Who knew and when did they Know IT?
Are the Islamist, Communist, Socialist, eoist, racist ready to rise up for their leader?
Truth can never be told so as to be understood and Not be believed.
http://GetWith.us/PJB.htm
Perhaps there is NATIONAL CONSENSUS on the following;
A. There ARE eligibility requirements to be President IAW the Constitution.
B. Someone (Many) has (have) the responsibility to ENSURE eligibility requirements are met.
C. An ineligible candidate should NOT hold the office of the President.
OK, here’s the rub;
1. What are the requirements for POTUS? Why are they what they are?
2. Who was obligated to ensure only valid Presidential candidates were put before the voting citizenry?
3. Here’s the zinger, what do you do after an election and prior to inauguration to ensure a candidate has met the requirements?
My take-
1. Natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of 14 years (short and sweet). I support the framers’ contention “natural” born meaning born on US territory to parents (plural) of American citizenship. The contention ensures against ANY questions regarding foreign loyalties. “Natural” is founder language specifically addressing unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to this Nation.
Something only I only recently understood is WHY the framers, the congress, and every President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now evident to me- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
2. Candidate is obligated upon demand to provide proof of eligibility to political national committee and State Election Officers (those responsible for setting the ballot).
3. Candidate that is seeking office (and taxpayer salary) is obligated to prove without doubt his/her eligibility to assume office (especially in cases of where questions indicate otherwise), the US congress can refuse to accept the votes from the electoral college until such undeniable proof is given, and lastly, the courts can compel relevant parties to submit to said obligations or duties.
As far as the birth certificate questions, natural born, and whatever else is bugging you about Mr. Obama’s candidacy…it’s the courts or nothing (ambiguity).
Additional thoughts from a dumb active duty American Soldier-
1. We live in a constitutional republic. Period. Republics derive their validity based on the rule of law. Folks who cry “will of the people” and pick and choose which rules are to be obeyed or ignored are treading a path of potential tyranny (at the very least an illegitimate government). Ask yourself if you want President Bush to hold a third term contrary to the 22nd Amendment.
2. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate issue is a clever ploy to obfuscate the true measure of his eligibility to be President. He is/was a constitutional lawyer; he’s stated that he is a “native” born American with dual citizenship; There should be no doubt he understood ambiguity existed as to his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President regarding Article II. The obligation is upon those that SEEK public office to prove eligibility beyond a shadow of a doubt (to self and constituency). To swear an oath to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution to hold that office with knowing that ambiguity existed is criminal and disingenuous.
If you are unaware, the Constitution refers to only two kinds of Americans: citizens and natural born citizens. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Only ONCE is it mentioned the term “natural born citizen” in the entirety of the United States Constitution…in reference to the requirement for holding the Office of President (and Vice-President).
3. Who should care that candidates meet eligibility requirements to hold office? Why is it important that requirements are created, expected, and complied? What are the consequences in this situation for malfeasance / misfeasance regarding the highest guiding document of our Nation? What would our founding fathers say about this current situation? What are we doing for the future of our Nation when we shirk the responsibilities of the present? Can an ineligible candidate that has assumed office give a “lawful order” to the United States Armed Forces?
Answers to questions I and others have asked-
Something I only recently understood (remember I’m a dumb Soldier) is WHY the framers, the courts, the congress, and EVERY President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now clear to me why- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
Mr. Obama is the first candidate EVER to have the presumption to run for office with ADMITTED dual citizenship. EVER. Let that sink in…the Founding Fathers would have crapped themselves.
If you wonder what a naturalized citizen means…to become a citizen through oath of ALLEGIANCE and intent for residency in the United States. A (native born) citizen is not required to swear an oath and derives their citizenship through place of birth or citizenship of parent(s).