A real must-read! New Joan Swirsky essay: "Obama's Contempt for Our Constitution"

Obama's Contempt for our Constitution

November 1, 2008
by Joan Swirsky

On February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama stood outside the Old State
Capitol building in Illinois and announced his intention to run for
the presidency.

"I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness, a certain audacity,
to this announcement," Obama said. "I know I haven't spent a lot of
time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough
to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Of course, that depends on what his definition of “been there long
enough” is. Actually, after he took office in November 2004, he spent
a total of 143 days “on the job” – the number of days the senate was
in session – before beginning his campaign for President of the United
States. So now we know that, to Obama, “been there long enough” means
that four months and change is quite enough preparation to be not only
president but also the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,
chief executive of the federal government, and leader of the free
world.

At least he got the “audacity” part right.

In responding to disparagement from his opponents about the three
years he spent as a community organizer in Chicago, Obama explained -
with startlingly unselfconscious narcissism - that it was a good
preparation for the top job in the world because it helped in
"understanding where I'm coming from, who I believe in, who I'm
fighting for and why I'm in this race."

"They haven't talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer;"
Obama added. "They haven't talked about the fact that I taught
constitutional law..."

Okay, let's talk about that, especially because it is on the basis of
a Constitutional challenge that Obama was sued by lawyer Philip J.
Berg. In short, Berg has insisted that Obama is not a natural born
U.S. citizen, was possibly born on foreign soil to an American mother
and Kenyan father, may hold dual American-Indonesian citizenship, and
therefore does meet the eligibility requirements that are spelled out
in exquisite detail in the United States Constitution. He asked that
Obama's name be removed from the ballot.

Berg's case was dismissed on October 24 by Judge Barclay Surrick, but
he promptly took the case before Judge David Souter of the Supreme
Court, whose disposition is anticipated before the election on
Tuesday, November 4 If no judgment is rendered, Berg anticipates that
if Obama is elected, a Constitutional crisis will ensue. At this
point, numerous citizens throughout the country have petitioned their
own courts to disqualify Obama.

"I TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"

Well, I ask, what part of the Constitution did Obama not "get"?

In the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, it states: 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.

Title 8 of the U.S. Code explains what "natural born citizen" means:

Anyone born inside the United States.

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen
of the tribe.

Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are
citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and
lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S.
national.

Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived
in the U.S. for at least one year.

Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot
be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by
age 21.

Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and
as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the
U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service
included in this time).
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an
alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and
is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions
allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born.
For example, separate sections of the U.S. Code address territories
that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico,
Alaska, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. And the law
contains one other section about the Panama Canal Zone and the nation
of Panama. It states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama
itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who
is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States
citizen.

Because this section doesn't carry the words "natural-born" or
"citizen at birth," this became an issue for Sen. John McCain when he
ran for president in 2000. But that issue was resolved when it was
found that McCain was considered a natural-born citizen under 8 USC
1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its
outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.

If Obama meets the above criteria, then why has he still not produced
a certifiably authentic birth certificate?

UNDISGUISED CONTEMPT

Selwyn Duke, in the American Thinker, writes, "Leftists...could
attempt to change the Constitution so that it reflects their agenda,
but this is a long, drawn-out, difficult process that requires, of all
things, actual public support for your aims. And it's easier to change
the courts - and install `ideological' justices who will impose left-
wing orthodoxy from the bench - than the will of the subjects.
Consider that liberals are ever trying to destroy tradition, as it
stands in the way of progressivism. Consider that a consistent
definition of liberalism - one that epitomizes the modern left (those
progressives) - involves the desire to change the status quo. So what
it means is that, by definition, a liberal who understands the
Constitution cannot believe in it."

Aha! So that is why Obama told an NPR radio interviewer in 2001 that
the Warren Court did not "break free from the essential constraints"
found in the Constitution and therefore one of the "tragedies" of the
civil rights movement was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into
the issues of redistribution of wealth..."

Upon hearing a tape of the interview, Ed Morrissey of CaptainsQuarters
blog fame, "The government does not exist to determine the acceptable
level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume
that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all
property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism. Barack Obama
complains that the Constitution is a `charter of negative liberties.'
That's because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document,
to curtail the power of the federal government vis-à-vis the states
and the individual. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And
that's radical change you'd better believe in, or else."

Rush Limbaugh also weighed in: "Barack Obama calls himself a
`constitutional professor' or a `constitutional scholar.' In truth,
Barack Obama was an anti-constitutionalist professor. He studied the
Constitution and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the
Constitution. He thinks it is flawed. Now I understand why he was so
reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin....he says that the
Constitution `is a charter of negative liberties. This is nothing
short of a condemnation of the Constitution, and he calls himself a
professor. The greatest government, the freest society in the history
of the world, and Professor Obama calls it a charter of negative
liberties! To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift of
God. The Constitution is not a disappointment. It's a blessing.
What kind of person does not understand the purpose and meaning of a
document written by the greatest defenders of liberty the world has
ever known? Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton - they
created a charter of negative liberties?"

In the same radio interview, Obama said: "I think we can say that, uh,
uh, the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture
that carries on until this day and -- and, uh, -- and, uh, that the
framers had that same blind spot."

"This is how he views the Supreme Court," Limbaugh railed. "And he
will have the power to populate it with people who believe in those
very things. How is he going to place his hand on the Bible and swear
that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he
feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw?"

It is now no wonder that Obama has refused to provide his birth
certificate! He wants to circumvent the Constitution and, by so doing,
"prove" that it's a fundamentally flawed document, worthy of the
efforts he and his radical far-left acolytes will lead to challenge
every Amendment in the Bill of Rights, including: freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of
assembly, freedom to petition, and the prohibition against depriving
any citizen of life, liberty, and property, et al.

THIS WAS THEIR FIRST STEP

In April of this year, a number of Obama's congressional supporters -
including Gov. Claire McCaskill (D-MOi), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT),
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-NY), and Sen. James Webb (D-VA) -proposed and passed a Resolution
(S.Res.511) entitled: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a
natural born citizen.

Duh.

This was the Resolution:

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be
eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural
born Citizen' of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in
Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the
United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any
Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to
Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from
serving as their country's President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and
intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the
United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute
defining the term `natural born Citizen';
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is
preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve
our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the
United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be
President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an
American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen'
under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United
Calendar No. 715110th CONGRESS2d SessionS. RES.
511RESOLUTIONRecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural
born citizen.April 24, 2008. Reported without amendment States.
Just how dumb do McCaskill and Obama & Co. think the American people
are? Here they attempt to create a blanket Resolution that says ALL
foreign-born candidates are eligible for the U.S. presidency, when in
fact McCain did not need this Resolution and neither did Bill
Richardson when he ran for president this year. In fact, to my
knowledge no presidential nominee in American history has ever needed
a Resolution of this kind until Obama - who has still not produced a
valid birth certificate! - entered the race.

So why this weird Resolution? Clearly so Obama could circumvent the
Constitution he finds so distasteful.

According to Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer: "The president,
The Supreme Court justices, and all members of Congress, have taken an
oath to defend and protect the Constitution and have an affirmative
duty to protect the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to
insure that presidential (and congressional) candidates meet the
Constitutional requirements for the offices they seek. It is a
mandatory duty, and failure to do so violate their oaths of office. If
they don't follow this oath in Obama's case, it will be the biggest
swindle in American history, allowing Obama and the DNC to have
concealed his true identity and lack of citizenship, thereby conning
Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign
contributions. If justice is served, dozens of `leading' Democrats
should go to prison for fraud."
--------------------------------------------
Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York-based
journalist and author
.

Relevant Pages

  • THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS HERE!
    ... WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? ... the American Republic, but the major news media have been completely ... Are you aware that President Roosevelt attempted to capture the Negro ... the Constitution in my face! ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS HERE!
    ... WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? ... the American Republic, but the major news media have been completely ... Are you aware that President Roosevelt attempted to capture the Negro ... the Constitution in my face! ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Open letter to obama
    ... An Open Letter to Barack Obama: ... Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President? ... Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967. ... Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Can the US Constitution Survive Dictator Obama?
    ... Can the US Constitution Survive Dictator Obama? ... a criminal complaint of Treason against Barack Hussein Obama. ... goals and the goals of the command criminals are identical. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason
    ... Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, ... "The pressure is mounting and someday justice will be served or the country will probably explode from loss of faith in our Constitution," he said. ... The citizens grand jury is just the latest channel through which Americans are raising protests over a president they believe is ineligible to hold that office. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)