Rat Tube
December 4, 2008
‘Natural-born’ requirement called ’stupidest provision’
An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University…..” full article: WND
FROM YESTERDAY:
Rat Says: That’s it! Listen to Alex at the beginning of part 3, he talks about us being conditioned to accept foreign leadership. That’s why Phil Berg, a liberal Democrat, is pursuing the Obama birth certificate issue. Obama is not a natural born citizen and they know it, but that’s exactly what they want! They are going to bring the issue out of the closet and then sell us on allowing him to remain the President. They will alter the Constitution and presto … we are DONE!
I can hear Rachel Maddow spinning it already, running her piehole about how great Obama is and some liberal non-sense about global citizenship and we are all one.
Part 3
00:07:25
From Sarah’s Paper to Rachel Maddow’s lips:
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT:
GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution;
“undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”
Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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.
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners. Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States. The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.
The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citi-zen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal sys-tem. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement.
In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. unitedconservatives.blogspot.com
The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!