Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud

& The 20th Amendment

Article II, Section I U.S. Constitution:  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 the President.

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean.  It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning.   They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens?  Was it strictly naturalized citizens?  If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.  So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  Only two:
Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization.  They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural law of inherited nature & and position, the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.
Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent.  But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion.  And so they were excluded.  But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no monarch-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  Plus, Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not an American citizen.
So a more clearly worded version would read something like this: “No citizen except a natural citizen, or a legal citizen of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
Bear in mind that every citizen that was born of a foreign father was a legal citizen because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural conveyance.

No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth.  Instead, they were born being a “citizen by nature”.  The native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state, like the national government, had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, like their father, until he naturalized, -then they acquired derivative citizenship by law and nature, become the same as what he had become.

~       ~       ~       ~       ~

The Twentieth Amendment versus  Obama’s Election

There’s one other area of Constitutional law that has never been enforced regarding Obama’s assumption of the presidency, and that is the authority and presumed requirement of the Twentieth Amendment.

That amendment deals with the qualification and terms of the President and Vice-President.  It states in Section 3: “, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is  to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.”
Its words “failed to qualify” are unmistakably not figurative but literal.  The President must qualify, and therefore to fail to qualify must mean that he failed a review of qualification.  That implies that there must be a review which one may fail because if there is no review then there is no possibility of failing to qualify.  That means that someone or some group had to be charged with ascertaining whether or not the President elect met the requirements of eligibility for the office.
And who would the congressional authors of the amendment have entrusted to ascertain the facts?  Only the representatives of the people, i.e., Congress.  Therefore it was up to Congress to inquiry as to the constitutional qualifications of the men who sought to hold the highest offices in the land.

If they were to find that they did not met the requirements, then they would have been obligated to bring the facts to the full body of one or both houses and take a vote as to whether or not it was agreed that the President elect and/or the Vice President elect had failed to qualify according to the Constitution for the offices they were elected to assume.  So Congress was expected and obligated to be the gate-keeper for the command of the presidency and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is clearly what the 20th Amendment is worded to mean and yet do we any recollection of Congress actually carrying-out its duty to protect the presidency and the nation from unqualified persons who had the audacity to run for the office, the good fortune, moxie, chutzpa and persuasive power and/or backing to bamboozle their way onto the election ballots of every state, and then win the election?
Well we don’t because they never have, nor ever encountered (until Obama) an elected candidate that was manifestly unqualified, although Congress did hired a high-profile pair of attorneys [Tribe & Olsen] to research whether or not one born outside the United States, but under U.S. jurisdiction, could qualify as a natural born citizen which is the first and foremost requirement of qualification for the presidency.    They concluded that having been born of American parents made John McCain an American citizen regardless of where he was born and that such citizens are the natural members of the American nation and are therefore qualified for the office of the President as natural American citizens.

They had that opinion in hand before Obama was even elected, and it would seem that in order to secure a unanimous consent vote of the entire Senate (in absentia) that declared the opinion of the Senate was that McCain was qualified, the republicans made the choice to violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution by remaining silent about the ineligibility of McCain’s fellow Senate presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in fact was not a natural born citizen, and thus was not qualified to be President.

John McCain and his ilk knew full well that Obama was not a natural born citizen but they traded a chunk of their honor, along with their fidelity to the nation’s foundational charter, for the benefit of great opportunity.   They, and the entire United State government committed treason against the Constitution (for “the greater good”) afraid to appear out of step with the momentum to have a serious black candidate for the presidency.  And so they all remained silent, -both before and after the election.  Then even worse, the chief justice-traitor of the supine court acquiesced to the expectation that he swear-in the usurper and thus make the constitutional treason a perfect trifecta of governmental criminality by misfeasance non-feasance, thereby facilitating Obama’s perjury by his false-swearing as he vowed to uphold the same Constitution that he was violating by assuming the office that it declares him ineligible to hold.

And what made it worse was the fact that not even one voice in the media, including the conservative media (other than the internet) would even acknowledge that there was anything suspect about Obama’s eligibility.  And worst of all, all 50 state governments allowed him on the ballot for a second time (!), -and the government repeated its constitutional treason twice!

Like Humpty-Dumpty, this broken government can’t be fixed because its aggressive entrenched attitude of being superior to and unchained by the limitations of the Constitution is not the exception but is the norm.  That’s business as usual.  The attitude in Washington is that institutional power based on institutionalized error and independence from the Constitution in any and every way which they can get away with is the perfectly natural way of running the country, and anyone who wants to hold them to the limits of the Constitution is insane and living in La-La Land because they will never agree to such limitations.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We shall eventually see the dynamic conservative Edward (Ted) Cruz seek the office of the President with the goal of turning the country back to the Constitution and its limitation on federal power, and when he does we will all be engaging in a huge national discussion about who actually is and isn’t eligible to serve as President because he was not born in America but in Canada, and his father was not an American but a Cuban refugee who fled the growing communist oppression.  Such a person with such a perspective is just what America needs to shine a bright light on what statist totalitarian federal power devolves to when the chickens let the fox guard the hen house.

Will you support his unconstitutional bid for the presidency?  What should your criteria be for deciding?  Simple; the lesser of two evils is best, and a minor violation of the Constitution is far less onerous and destructive of the future than another term or two of socialistic-Marxism-leaning progressive policies being forced on everyone in the country in stark violation of the nation’s most basic tenets, those being independence and liberty, self-reliance, individual  and governmental responsibility, and unalienable rights that belong to the People or to the States.

I would support his candidacy fully, especially after being plagued by the milquetoast Republican candidates of the last couple decades, -men who had no idea of what they stood for, and didn’t quite grasp or embody “the vision thing”.  I’d hold my nose so to speak and mark his name choice instead of the democrat candidate’s name.  A glass half full is much better that a glass that’s empty, and a man working toward the right goals is much better than a man or woman not only not working toward them but actively working against them.

What wouldn’t I give to hear a newly elected Ted Cruz, upon the occasion of his inauguration as he prepares to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the office, then instead decline the office because he has become aware that he is not eligible to hold it.  That would be a moment like when the thick curtain that separated the common outer area from the Holiest of Holies in Solomon’s Temple was ripped by God in absolute disgust from the top down to the bottom.  That would mark the end of one era and the beginning of another.

That would explode the issue of presidential eligibility like nothing else will ever be able to, and put Obama right in its cross hairs where he belongs.  Short of that the truth might never have a chance of breaking through the thick wall of indifference and resistance put up by the opposition in Congress, the Attorney General’s office, and the courts, along with the sycophantic lame-stream media.  They’re all like Obama’s flying monkeys, and act like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

That is perhaps the wisest attitude when your emperor is parading around  without a shred of constitutional clothing to cover his naked ineligibility (nor his counterfeit birth certificate fraud).  No one dares question the emperor, not O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Levin, or Hannity, or anyone else.  They don’t want anything to do with that third rail which they fear may fry them good if Obama’s henchmen in SEIU decide to start doing more than making threatening comments anonymously.

They might be aware that he is from Chicago, home of Al Capone and institutionalized corruption by gangsters and unions and politicians.    They might be aware that he has brought that same kind of corruption to Washington and put it into power which is exercised not so much by breaking the law but by ignoring it outright and doing whatever they can get away with that is outside of the law and the authority with which they have been entrusted.

Short of such an action by such a person as Ted Cruz, it would seem that a badly needed revolution in constitutional awareness will never sweep nor creep across this country to a degree that would make a real difference.  Americans will sleep on, focused on their favorite sports or gambling or drugs or music or video games or watering hole and their consciousness will never be raised nor awakened.  “Asleep at the wheel”, we will surely suddenly one day find ourselves sleeping comfortably in our own bed when the floor falls away from under us and we disappear into a giant sinkhole of debt and collapse of confidence in the entire American monetary system.

Have a nice day!

by a.r.nash  march 2013  http://obama–


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

4 Responses to Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

  1. The Magic M 2 says:

    > If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

    OTOH, if simplicity was the goal, why didn’t they say “Only native-born citizens with two citizen parents are eligible”?

    > So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment

    The intention of the “or” segment was not to exclude naturalized citizens, it was to *include* citizens born at a time when there were no United States (since they couldn’t possibly be retroactively declare “native-born”).

    Also, your redundancy argument is flawed from the get-go. The Constitution does not exclude people from eligibility, it *includes* people.
    And it *includes* two classes: natural-born citizens and those who were citizens in 1787 (the classes obviously being disjoint).
    There is no redundancy in saying “no-one except A and B”. You cannot then claim because B excludes C, A must have some magical different meaning because it also excludes C.

    “No-one except redheads and blondes” does not mean “redheads” is somehow redundant w.r.t. brown-haired people because “blondes” already excludes brown-haired people, and therefore “redheads” doesn’t mean “people with red hair” but “people with red hair whose parents also had red hair”.

    • Adrien Nash says:

      “if simplicity was the goal, why didn’t they say ‘Only native-born citizens with two citizen parents are eligible’?”

      Because they were including *all* citizens as long as they were citizens before the Constitution was adopted. Once all of those citizens were dead, then only the natural citizens could be eligible.

      “The intention of the “or” segment was not to exclude naturalized citizens, it was to *include* citizens born at a time when there were no United States (since they couldn’t possibly be retroactively declare “native-born”).” [“native-born” -who are you quoting, -certainly not me since native birth was irrelevant to the founders, -hence the 14 residency requirement.]

      The intent of the “or” segment was to INclude naturalized citizens, NOT to include citizens born before the United States was established. They all were already included by the first segment. You’ve made the same error that I made for a long time and included in most of my writing, which is that the first segment means that only natural born citizens of the United States would be eligible, but it eventually dawned on me that that is not what it says nor what it means.
      I explain the truth of their viewpoint in one of my last expositions, and the fact that it occurred to me out of the blue one morning while my mind was dwelling in the year of 1787. I realized that they were the ones that they referred to first as the men who were natural born citizens, which they all were; -natural born citizens of the sovereign state-nations of which they were citizens. They did not and could not require that Presidents be natural born citizens of the United States because national citizenship was secondary to State citizenship. It was the States that controlled citizenship, including immigration and naturalization, although Congress was assigned the job of writing a national uniform rule for naturalization. Nothing more.

      “The Constitution does not exclude people from eligibility, it *includes* people.”
      Man, you must not have read much of what I’ve written previously because the one point that I hammer home is that the language of the eligibility clause is exclusively exclusive in nature: “NO PERSON…*except*…(except these two exceptions and no others) is eligible. You can”t get more exclusionary that by saying “no person” or nobody, or no one except…”

      PS I’ve made several revisions since you read the exposition, to eliminate ambiguity or misimpression.

  2. William Rawle says:

    The 20th Amendment does not say how Congress is suppose to determine if someone qualified. Therefore any method chosen by Congress must be Constitutionally valid. Whatever standard they applied to President Obama, it would appear to be the same standard they applied to previous Presidents, as Congress allowed President Obama to be inaugurated (with many in attendance) without objection. It stands to reason that both he and Mr. Biden qualified.

    An example of the methodology that might have been employed to determine the qualifications of President Obama, was Speaker of the House John Boehner’s statement – “The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me.” The Constitution does not require him to use any more than that.

    • arnash says:

      What does the mindless acquiescence of anyone have to do with what the truth is? Sycophants of all strips always go along with consensus attitudes, -notice that I didn’t say consensus opinion because to have an actual opinion you have to do some actual thinking, otherwise you are just holding a view by proxy. As for the “State of Hawaii”, -it never said anything because it is not a person. Only liars working for the state have issued statements backed up by nothing, -not facts and evidence or sworn statements by anyone.

      “The 20th Amendment does not say how Congress is suppose to determine if someone qualified. Therefore any method chosen by Congress must be Constitutionally valid.”

      That is certainly true but ignores the fact that Congress has *never* chosen anything regarding the vetting of newly elected Presidents. If they had we would now be in the second term of John McCain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: