Ah, yes. Dana Rohrbacher so much wanted the help Barack Obama–who, according to Repug dogma was “[t]he most liberal member of the Senate–skirt rules and become President.

I’ve seen this same stupid list reguritated by your RWNJ endlessly….in order to gin up controversy and fear in you simpletons, when it really shows NOTHING of any significance at all.

You are obviously too ignorant to read such things and weight their actual merit in an argument. Let’s look at your list and get to the bigger point – THESE EXAMPLES OVER NO “REAL” THREAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AT ALL!!!

If you had even a basic concept of how Congress functions, you would realize that the folks there submit all sorts of numerous “proposals” that never go anywhere and simply die in committee. They are meaningless background noise and go nowhere and are not ANYWHERE close to being seriously considered in what would lead to a pathway to becoming law.

Particularly on legislative suggestions that would need to go through the Constitutional Amendment process. Do you even have a clue of how difficult that process is and how high the threshold of voting requirements are for it to pass – NOT JUST within BOTH houses of Congress, but also be RATIFIED by a significant proportion of the individual states!!!

None of these weak examples you gave went anywhere.

That you morons struggle to come up with 8 whole examples of mere DOA proposal submissions, over a 5 year period is NOT evidence of any emerging “theme” or serious threat to change the law at all.

In fact, quite the opposite. Considering the sheer total volume of mere proposals that get submitted on a yearly basis, let alone over the course of 5 years, your paltry list of 8 DOA ideas is such an insignificant drop in the bucket, that the only picture they present is how completely fringe and insignificant this issue is and how nonexistant it is in gaining any traction.

I swear David, foks like you are scared of your own shadows…

This is why our founding fathers relied on de Vattel to furnish the correct definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

Your evidence for this? I mean genuine evidence.

The Founders didn’t reject English as the language of our country and similarly, they didn’t reject the language of English common law as the language of our jurisprudence. This was the jargon that they were trained in and they specifically noted terms that they wished to change (like “treason”). The attempts you list to change the NBC requirement (attempts that would not effect President Obama’s eligibility status, by the way), were proposed Amendments—the legitimate way to make changes in our Constitution. Are you suggesting that we have no right to Amend the Constitution if we so choose? It is you, trying to do through the courts what can only be done by the Amendment process that is denigrating the Constitution here.

Politicians you claim co-sponsored bills to do away with the NBC rule (without citing their affiliation, a CERTAIN sign of your dishonesty:

Rep. Chris Shays, REPUBLICAN. Rep Issa, Darrell E., REPUBLICAN. Rep LaHood, Ray, REPUBLICAN. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, REPUBLICAN.

Co-sponsoring the attempt to, as you put it, “counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president…”: Sen Landrieu, Mary L., DEMOCRAT.

Among those sponsoring the military offspring NBC provision: Sen Coburn, Tom, REPUBLICAN.

Your failing to identify the Republicans (or the Democrat, when it helps you make your BS argument), making it seem like this was all a Democratic plot to change the rules so Obama could be President, is INEXCUSABLE. The Republicans tried on many occasions to change the NBC requirement so that Schwarzenegger could run. LOOK IT UP.

You are a propagandist, bent on misleading readers, plain and simple.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

While there is actually only one attempt to change the definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4, none were offered in an attempt to benefit Barack Obama personally.

Nevertheless, as these attempts to alter the natural born Citizenship Clause illustrates, the power to create our ruling class must remain in the hands of the ‘Consent of be Governed’ and outside of the hands of Congress.

ex animo
davidfarrar

There are only two ways to establish US citizenship — another legal precedent established by the Minor case — by natural law and by positive law.

ex animo
davidfarrar

The ‘Consent of the Governed’ should not allow English common law to dictate the qualifications for our ‘Ruling Class’ (i.e. the President and Vice-President). We should set these qualifications beyond the reach of any plenary authority (Congress) to change. This is why our founding fathers relied on de Vattel to furnish the correct definition of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

As you can see below, if Congress retains the power to definition an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, they WILL attempt to change it to their own advantage.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of
President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “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.” *

ex animo
davidfarrar
*Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)

Article 2 does not define the term natural born, so we must go to the common law to find the definition that the Founders intended—which turns out to be exactly the same as the definition contained in the 14th Amendment. If it weren’t, you could give an example of a person of European descent who’s status would have been changed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

What are you going to do when a judge throws out your “positive law” argument as frivolous? I’m betting that you will once again move the goalposts and keep spewing lies. What motivates you to behave in such a contemptible manner? It’s sad that your parents were apparently unable to teach you the concept of “integrity”…