Wednesday, February 10, 2010

ARE YOU CONTENT IN YOUR LIFE AS DICTATED BY CONGRESS?

As I write my February 2010 blog I am reflecting again on our nation, and how best to preserve what our Founding Fathers gave with the ratification of our constitution.

First they gave us a Constitutional Republic, a republican form of government (not the republican party), a nation of laws; what they did not give us was a democracy. In reading our constitution you will not find the word democracy use anywhere therein. The were reasons for this; in their research, life experiences and diplomatic revelations, some having served diplomatically previously they knew if they wanted a government that would survive it had to be a Constitutional Republic with laws that would protect it from those who would rather have a Oligarchy, Democracy or a Dictatorship.

As we have advanced in time we have seen those who would rather have complete control of our government, and dictate to each of us how, and by which manner, we should all live our lives. This is prevalent in our congress, judiciary and the white house today, and has been for a long, long time; they have arrived there as a matter of progression while we were asleep; content in our beliefs that our government would take care of us while we allowed them to run our live, our economy, our banking systems, our businesses through ever expanding legislation that has virtually strip us of our constitutional rights and the 10th Amendment, as well as others. Slowly, progressively, methodically they have placed themselves in the positions of power, and no longer listen to their constituents, but do what they know is best for all of us, as long as it fits their purpose. It is disingenuous to believe they represent us “We the People”.

As Samuel Adams said during the framing of our constitution:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776.

there is much to be gleaned from this message; and it was as prevalent then as it is today. Read it and reflect on what Adams said.

While we struggle to retrieve our constitution for the talons of the Progressives, Liberals, Socialist and Marxist in our government today we need to remember one of our other leader who was wise in his years, and not that long ago. Ronald Reagan was know as the Great Communicator; and he wasn’t on TV everyday, but when he was people did listen to the things he had to say; therefore I have pulled one of his quotes that I feel fits the thoughts and merits of this blog. Reagan quote:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free. ”

–Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1961

again re-read this quote and reflect on the contents, and where it fits into our national situation today.

Now lets get the message straight regarding our current occupant of the white house. I have a difficult time calling him president, since I strongly believe he is a usurper, planted there through conspiracy of the Chicago Mob currently serving in the white house, the sitting congress, and certain member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America who have in total abrogated their constitutional duties to protect and defend the United States of America and our constitution..

Below are cites pulled from a SCOTUS decision that speak well to the issue of Obama’s eligibility. Even given he may be a citizen of the Untied States of America it does not elevate him to the qualifications necessary to be President, much less Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. His father was never a US citizen, was a subject of Great Britain, and therefore bestowed that citizenship on Barrack H. Obama II, making him a dual citizen at best, and even less qualified (if that is possible) for the office. Read carefully the decision below and make up you own mind. The Progressive have been hell bent for years to change our constitution to allow foreign born citizens of the United States of America to serve as president; they have raised the issue several time in congress but nothing has ever reached the floor of the house; and therefore their attempt has now been made to amend our constitution without the amendment process. His man needs to be removed from the seat he now occupies, we do not need to wait for the 2012 elections to do this as it then gives the Progressives another step in the ladder to usurping our constitution.

This usurping needs to stop at the proverbial waters edge.

Read carefully the cites below: note the date of the English translation and revision of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the Progressives would like people to think is was in the recent past the translation was made:

Minor vs. Happersett:

· In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

· In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

· In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

So now it is your turn to reflect on where you want our nation to go; I know where I fit into the equation, how about you?

18 comments:

  1. The Minor v. Happersett decision was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark decision that says:

    "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

    In short, EVERY child born in England, and the American colonies, and the US states and under the US Constitution who is born in the country is Natural Born. And when a person is both Natural Born and a citizen, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Re: "The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. "

    It just ruled that he was both Natural Born and a citizen, in short a Natural Born Citizen.

    This is accepted by the overwhelming majority of Constitutional experts.

    Yale Law Review wrote: "It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."

    And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory.”

    The first of these is the strict construction approach. Conservatives believe in the strict construction approach, meaning that it is not possible to read into words things that are not clearly in their meaning.

    But Article II does not say "two citizen parents." So, if the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that Article II should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so.

    But they didn't say so, and the common meaning of Natural Born in America at the time of the writing of the Constitution was "born in the country."

    A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Minor v. Happersett decision was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark" decision that says:"

    This is not true and you know it; it is one more progressive attempt to amend the constitution with out going through the amendment process. We all know the Progressives will not give up their quest to change this nation and our constitution to fit their desires; that's why our Founding Father gave us a Constitutional Republic and not some other form of government; our Constitutional Republic cannot be changed except through the amendment process and it drive you Progressives nuts. The whims of the people, whoever they are, does not bend constitutional law. Sorry you need to come with a better arguement that this.

    "second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?"

    You are absolutely correct to determine you cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United State if your senario is correct. Your parents are required to be citizens at the time your are born, not one day, or a hundred days after your birth. You would be a citizen of the United States and therefore your childern could be born "Natural Born Citizens" as long as their birth is on soverigen soil and the mother is also a US citizen at the time of birth. Common law does not factor in since this a you know is an English concept not incorporated into our constitution, again for very good reason; the Founding Fathers were sick of dealing with the King and his common law. End of story.

    "Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)"

    Again you cite Orin Hatch, he is incorrect in his interpretation of our constitution; not that he is not legal mind; but given his years in congress and the fact he has not practiced law in years he has failed to remember from his constitutional law classes that our contitution determines a "Natural Born Citizen" our Founding Fathers reserved that decision to our constitution and did not want congress determining how a "Natural Born Citizen" is created for the very reason I previously presented; they did not want that status changed the wind of chaning times in congress; these were very astute people and knew if they left that decision to congress it would be changed any they wished and often. As we know they did allow citizenship status to the congress and look where that has gone over the years; born (anchor)babies born to illegal aliens; this really makes sense; the the point is they did not want congress making "Natural Born Citizens". So again it is a Progressive movement that would destroy our constitutional republic as our Found Father set in place for all of us. Bring another arguement that refutes this concept of free people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The term Natural Born Citizen is now used in dozens of federal legal cases to mean a child born in the United States regardless of the number of parents who are citizens.


    There are cases where one parent is not a citizen. There are cases where both parents are not citizens, but in all those cases, the child is referred to as a Natural Born Citizen if she or he is born in the USA.

    The Wong Kim Ark case clearly said that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, and when a person is both Natural Born and a citizen, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    This has nothing to do with Progressive thought. Neither Hatch nor Graham are progressive. And neither was John Adams, yet he used the words Natural Born to mean "born in the country," and he wrote a draft of a peace treaty in which a US Natural Born Citizen was considered equivalent to a British Natural Born Subject, and as we know, a Natural Born Subject did not require two citizen parents.

    If the Constitution had actually said "two citizen parents" or "no dual nationals," or "Natural Born as in Vattel," I would go along with you. That would clearly be what it meant. But it did not say that.

    Under the rules of Strict Construction, which are popular among Conservatives, it is not allowed to "read into" the words of a law or of the Constitution. If it did not say "two citizen parents," it did not mean two citizen parents. And this is particularly true when the common meaning of Natural Born used by Hamilton, Adams, Jay, Wilson and the others was "born in the country."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again you are wrong on your points and merits. You confuse the issue between English Common Law and United State's Constitutional Law, to totally different concepts as the Found Father decided when setting down our Constitutional Republic.

    "Under the rules of Strict Construction, which are popular among Conservatives, it is not allowed to "read into" the words of a law or of the Constitution. If it did not say "two citizen parents," it did not mean two citizen parents. And this is particularly true when the common meaning of Natural Born used by Hamilton, Adams, Jay, Wilson and the others was "born in the country.""

    Of two citizen parents, you again leave out what is actually said. Being born in the country does not make one a Natural Born Citizen without the two citizen parent; they are certainly citizens if here legally; but also remember they take the citizenship of the father, so one born here could be a citizen, but in that case a dual citizen and never eligible to be a Natural Born Citizen. Obama lacks the ability to be a Natural Born Citizen since his father was a British Subject give that Obama's father, the senior Obama, was his actual birth father. If is father turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis, and he was not born in Canada, then all the dinamics change and the issue is resolved and he can serve out his term without further need to conceal his records. Conspiracy, conspiracy alive and well in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re: “ You confuse the issue between English Common Law and United State's Constitutional Law, to totally different concepts as the Found Father decided when setting down our Constitutional Republic.”

    As I said once before, I love the Constitution. If it had said “no redheads are allowed to be president,” I would support it. If it had said “no one but the child of two US citizens is allowed to be president,” I would support it. But it didn’t say either of those things.

    It didn’t say that a US-born child of a foreigner is not eligible to be president. IT DIDN’T SAY.

    Under the rules of strict construction, unless the Constitution says that something is not allowed, it is allowed. Redheads are allowed to be president (and Thomas Jefferson was one), and so are the children of foreigners, so long as the children are born in the USA (and not the children of foreign diplomats).

    Re: “Of two citizen parents, you again leave out what is actually said. “

    Are you saying that "two citizen parents" was actually said. No. Those words do not appear in the Constitution.

    To repeat: The words “of two citizen parents” does NOT appear in the Constitution, and those words do not appear in the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson or Jay either.

    What is more, the Constitution does not bar a dual national from becoming president, because Madison and others at the time did not believe that dual nationality affected allegiance. Madison said clearly that the criterion of allegiance in the USA is the place of birth, and Blackstone held that a person can have only one allegiance, to the country of birth.

    Re Davis.

    You raise a point that is not helpful to your cause. To enforce the two-citizen-parent theory, you would have to force all future presidents and candidates to prove that both of their parents were citizens at the moment of birth. This raises the interesting question: Their legal parents or their real parents? Well, as you have already grasped, their legal parents have no real hereditary impact; only the real parents do. So this means that all future candidates for presidency, to prove that their real parents were citizens, would have to take DNA tests and have their parents tested too and then show the birth certificates or naturalization papers of the parents. But, if their parents had already died, then they would have to dig up the remains of the parents and have their DNA tested to prove that they were really the parents and then show that they were citizens.

    As I said at the beginning, IF the Constitution had said this, I and everyone else would go along.

    But the Constitution did not say “two citizen parents,” and neither did the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, etc.

    And, at the time, the meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country” regardless of the number of parents who were citizens.

    That is why all 375 Electoral Votes that Obama won in the general election went for Obama, and not one changed her or his vote, and that is why not a single member of Congress voted against the confirmation. Because none of those hundreds of lawyers, NONE, believe that the Constitution says or means “two citizen parents.”

    The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely: ‘Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It didn’t say that a US-born child of a foreigner is not eligible to be president. IT DIDN’T SAY."

    I beg to differ with you; you are mistaken!


    "Under the rules of strict construction, unless the Constitution says that something is not allowed, it is allowed."

    It does say a Natural Born Citizen; and therefore under strict construction that mean a child born of two United States Citizen Parents; as the founding fathers intended. That is why they did not leave it to congress to meddle in this requirement; but left to them the determination of how a US Citizen could come about. If Congress wants to change Natural Born Citizen then they have the amendment process which they know full well would never see the light of day in the attempt to change Natural Born Citizen. We (me and my cohearts) are strict consturctionist, and we Constitutional Conservatives are about to resurrect our contitution; if you are truly a person who loves our constitution you will be involed in its resurrection. Remember this is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is never mentioned in our contitution or the Declaration of Independence.

    You are an intellegent person, otherwise I would not dialog with you; I call you a Progressive; but I feel you are not really one.

    We do continue to disagree on Obama's eligibility and will until it is finally resolved in SCOTUS. My personal feeling based on my investigations and common sense is this man is not even a citizen of this country; in fact an illegal alien. Pointing to this is the unmitigated coverup up of his vital and academic records which no other president or presidential candidate has ever done. What is he hidding?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. It no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate. It is not possible to get a birth certifiate in Hawaii that says "born in Hawaii" on it unless there is proof of birth in Hawaii. That is why the official birth certificate of Hawaii is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. AND, in Obama's case, the facts on the birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 were twice confirmed by the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration.

    This is from SMRSTAUSS. I am having trouble logging on.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution was "born in the country." That was the meaning. It was a synonym to Native Born, which was not popular at the time. Not one framer of the Constitution or other American leader at the time ever wrote or gave a speech that used Natural Born Citizen to mean "born in the USA to two US citizens." Instead, they used the term only to mean "born in the country."

    Re SCOTUS. If the case were to be decided by SCOTUS, it would find that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born and that when the child is also a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen. But, since this is so established, it is unlikely that SCOTUS would ever call the case. In order to call a case, four justices must consider that there is a Constitutional issue. In this case, it is unlikely that there are even three--maybe not even two--who think that this is an issue.

    Not one elector in the Electoral College thought that it was an issue. Not one member of Congress in the confirmation process thought that it was an issue. The overwhelming consensus of constitutional writers is that every citizen who was born in the USA is eligible to be president.

    This is SMRSTRAUSS. I am having trouble logging on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry you are having trouble loggin on - I have not done anything to prevent you from logging on. Hope you can work it out.

    In any case you are still wrong in your assumtions in the last two post and you know it. There is still hope you will get it right before SCOTUS rains all over your parade. Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Smrstrauss said...

    Thank you for the "have a nice day."

    No thank you for the assertion that I say something that I do not believe. I believe, with the overwhelming majority of Constitutional experts, that every child born in the USA is Natural Born and that when the child is a citizen (which is every child now except for the children of foreign diplomats, though Indians were at one time excluded) she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    And that in turn is why not one elector in the Electoral College or one member of Congress thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your Progressive constitutional experts are wrong. But that is why they are progressives; they, and you, would like our contitution to say something different from the founding fathers intent and wise determination. That is why you are progressives. Your Progessive movement believes our constituion is a living document; which it is not. It only lives through the amendment process, if acheivable on its merits. Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello again, this is SMRSTRAUSS.

    Re: "Your Progressive constitutional experts are wrong. "

    Hatch and Graham are not Progressive.

    They do not believe that the Constitution is a living document, and in this case neither do I. We believe that the original meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen was very clear at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and it was used by the framers in dozens of quotes to mean "born in the country."

    That is the original meaning,and it has nothing to do with Progressive thought or the Constitution being a "living document."

    Madison, who is not a Progressive, held that the sole criterion of allegiance. The SOLE criterion of allegiance. The SOLE criterion of allegiance in the United States was the place of birth. And Blackstone, the British legal scholar, held that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country where she was born.

    There is no evidence that any of the framers of the Constitution believed that Natural Born Citizen meant two US parents, and they always used Natural Born to mean "born in the country."

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Hatch and Graham are not Progressive."

    You are not correct in that assumption; even though they are Republicans does not mean they are not Progressives; all you have to do is look at their respective records in the Senate and you will find they promote and champion the Progressives in their efforts to amend our constitution without going through the amendment process. Both have their conservative side, but really side with the Progressive movement in the United States. I have not looked closely at their legislative records, but would be willing to bet that the few times legislation was being proposes to start an amendment process to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, all have failed, you will find among the supporters both of these men. Both are good men but have an agenda that does not rally support from the Constitutional Conservatives of our nation. A thought comes to mind, if your assumption is true regarding Natural Born Citizen, why would the Progressive movement need to promote a constitutional amendment?

    "Natural Born Citizen There is no evidence that any of the framers of the Constitution believed that Natural Born Citizen meant two US parents, and they always used Natural Born to mean "born in the country."

    It does not mean born in this country unless that birth is propagated by two citizen parents. Again the Progressives have the "born in the country." idea in mind when they read our constitution; and that is not what our constitution says.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re: "why would the Progressive movement need to promote a constitutional amendment?"

    Some Progressives have suggested that Naturalized Citizens, such as Arnold, should also be included.

    Re: "It does not mean born in this country unless that birth is propagated by two citizen parents. Again the Progressives have the "born in the country." idea in mind when they read our constitution; and that is not what our constitution says."

    The Constitution does not say "two citizen parents.' The use of the phrase "Natural Born" at the time of the writing of the Constitution, used in dozens of legal articles by Americans at the time, was simply "born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats."

    This is not a new idea. This is an OLD idea. This is the way that the term was used at the time. I have quoted some contemporary scholars and politicians to substantiate it, but the real proof is in the dozens of quotations.

    And recently I found some US federal and state cases in which the US-born children of foreign parents are described as Natural Born Citizens. In fact, to make it even more clear, there are cases in which the parents are described as foreign citizens and two of their children are foreign citizens, and one of their children is described as a Natural Born Citizen. The difference between the two children who are not citizens and the one that is a Natural Born Citizen is simply that the latter was born in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My point exactly; Progressives do not believe the amendment process is constitutional. Now my point about Hatch and the Progressives:

    More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction.

    Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible, and the "Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment" by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents, while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible.

    In all cases and end run around our constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is SMRSTRAUSS. I am still having difficulty logging on.

    Re; "Progressives do not believe the amendment process is constitutional. "

    This is certainly not true. At one time the United States passed an Amendment to the Constitution that enabled Prohibition (the 18th Amendment). Then we passed an Amendment to the Constitution that repeated Prohibition (the 21st Amendment). Progressive supported both amendments.

    So, there are some people who would like an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to become president. This means, of course, that these people do not believe that naturalized citizens currently can be president. And, it is no more immoral to want to have naturalized citizens be eligible than it is to want to pass an amendment banning burning the flag or to enable income taxes or to repeal Prohibition.

    But this has nothing to do with the current situation, which is that Naturalized citizens are not eligible and Natural Born Citizens are eligible, and the meaning of Natural Born includes all the children born in the USA except the children of foreign ambassadors.






    Now my point about Hatch and the Progressives:

    More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction.

    Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible, and the "Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment" by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents, while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible.

    In all cases and end run around our constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My point exactly; even among the founding fathers there were those (very few) that would have wanted a slightly different form of government than a Constitutional Republic. They knew that the elements of the day would not permit that; so they, knowing the amendment process was available, and did not want to slow the process of setting an new nation on the path to ratification signed on knowing with the right Progressive movement all could be changed later either through the amendment process or by presidence. They were right, because if you look at where this nation is today it has been because of the slow methodical Progressives who knew it would take time and patients. But alas, sleeping Constitutional Conservatives have awakened, and find our Constitutional Republic is not gone or changed, other than the twenty some amendments done legally (a nation of laws) and the course of the Progressives can be reversed with the "correct" representaion in congress; the much maligned "Tea Party Movement" is only the starting point more will follow. The Progressives are entitled to their views and concerns; but, this is still a Constitutional Republic and amendments will never be offered and ratified to change our form of government.

    Both legislators above cited are and were Progressives, and if you will note the legislation never saw the light of day or ever came to a vote to my knowledge; primarily because the Constitutional Conservatives were not about to let that happen at the state and federal level. Remember our constitution is only a living document through the amendment process. I have to go to work now, see you later!

    ReplyDelete