August 2009
« Jul   Sep »

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

bingham-natural-born1It seems that both sides of the political isle SAY they support the constitution. Apparently that support follows AS LONG as the Constitution goes along with either parties whim.

Either we follow the constitution or we don’t. I don’t think the framers felt we could cherry pick what we liked and ignore what we didn’t.

So why the cherry picking of today?
EVERY CITIZEN needs to be deciding DO YOU WANT THE CONSTITUTION … or should it be scrapped totally?

Unfortunately most of the public is not familiar with the writings of old therefore are ignorant of exactly what rights it provides.

Of late there is a skirmish over the legitimate birth certificate of Barack Obama.

Why I am not sure because from my perspective those looking for a legitimate birth certificate in Hawaii is a total waste of time.
Apparently enough people to distract the effort from a bigger issue.
How does the 14th amendment define “natural born citizen”.

In order to address this we need to know a little about the 14th amendment, why it was written and who wrote it.

ja-bingham-14th-amendSo lets start there.

Who writes an amendment to the Constitution?
According to Article V … amendments are passed by both the Senate and the House. State conventions can be used, but so far have not been. A senator or representative or a committee thereof can write the amendment. The amendment can then be debated until final wording is acceptable.

John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900) was a Republican congressman from Ohio, America, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Most of the 14th amendment weathered debate without much change. Not so for the 1st sentence which defined citizenship.

However John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:”[4] [5] [6]

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Archive image of that document HERE.

– John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

I suppose we can all argue until the cows come home that somehow THE FRAMERS made a mistake when they defined PARENTS (PLURAL) instad of “A PARENT” as a necessary requirement to being a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.

There is little or NO ARGUMENT that a Citizen of the USA can be a Senator or Congress Person … but to be President one MUST BE A” NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. In order to be “natural born” PARENTS must be BORN OR NATURALIZED citizens of the USA.

I don’t know it seems pretty straight forward to me but then I expect people to say/print what they mean and mean what they say … but them I am a “common sense” type of person aren’t you?

Until the Supreme Court decides to redefine this original statement right out of the “archives of old” as far as I can see (unless I have somehow missed something in my search of these documents) Barack Obama can not qualify as President no matter how you slice it.

So why the skirmish over a birth certificate?
Why is Obama refusing to allow his Hawaiian Birth Certificate to be seen?
Perhaps because while everyone is focused on the … is there or is there not … a birth certificate in Hawaii they fail to realize the true tool to sink his ship is the real cannon ball THE CONSTITUTION provides to do exactly that.

You know the same good ole Constitution that Obama claims to be expert on?

My question is simple … WHY IS ALL MEDIA ignoring this very simple FACT? Where is Bill OReilly who claims he has CHECKED out the Birth certificate issue? Where is Glenn Beck who apparently pours over the constitution? Where is Anne Coulter who is suppose to be versed on Constitutional Law? Where is Sean Hannity who screams about every tiny issue except this one?

I expect the main stream media to ignore this issue. I do not expect it to be ignored by the only side that is SUPPOSE TO BE ADVOCATING FOR WE THE PEOPLE!

Wake up guys there is an issue here and you are all losing credibility by ignoring it.

It does not take rocket scinece to realize sooner or later this has to be addressed … WHY NOT NOW?

One Response to Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *