Tweet
Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship
Exclusive: Larry Klayman asks justice for definition of term used in Constitution
WND
Larry Klayman, Esq.
8/31/2012
Excerpt:
"The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.
It is no wonder that many, yours truly included, view Obama as not only our first “gay” but also our first “Muslim” president. I have taken to calling him the “mullah in chief,” given his all-too-apparent disdain for Israel and its leaders, his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque, his cancellation of White House celebrations of the National Day of Prayer, instead choosing to feast the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, his “slip of the tongue” reference to his “Muslim faith” in a 2008 television interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, his close associations with black Muslim leaders and anti-Semites, and a host of other anti-Judeo-Christian actions while in office. Obama can claim all he wants to be a patriotic Christian American, but anyone with half a brain and who is not comatose knows better. He is the Muslim version of the “Manchurian Candidate,” in effect an Islamic mole who – aided and abetted by communists, socialists, radical gays, lesbians and feminists, Muslims, white-haters and others on the subversive fringe of American society – defrauded his way into the White House. As a result, after four years of what in effect is Obama’s “reign of terror,” we find ourselves not only on the precipice of economic disaster, but living the nightmare of having a charlatan “Muslim” socialist impostor as the head of the greatest nation on earth. The framers are more than turning in their hallowed graves.
The framers, while not God, were divinely inspired men who, with His grace, envisioned that crises such as we now find ourselves in would likely arise. To try to avoid another violent revolution, which could tear the country apart at the seams, they put into effect a new republican form of government, one they thought had checks and balances. The legislative branch was given the power to impeach, convict and remove a president found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors such as treason. The judicial branch was given the power to rule over the politicians and insure that the “Rule of Law” was respected. Indeed, our Founding Fathers did not want a nation of men, but of laws, where these laws would be carried out and enforced “on the merits,” not based on personalities and corrupt influences.
But our Founding Fathers also recognized that a government was only as good as the people who occupied it. John Adams, perhaps our greatest Founding Father and second American president, warned at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence that it does not matter how many times you change your rulers or forms of government – without ethics, morality and religion there will not be a lasting liberty.
Now, 236 years after its founding, our nation’s ethics, morality and respect for God have degenerated – Sodom and Gomorrah style – into a cesspool of corruption. Neither the legislative nor judicial branches of government can serve as a check and balance over the executive branch run by a president such as Obama, because they are themselves a part of a corrupt establishment that “circles the wagons” to protect itself. In short, We the People no longer have a republic, because our leaders represent only themselves, not us – and that goes for both Democrats and Republicans no matter what kind of sideshow they offer up at their 2012 political conventions.
Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.
Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”
(bold emphasis added in the above two paragraphs)
..................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-fl...n-citizenship/
Exclusive: Larry Klayman asks justice for definition of term used in Constitution
WND
Larry Klayman, Esq.
8/31/2012
Excerpt:
"The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.
It is no wonder that many, yours truly included, view Obama as not only our first “gay” but also our first “Muslim” president. I have taken to calling him the “mullah in chief,” given his all-too-apparent disdain for Israel and its leaders, his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque, his cancellation of White House celebrations of the National Day of Prayer, instead choosing to feast the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, his “slip of the tongue” reference to his “Muslim faith” in a 2008 television interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, his close associations with black Muslim leaders and anti-Semites, and a host of other anti-Judeo-Christian actions while in office. Obama can claim all he wants to be a patriotic Christian American, but anyone with half a brain and who is not comatose knows better. He is the Muslim version of the “Manchurian Candidate,” in effect an Islamic mole who – aided and abetted by communists, socialists, radical gays, lesbians and feminists, Muslims, white-haters and others on the subversive fringe of American society – defrauded his way into the White House. As a result, after four years of what in effect is Obama’s “reign of terror,” we find ourselves not only on the precipice of economic disaster, but living the nightmare of having a charlatan “Muslim” socialist impostor as the head of the greatest nation on earth. The framers are more than turning in their hallowed graves.
The framers, while not God, were divinely inspired men who, with His grace, envisioned that crises such as we now find ourselves in would likely arise. To try to avoid another violent revolution, which could tear the country apart at the seams, they put into effect a new republican form of government, one they thought had checks and balances. The legislative branch was given the power to impeach, convict and remove a president found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors such as treason. The judicial branch was given the power to rule over the politicians and insure that the “Rule of Law” was respected. Indeed, our Founding Fathers did not want a nation of men, but of laws, where these laws would be carried out and enforced “on the merits,” not based on personalities and corrupt influences.
But our Founding Fathers also recognized that a government was only as good as the people who occupied it. John Adams, perhaps our greatest Founding Father and second American president, warned at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence that it does not matter how many times you change your rulers or forms of government – without ethics, morality and religion there will not be a lasting liberty.
Now, 236 years after its founding, our nation’s ethics, morality and respect for God have degenerated – Sodom and Gomorrah style – into a cesspool of corruption. Neither the legislative nor judicial branches of government can serve as a check and balance over the executive branch run by a president such as Obama, because they are themselves a part of a corrupt establishment that “circles the wagons” to protect itself. In short, We the People no longer have a republic, because our leaders represent only themselves, not us – and that goes for both Democrats and Republicans no matter what kind of sideshow they offer up at their 2012 political conventions.
Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.
Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”
(bold emphasis added in the above two paragraphs)
..................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-fl...n-citizenship/
Comment