er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements

WHAT IF “BIRTHERS” WERE “AGE-ERS”?

by Sally Vendée

John Jay, who insisted on including the "natural born citizen" clause in the U.S. Constitution

(Feb. 19, 2010) — Everyone knows, or should by now with all of the “birther” hullabaloo, Article II of the Constitution and its three requirements for the Commander-in-Chief:  He must be a “natural born Citizen,” at least thirty-five years old, and have resided for at least fourteen years within the United States.

Most Americans, according to the media, accept Obama’s alleged place of birth as Hawaii and his US citizenship. Many, though, especially in “tea party” circles, express frustration with his seeming lack of “transparency,” want to see more than the short-form birth certificate posted on the internet, and ask questions like: “Where do we put the plaque?” Everyday Americans must show a birth certificate and other credentials to get jobs, drivers’ licenses, loans, passports, play on sports teams, etc., and they wish that Obama would just present his so we can get on with it. These viewpoints earn them the dreaded label of “birther.”

The majority of “birthers” consider themselves “Constitutionalists,” and whether or not they have questions about Obama’s Hawaiian birth, they do have reservations about the “natural born” part— because of his Kenyan father, who was not an immigrant and never a US citizen, resulting in Obama Jr. admittedly being a dual citizen at birth. Scholars and attorneys could debate the definition of “natural born” for hours. Combine that question with the current political correctness of birthright citizenship, dual citizenship/allegiance and immigration, and the arguments become even more heated.

But what if the eligibility issue was much simpler to grasp: What if it had to do with the simplest of the three Presidential criteria—Age?

Imagine this:

A man runs for President, and the mainstream media doesn’t investigate, amid rumors and questionable statements and evidence, whether or not he is in fact at least 35 years old.  An online organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license showing he is 35 years old.  The media never directly asks this candidate his age, and he never directly offers it.

The man “seals” and/or relies on federal and state privacy laws in keeping his birth, medical, school and college records and other documents hidden from the public, making it impossible to verify his eligibility.  Friends, fellow students, and colleagues are strangely silent.

Concerned citizens, before the general election, before the electoral votes, before the inauguration and after, attempt to pursue every avenue of inquiry and protest.  Some urge their national party headquarters to raise questions and ensure he is properly “vetted.” Others file complaints with their secretary of state or state attorney general to ascertain that they verified that he was constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.  Some petition their electors to ask questions.  They ask their senators and congressmen to object at the meeting of the Electoral College.

But nothing was done. All inquiries are answered with a reference to the digital image posted on the internet on Factcheck or Snopes as proof.

And he wins the election.

Citizens file lawsuits asking the courts to intervene (some even before the election), and not one case is ever heard on its merits; rather, many are thrown out because of “lack of standing” or that the plaintiff’s injury was not “particular,” but rather, deemed to affect all members of the general public equally.

The courts dismiss cases because they said the man was definitely 35, not based on an examination of any actual evidence, but because the issue had been “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry.”

A judge refers to the digital image posted on the internet without ensuring that it met electronic security standards for evidence.

Plaintiffs are offered the remedy of voting in the next election.

Other judiciaries throw out cases based on the “political question” doctrine—stating that whether or not he was 35 (or if it even mattered) was decided by 69 million voters, and therefore the courts should not intervene.

Many others argue that the Founding Fathers’ age requirement is old-fashioned and unnecessary for Americans today.

The mainstream media, instead of doing any in-depth questioning or investigating of their own, ridicule those who do, calling them tin-foil hat wearers, extremists, crazy, and “Age-ers.” His fans cry:  “We won” and “Get over it.”

The “Age-ers” are called “racist” or accused of “hate” because it so happens the man is also an African-American.
And this President, in a speech calling for civility, implies that questions about his age are uncivil.

Now, substitute “natural born citizenship” for “age,” and “birthers” for “age-ers” in the above scenario.  What a mess.

Unlike the nebulous “general welfare” or “interstate commerce” clauses, Article II eligibility is one of the most straightforward provisions in the Constitution.  And for some reason, we can’t even get this right, according to recent polls and surveys, to the satisfaction of a large percentage of Americans.

Our Founding Fathers would be disappointed to find that the three branches of government, along with the media, have failed to uphold, refused to investigate, and ridiculed those who question—a very, very simple provision in the Constitution.  Its laws can be amended, but they should never be simply ignored.

We can argue the constitutionality of the various legislation proposed and passed by this administration, but the very legitimacy of our Commander-in-Chief, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is arguably the most important issue, as it is the most symbolic of all.  The buck stops at the President’s desk.  Either his power is granted, and thereby limited, under the Constitution—or he is placed, or places himself, over and above it and the law.

Mr. Obama:  You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Now please act as though you took that oath seriously. Assure “We the People” that you are in fact eligible to hold your office in the first place. Welcome a judicial interpretation of the founders’ “natural born” requirement, even if it means you may not have the right to hold your office. Your personal ambition should not come before your patriotism. It is not “uncivil” to be asked questions about your citizenship; it is uncivil for you to refuse to answer and to allow your staff to belittle the very citizens you represent.

And to those who derisively label as “birthers” those who do take the Constitution and his oath seriously:  You should also care, very much.

Because the only thing standing between you and the government that is supposed to represent you and protect your liberty and freedom is that now very fragile document.

“When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property. “—Thomas Jefferson

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

19 Responses to Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements

  1. vharlow

    Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 6:50 PM

    I just inadvertently picked up my grandson’s history book, 9th grade….was floored to read that the eligibility requirements are described as “native citizen.” Indeed, I was outraged enough to fire off a shrieking email to the publisher, and since I’ve got a Constitution in my pocket, were they in front of me, I’d be waving it in their faces! Everyone, check your child’s history books! Raise hell. No wonder people are considered kooks when they are being mistaught…. Arrgh.

  2. Pingback: THREE Simple Requirements «

  3. tminu

    Monday, March 8, 2010 at 3:09 AM

    Well since he’s not got one shred of evidence he’s even a US citizen (let alone the higher standard of being a natural born citizen), this may as well be attacked on the “ager” issue, as he cannot prove he’s 35 due to lack of any and all vitals, or that he’s spent 14 years in the US due to sealed records.

  4. FiddlerBob

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:47 AM

    This is a great article. However, I just about fell out of my chair laughing when you appealed to Obama’s “patriotism”.

    Barack Hussein Obama is not a patriot. He is a fraud and a usurper acting with full knowledge, malice and intent to destroy our country and institute a Marxist-communist dictatorship. The good news is that he will fail. The bad news is that he is not alone in his work.

    Correcting this mess is going to take a lot of persistence and courage from the real patriots. The situation Mr. Obama and his conspirators have created has the potential to get very nasty very quickly. Your educational efforts are exactly what we need to lead our nation to a rational, non-violent resolution. Thank you and please keep it up.

  5. Dick G

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 8:49 AM

  6. yo

    Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM

  7. old1

    Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 1:30 AM

    Obama is a student of Constitutional law. He has to know he is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. Therefore he knows he has committed election fraud. He has done nothing about this crime against Constitutional Law. That is TREASON!

  8. Spaulding

    Monday, February 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM

    Exactly Ms. Vendee. About the definition of natural born citizen there is considerable documentary evidence. In fact, Jefferson enaugurated a course at William and Mary eight years before ratification on The Law Of Nature and of Nations, using the same text, Vattel’s Law of Nations cited by chief justices Marshall and Waite, among others, in cases in which they both reiterated the definition, and cited the most familiar source, Vattel. Vattel was the most cited legal reference between 1789 and 1820, and remained the text at William and Mary until 1841. James Wilson too taught a course based upon Vattel beginning in 1790.

    What was clever about the Obama team was the concealment of documents which probably will not incriminate Obama. That way, if some case reaches discovery citing Obama’s citizenship, or “Native born U.S. citizenship”, Obama will be cleared and no other case will likely be taken seriously by the public. That is the trap which could explain why Levin, Limbaugh, Beck, stay clear of questions about citizenship. It may also be the case that some of those loudly proclaiming doubts about Obama’s citizenship are Obama operatives. They play into the hands of Anita Dunn’s husband, now White House Legal Council. The most important fact, and one about which there is no doubt, because Obama has publically declared its truth, is that Obama’s father was an alien. He had no intention of becoming a citizen. That our founders wanted to protect us from just that circumstance is easily demonstrated. That principle was repeated in 2008 by Patrick Leahy, Michael Chertoff, Hillary Clinton, and even Barack Obama in Senate Res. 511.

    Calmly explaining this to the public is now the challenge, and you have contributed. We won’t get much help from the GOP because they were complicit in covering up Obama’s ineligibility to keep Obama from demanding the resignation of McCain, who is not eligible either. One, McCain, was not “born in the country”. The other, Obama was not “born of citizen parents.” The two terms are often referred to as jus soli and jus sanguinis. They comprise the definition of natural born citizenship, and are required only to be president.

  9. jtx

    Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 4:52 PM

    Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

    In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

    Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

    Three Little Words

    Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  10. jtx

    Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM

    If you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you’re in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys “defending” Obama using our tax money).

    That’s doubly ironic since these attorneys – and their bosses – took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.

    The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders’ intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as “smrstrauss” and others.

    I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.

    The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible. Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.

  11. tess

    Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    I believe that the Americn People are asking: “..Is there not one politician or journalist that will watch with me..?”
    I think we are only asking for a reason for the silence on the part of newspapers and usually outspoken pols. Yet there is no one that has the courage to give us an explanation.

  12. CARL TAPP

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    EVERYONE DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS FRAUDULENT ELECTION .
    THE REPUBLICANS , DUMBOCRATS , INDEPENDENTS, CHENEY ,
    REID , NAZI PELOSIVITCH , AND ALL OF CONGRESS . THE WHISTLE
    WAS BLOWN BEFORE THE ELECTION BY ATTORNEY PHILLIP BERG
    AND OTHERS , OBAMA STATED THAT HE WAS BORN IN KENYA , HIS
    FATHER WAS NOT A US CITIZEN , AND HE LOST HIS CITIZENSHIP BY
    ADOPTON IN INDONESIA . THE MEATHEAD MEDIA HAS DONE ALL THEY CAN TO HELP COVER UP THE FRAUD , AND THEY ALL SHOULD GO TO PRISON . CANADA FREE PRESS EXPOSED THE FACT THAT 49
    STATES RECEIVED NOTICE OF OBUMMER’S ( INELIGIBILITY ) WHICH
    PURPOSEFULLY OMITTED THE CLAUSE THAT HE WAS A NATURAL
    BORN CITIZEN . HE HAS MADE A HORRIBLE MESS OF THE ECONOMY,
    TRIED TO SURRENDER AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY, AND DONE MANY
    OTHER THINGS TO CREATE SOCIAL MEDICINE AND A DICTATORSHIP.
    HE WANTS TO CREAT THE ” UNITED SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF AMERICA “. OBOZO HAS DONE NOTHING RIGHT , EVERYTHING WRONG , AND HE DOES NOT HONOR THE AMERICAN FLAG , WHEN
    OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM IS PLAYED . HOW MANY OTHER REASONS
    DO ” WE THE PEOPLE ” NEED TO GET RID OF THE TREASONOUS,
    TRAITOROUS , CHEATING , LYING, NON-TRANSPARENT USURPER ?

  13. AttilasDaughter

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 2:32 PM

    Great point!

    And btw. remember Eldridge Cleaver?
    http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4803&Itemid=53&fontstyle=f-larger

    There are two kinds of law, one for the elite and one for the rest of us. The elite chose Obama to be the next puppet. Cleaver was on his own.

  14. Joe The Blogger

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    I concur. Superb article, Sally.

  15. NUTN2SAY

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 12:31 PM

    What is there to debate about “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”? There are numerous examples of the definition on the American historical record that is more than enough to end the debate if only they were given the proper recognition they deserve by the MSM. There is no need for scholars and attorneys to debate for hours when the definition is right before all eyes to see if only they would just stop and look! At this time the definition is believed to originate from Vattel”s Law of Nation dated 1757 which is 30 years before the Constitution, which says a Natural Born Citizen is being born to a mother and a father both of whom are citizens! Is it so difficult to understand that 200 years ago the people of that time knew what being a NBC meant? But now 200 years later it seems the meaning has been lost with the passing of time but not only that but it’s also seems that here it is 200 years later and all of the MSM has lost the ability to read the American historical record and is just so overwhelmingly confused and perplexed to the point they just can’t comprehend where on earth did the Founding Fathers learn NATURAL BORN CITIZEN or even why on earth did the Founding Fathers stipulate NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 but did not seem to think that same consideration should be directed towards the qualifications to be a member of congress or the senate! Those of us who have read the Constitution and other readings on American History understand what NBC was intended to mean but we are having a difficult time in opening up a discussion because it most certainly appears that there are forces out there that greatly prefers this subject be kept quiet!

  16. 2discern

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

    Hear, hear- yes to the article and comments. It behooves the American people to continue their diligence of Constitutional support especially as signs of indifference within Congress and the White House become strongly evident.
    As citizen watchdogs, every possible lead disclosing the hidden past of the usurper needs exposure. The damage already done is not even visible yet to the public at large. DILIGENCE ! DILIGENCE! We won’t stop until this is resolved. Thanks to John C. for his passion for truth and his constant effort to keep us informed.

  17. C.Scott

    Saturday, February 20, 2010 at 12:02 AM

    Great article Sally

    Thanks

  18. ELmo

    Friday, February 19, 2010 at 10:48 PM

    One of the best opinion pieces I have read on any site dealing with eligibility.
    ELmo

  19. Larry

    Friday, February 19, 2010 at 10:03 PM

    Sally, this is beautifully written. Not only is the argument remarkably reasonable, but the tone is so respectful. I’ve seen this post praised over at Citizen Wells, too. It has been a great day of work at The Post & Email. We can be truly grateful that all involved at P & E are such effective advocates for the truth.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>