The Question of Obama's Citizenship

The Arizona legislature is working on a bill that would require any candidate for the office of President of the United States to document their eligibility for the office.  Whether you believe President Obama is eligible or not, I think it is a good idea to define the eligibility requirements, particularly citizenship, more definitively to avoid future debate on the subject.

The Constitution defines eligibility for the office of president in the following way:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The question of Obama's citizenship centers on whether he meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution.  The meaning of the term "natural born" has become a bit fuzzy through the years.  Some believe that since Obama's mother was a citizen and he was reportedly born in Hawaii, he is natural born.  I have read some rather in-depth commentaries on the actual meaning of natural born and it ranges in interpretation.  Some of the interpretations I have seen are along these lines:

• Must be born in the United States or to a citizen of United States serving in military or foreign service.
• Both parents must have been citizens at the time of birth.
• Both parents must have been citizens, themselves born in the United States.
• I saw some explanation that had a time frame by which the parent had to have been a citizen before birth of the child.

With all of the varying understandings of this term, I believe that this issue should be qualified and quantified in no uncertain terms for future elections.  I also believe that since President is the only office to have a natural born requirement, that any candidate should have to provide definitive documentation to prove their qualification before their name can be placed on the ballot.  This would avoid all this mess in the future. 

Take back our country...from Whom?

In a recent Facebook posting, a friend asked, in effect, who exactly is it  that the Tea Party wants to take "their" country back from...and who says its only "their" country to begin with?  The following was my response with some additional thoughts at the end:

Response:

Not take it back from you...but from the big-government, statist ruling class we now have in Washington. The ones who have almost completely usurped the power of the states and who look to cede sovereignty to the UN...that's who they, and I, want to take it back from.

We live in a republic...that means The People have the ultimate power...but The People became lazy and content and fell asleep...they relinquished their power, not paying close attention to what their supposed representatives were doing in their name...they lost their healthy suspicion of centralized power. The people are now starting to wake up and realize things have gone afoul...that a small minority of ultra-left wing "progressives" who seek more and more power...who believe that government control...central planning...is the answer to every question have taken control. The People have begun to see what they have lost along the road and where this road is going...and they don't like it.

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” - John Philpot Curran, 1790

We have awoken and seek to take our country back from those who actively prey on our rights.

Additional Thoughts:

This is not a Republican, Democrat thing.  Plenty of Republicans have pushed or gone along  with big government power grabs.  George W. Bush spent our money like a drunken Democrat.  The Republican party, in my mind, has in the past been only the lesser of two evils.  This is about a belief that our founding principles are based in truth and represent the best of government so far known on all the earth.  It is taking a stand that  freedom is not a license to steal from your fellow citizen by force of government might, but rather requires personal responsibility and individual initiative.  It is saying to our political opponents, we are through with your political correctness that is designed to silence and control us.  We are not racists! We are not hate mongers! We know who we are and we don't care about your name-calling any longer.  It is we who stand with the Founding Fathers in the belief that centralized, consolidated government power leads inextricably to tyranny.


There is room in our great country for those of differing political, cultural and religious beliefs.  But we are a nation of laws.  And, the bedrock to our law is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is not a living document in the sense that it can be changed or ignored at the whims of the court or government leaders.  It can, however be amended as The People, through their State and Federal representatives, see fit.  It is a long and arduous process to amend the Constitution, as it should be.  It is meant to be done in a very thoughtful and well reasoned manner to avoid unintended consequences.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error."

As I pointed out in a previous post, people polled “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.”  According to Gallup, those who say they are "conservative" make up the single largest block of citizens in the U.S. at about 40%..."moderate" at about 35% and "liberal" at only about 21%.  But it is the "liberals" who have taken control of the country.  Conservatives and many moderates want that control back.  That is how our political system works.  Liberals have taken to the streets for years with their signs, chants and mottoes...I guess they just don't like the competition.

War on Terror or War on Islam?

The video shown below is of retired Colonel Allen West speaking at the Freedom Defense Initiative on February 19, 2010 about the "War on Terror."  He makes many great points.  Among them the idea that saying that we are at war against terror is like saying that during WWII we were at war against the Blitzkrieg or the Kamikaze.  These are just tactics.  We go to war against ideologies...Nazism, Communism, Imperialism...and Islam.  He speaks about Islams history from its founding until today as one of intolerance and violence and says that we are just in the latest chapter of a very long book.  He is careful, though to point out that we are not at was against Muslims.  Just as all Germans were not Nazis, all Muslims are not terrorists or radical Islamists.

One of the great quotes from this speech is:

"When tolerance becomes a one way street, it is cultural suicide.  When I am able to fly to Saudi Arabia with my bible in hand, with my cross around my neck, to go to Mecca, to go to a church, then guess what...we're good to go.  But until that point, we have to understand the objectives and goals that Islam has set forward."

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

While I am certainly not qualified to give an exhaustive historical thesis on this, or any other subject, I have been studying this subject for a while now and would like to attempt to to share my understanding of this very important concept in a simple and concise way.  I am not a historian but lean heavily on those who are.  I hope this modest attempt will enlighten some, make others question, and provide inspiration to my fellow citizens to see a return to our Founding Principles. 

Found:

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..."  - Thomas Jefferson

The first step to restoring the federalism that has been lost to The United States of America is to understand what it is, how it came to be and why it is such an important concept.  A citizen will not be moved to protect that which he does not understand or value.

Many believe that the United States of America is a "democracy."  This, in fact, is not true.  America was founded as a  federalist representative republic.  This is not a trivial distinction.  The Founding Fathers were learned men who studied history and the classic writers on the subjects of governance, rights and liberty.  They understood that a pure democracy could not guarantee basic liberties while providing the protections and guidelines necessary to a civil society.  A democracy, in its purest form, is a one person, one vote system that makes all decisions a matter of the "majority rules" ethic.  Because public sentiment can be easily swayed and manipulated, especially in times of danger or stress, pure democracy can lead to mob rule, and result in the tyranny of the majority. 

The founders, having heeded the lessons and teachings of history, chose to eschew a purely democratic form of government and instead embraced a representative form that adhered to republican principles.  A representative government, unlike a democracy, is administered through delegates who are chosen to represent the will of their constituent groups.  Republican principles convey the idea that government should rule by the consent the of the governed...the people.  So, the representative delegates in our republic are chosen, either directly or indirectly, by the people to administer and enforce their will.  At the time of the founding, representative republics were already operating in America and the principles codified in the tenants and constitutions of the 13 sovereign States.

Beyond providing for republican representatives, who can also be swayed and manipulated, the founders also sought to create a series of "checks and balances" on the power of government.  They had, after all, recently fought a war of independence against a powerful and tyrannical government.  They were justifiably suspicious of centralized power.  They sought to decentralize and compartmentalize government to avoid the accumulation of too much power in any one body.  As James Madison states in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The founders realized, however, that while the States were sovereign, they needed a body that would represent them as a consolidated entity to the world and regulate and mediate interactions between the States to their mutual benefit.  For this reason, they formed a Federal government that represented the federation of sovereign States.  This government was given a very few and finite powers...among them power to represent the federation in treaties and tariffs with other countries, to provide for the common defense against foreign powers, to regulate immigration,  to coin a common currency and to assure fairness of trade between the States.  As Madison stated in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”  To emphasize this point, the 10th Amendment was included in the original "Bill of Rights" which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The "checks and balances" instituted were not just between the branches of the Federal government, but first and foremost between the roles of the State and Federal governments.  This was a fine balancing act that was hotly debated and refined throughout the Constitutional Convention.  Much debate was centered around the question of whether we would have a government that was "national" in form or "federal."  The result was a ingenious mixture of the two with "the people" as the ultimate power.  Again, Madison sums up the result in Federalist 39, “The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.”

But while there are some national characteristics to the Constitution, do not mistake this for the sovereign States giving up their rights to the central government.  The States created the Federal government and all powers it may have were given it by the States.  Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York kept an extensive journal of the proceedings which were kept secret until after his death.  In 1823, Senator John Taylor (VA) drew heavily from Yates' journal in his book New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Taylor commented, "[I]t was proposed and seconded to erase the word national, and substitute the words United States [in the plural] in the fourth resolution, which passed in the affirmative.  Thus we see an opinion expressed at the convention that the phrase 'United States' did not mean a consolidated American People or nation, and all inferences in favour of a national government...are overthrown."  The deliberate use of the term "United States" in the Constitution emphasized that what was being formed was a federation of sovereign States, and not a centralized, monolithic nation. 

As to the details of its workings, the Federal Government was to operate within the limits of those few, enumerated powers given it by the States.  The House of Representatives was to represent the direct will of the people in the matters of the federation.  The Senate, whose delegates being appointed directly by the legislatures of the States (the 17th Amendment changed this...more about this in later segments), represented the indirect will of the people as members of the sovereign States.  The President was to be voted on by the people, but the votes, through the electoral college, are considered in groups from the States...a mix of direct and indirect.  The Federal judiciary was to be appointed by the President, an effort to remove politics from the court to allow them to remain unbiased (the success of this is highly questionable).  With this mix of selection methods and with differing responsibilities, the branches of the Federal government too were to have checks and balances on power.

Our federal form of government has some very important benefits (see my earlier post The Utility of Federalism for more detail), chief of which is the decentralization of power. The Founding Fathers knew what Lord Acton so succinctly stated many years later, "...where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

With the proper checks and balances of government power, it is possible to live in a society free to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The principles enshrined in our Constitution were not new, but the method with which they were blended in one society was truly unique and magnificent.  This form of government resulted in the most productive, most generous, and most free people in the history of the planet.  All individuals are considered to have equal rights and are equally valuable.  The United States of America has raised the standard of living and brought liberty to more people than any other country, kingdom or tribe in the world at any time in history.  Our form of federalism has caused us to be the envy of the world, and is viewed as Paradise Found by many who have made it to our shores.

...But, from the very beginning and to this present day, the principles of this great republic have been under attack by those who wish to change it and control it.  This will be the subject of my next installment in the series.

Part 2 >