First, we have Justice Clarence Thomas in a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last April admitting that the Supreme Court was evading the many lawsuits that have been brought to the Court on Obama’s birth eligibility to be President of the United States [beginning at the 1:00 mark]:
year later, on April 14, 2011, Justice Stephen Breyer in a House Appropriations hearing on the 2012 Supreme Court budget, admits that:
* The Constitution specifies that only a “natural born citizen” can be president of the United States [0:30 mark];
* But the definition of “natural born citizen” has not been determined or fixed, and is subject to interpretation in that different people give the term “a broader or narrower meaning.” [beginning at 1:05 mark]
Hmm, Justice Breyer, isn’t the function of the Supreme Court that of INTERPRETING the Constitution, as in INTERPRETING the meaning of “natural born citizen”?
Enough already with these coy little allusions by Supreme Court justices that they know there’s a problem with Obama’s eligibility! And stop rubbing our faces in this travesty by joking, laughing, and yukking up about this in Congressional hearings — and with a Demonrat Congressman yet.
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) is one of the “most Progressive members of Congress” who, year after year, has introduced and reintroduced a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president.
Do something about it by agreeing to hear just one of the many lawsuits that have been brought before you. Grow a pair…or, better yet, just do your job, for which you’re being handsomely paid by the 55% of American households who actually pay federal income taxes.
First, we have Justice Clarence Thomas in a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last April admitting that the Supreme Court was evading the many lawsuits that have been brought to the Court on Obama’s birth eligibility to be President of the United States [beginning at the 1:00 mark]:
A good thing too, as a can of worms is the only thing that will actually be opened. With so many past presidents did not having the proper Tea Bagger approved papers or time lines.
It will be interesting to see the tack the Supreme Court will develop as the election draws near. I have maintained for quite some time the Court is being corrupted since the late eighties and early nineties in order to vacate its intended position of being above politics and becoming a sock puppet of special interests.
Politicians of both parties have noted the Constitutional end-run around the will of the people and simply legislating their agenda.
If there is no insistence of eligibility to run for the office of the Presidency, it will be conclusive proof both parties are in fact one and the same, with factions squabbling for scraps.
It will be interesting to see the tack the Supreme Court will develop as the election draws near. I have maintained for quite some time the Court is being corrupted since the late eighties and early nineties in order to vacate its intended position of being above politics and becoming a sock puppet of special interests.
Are you prepared to have the Eisenhower presidency declared null and void?
I would respond: people aspiring to elected office should be held to a higher standard of transparency because they seek to have their hands on the levers of power. I'm sure we all are familiar with Acton's dictum about power corrupting. I want to know if there is a potential lever for a blackmailer to manipulate. Thorough transparency would help reveal a potential threat to the administration of the country's affairs.
I would respond: people aspiring to elected office should be held to a higher standard of transparency because they seek to have their hands on the levers of power.
I agree with that also, but changing the rules or practices in midstream will not win the day. And I think you can safely assume that behind every presidential candidate are backers with an agenda.
Hmm, Justice Breyer, isn’t the function of the Supreme Court that of INTERPRETING the Constitution, as in INTERPRETING the meaning of “natural born citizen”?
No, it isn't.
The US Constitution Article 3, section 2 clearly defines the role of the US Supreme Court.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
There is no existing federal law that defines a "natural born citizen" and as a result the question has not seriously been taken for the USSC. Everyone can make an argument about it BUT a law needs to be made such that more scrutiny is established about the specific constitutional requirements for the office besides a mere vetting process which can lead to errors.
