Obama’s Smoking Gun… a pre-emptive strike!

Obama’s Chicago legal team has been working on the argument allowing foreign born citizens eligibility for the US Presidency for several years. Ultimately this argument is designed for removal of the ‘Natural Born’ requirement in Article II of the Constitution.

And how do we know Obama’s legal team has been working, refining and revising this argument from as early as it’s final revision in 2004 published in 2006?

The author SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com

and further the law firm is based in Chicago, one of the partners, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is a Member of the finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845

I am of the opinion, when the SCOTUS chooses to stop what they are doing and address an issue, I automatically go into ‘24′ mode. I am not considered an avid joiner in following the crowd or protocol because I need to believe the cause is sincere, fluent and flexible in my terms of flexibility.

I usually have too many (unanswerable) questions needing answers and will stand along the periphery gathering and storing facts until something strikingly plausible begins to emerge. At times it is almost serendipitous I am fortunate in finding answers that have yet been posed by a (befitting), strategic question. In that case, I will bookmark the information for future reference. I’m posting a bookmarked ‘answer’ to what I believe will be the argument Obama’s team will use before the SCOTUS. My thanks to BillieJo-…The information above was gleaned by sister PUMA BillieJo where further probing revealed the connection to Obama.

“AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE”

by SARAH P. HERLIHY∗

INTRODUCTION

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president.

Article II provides:

“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 Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12. 8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7

In addition to Governor ∗ J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004–2005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note.

1. When asked to identify the stupidest provision in the Constitution for a symposium issue of Constitutional Commentaries, two separate constitutional scholars independently chose the natural born citizen clause. Robert Post, What is the Constitution’s Worst Provision?12 CONST. COMMENT. 191, 192 (1995); Randall Kennedy, A Natural Aristocracy?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 175, 175 (1995).

2. Editorial, Don’t Rush to Change Constitution, GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE, Jan.4,2000at A5.

3. William Safire, Essay, The Constitution’s Flaw, N.Y.TIMES, Sept. 6, 1987, at E15.

4. Post, supra note 1, at 191.

5. See Martin Kasindorf, Should the Constitution be Amended for Arnold?, USA TODAY, Dec. 3, 2004, at 1A.

6. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.

7. Editorial, Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, Jan. 10, 2005, at B6.

2

Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Gov-ernor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11

The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system.

However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amend-ment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12

Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.

Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for

8. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and moved with her family to the U.S. when she was four years old. Myriam Marquez, Editorial, No Terminating Inevitable Tugs of the Heart, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Oct. 24, 2004, at G3.

9. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (noting that Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and Henry Kissinger was born in Germany); Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6 (noting that Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan).

10. Vicki Haddock, President Schwarzenegger?: Some Think It’s Time to Stop Excluding For-eign-Born Citizens from Serving in the Oval Office, S. F. CHRON., Nov. 2, 2003, at D1.

11. A Constitutional Anachronism, Editorial, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 6, 2003, at A10. The United States Code clarifies some of the ambiguities regarding who is and who is not considered a natural born citizen. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401–1408 (2000).

12. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A.

abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Consti-tutional amendment.

I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (cont)

This link amounts to 25 pages.. the contents are up for discussion here