The Obama approach to the Constitution + More

Posted on Mon 03/12/2012 by


The Patriot Post  Brief


The Foundation

“Liberty is a word which, according as it is used, comprehends the most good and the most evil of any in the world. Justly understood it is sacred next to those which we appropriate in divine adoration; but in the mouths of some it means anything, which enervate a necessary government; excite a jealousy of the rulers who are our own choice, and keep society in confusion for want of a power sufficiently concentered to promote good.” –Oliver Ellsworth

Essential Liberty

The Obama approach to the Constitution

“[F]or the past week America has watched the media elite and some in Washington bend over backward to turn attention away from an issue that is fundamental to the future of this country: Obamacare’s attack on individual liberty. … It all stems from a decision by the Obama Administration to mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, provide health care coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraception. … Some have attempted to make this a debate about other issues, but despite their efforts, the core complaint about this anti-conscience mandate remains: The President’s policy is an unprecedented attack on all Americans’ rights as protected by the First Amendment. … No matter the direction the debate has taken, the deeply flawed policy remains, as does the opposition. Fortunately, Americans are not powerless to take action against this continuing encroachment on liberty. To begin with, Congress can and should take action now to stand in opposition to this anti-conscience mandate and ensure that the liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment remain intact. As Obamacare’s two-year anniversary approaches, we’ve already seen two monumental reasons it must be repealed: the individual mandate and the anti-conscience mandate. But these are by no means the last of Obamacare’s attacks on Americans’ liberty.” –Heritage Foundation’s Mike Brownfield

What’s the prescription for what ails our nation?

Re: The Left

“Sandra Fluke [is] … really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP ‘war on women.’ I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs. We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight. At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn’t be ‘attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.’ After inserting himself into the fray and dragging [his daughters] Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he ‘didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating’ language and civility. Too late, pal. … He’s leading by example. So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.” –columnist Michelle Malkin


The Gipper

“Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.” —Ronald Reagan


“The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 2011 manufacturing output grew by 11 percent, to nearly $5 trillion. Were our manufacturing sector considered a nation with its own gross domestic product, it would be the world’s fourth-richest economy. Manufacturing productivity has doubled since 1987, and manufacturing output has risen by one-half. However, over the past two decades, manufacturing employment has fallen about 25 percent. For some people, that means our manufacturing sector is sick. … For the most part, rising worker productivity and advances in technology are the primary causes of reduced employment and higher output in the manufacturing, agriculture and telecommunications industries. My question is whether Congress should outlaw these productivity gains in the name of job creation. It would be easy. Just get rid of those John Deere harvesting machines that do in a day what used to take a thousand men a week, outlaw the robots and automation that eliminated many manufacturing jobs and bring back manually operated PBX telephone switchboards. By the way, if technological advances had not eliminated millions of jobs, where in the world would we have gotten the workers to produce all those goods and services that we now enjoy that weren’t even thought of decades ago? The bottom line is that the health of an industry is measured by its output, not by the number of people it employs.” –economist Walter E. Williams

Opinion in Brief

“Members of the Obama administration have been pointing out how hard it would be to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, now that they have been built deep underground and dispersed. That would have been something to consider during the time when President Obama was taking leisurely and half-hearted measures to create the appearance of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program, while vigorously warning Israel not to take military action. Time was never on our side. The risks go up exponentially the longer we wait. … Nor should we assume that we can remain safe by throwing Israel to the wolves, once the election is over, as might well happen if Obama is re-elected and no longer has any political reasons to pretend to be Israel’s friend. That kind of cynical miscalculation was made by France back in 1938, when it threw its ally, Czechoslovakia, to the wolves by refusing to defend it against Hitler’s demands, despite the mutual defense treaty between the two countries. Less than two years later, Hitler’s armies were invading France — using, among other things, tanks manufactured in Czechoslovakia. This was just one of the expedient miscalculations that helped bring on the bloodiest and most destructive war the world has ever known. Dare we repeat such miscalculations in a nuclear age?” –economist Thomas Sowell

For the Record

“When the people of Iran rose up following obviously rigged elections in June, 2009, Mr. Obama declined to offer any support for the Green Revolution in the streets. Instead, green turned to red — the red bloodstains on the cobblestones as the mullahs’ hired guns shot down pro-democracy demonstrators. Mr. Obama has allowed Ahmadinejad, Iran’s putative head of state, to come to America to address the UN General Assembly and to deliver his rants against his neighbor, Israel. Ahmadinejad was further allowed to disport himself at Columbia University. All the while, Ahmadinejad had two American hikers locked up on trumped up charges. The Obama administration betrayed our new allies in Eastern Europe — Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — by ditching our anti-ballistic missile plans. For what purpose? To gain Russia’s cooperation in dealing with Iran. Did we get it? Actually, no. Russia is busily pulling the teeth of UN resolutions dealing with Iran and Iran’s puppet state, Syria. … Now, President Obama assures Israel he ‘has their back.’ Well, thanks to President Obama, Israel’s back is to the wall. … So, are Mr. Obama’s words of assurance to Israel something substantial? Or are they, in Hillary’s words, just words?” –columnist Ken Blackwell

Reader Comments

“Why in the world would any Republican or conservative in their right mind want a brokered convention? How much time does that give the candidate to go up against Obama — six weeks at best? I believe that Mitt Romney is our best bet and he should be paired on a ticket with a young and articulate conservative. Mark Alexander is correct in his assertion that we will self-destruct if the current internal strife continues, and the consequence WILL be the election of Obama. And the consequence of that would be….” –Lady Liberty

“I applaud Mark Alexander’s column,The Politics of Self Destruction,’ for boldly exposing how we, as Republicans, can be our own worst enemies. While most of the reader comments supported that thesis, some demonstrated it. Alexander mentioned a couple of vice presidential prospects, including Marco Rubio, and some readers objected, saying that Rubio is no more eligible than Obama. As both an advocate of our Constitution and an attorney specializing in immigration, I can attest to the fact that Rubio most certainly would qualify under the plain language of our Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment, as a ‘natural born citizen.’ Further, there is no legal comparison between the controversy about Obama’s citizenship which questions where he was born (unfounded in my opinion), and Rubio’s citizenship based on the legal status of his parents. The latter, in fact, did have legal status at the time of Rubio’s birth. Finally, as a Florida citizen, let me just say that I do not think Marco Rubio would agree to be on a presidential ticket with Mitt Romney, but that is another discussion.” –From the Sunshine State

Alexander’s Reply: As noted in reply to the first objection to Rubio, for the record, Marco Antonio Rubio was born May 28, 1971, in Miami, Florida. His parents were resident aliens at the time of his birth, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens. You may correctly assume that, because Rubio’s parents were in the United States legally and thus, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he does qualify as a natural born citizen while under the same clause, the children of illegal aliens are most decidedly not “natural born citizen of the United States.” If you do not understand this assertion, read on.

Regarding “birthright citizenship,” let me offer a few unadulterated facts. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as ratified in 1789, states: “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.”

By all accepted definitions of citizenship at the time, Marco Rubio is a “natural born citizen,” as were, similarly, our ancestral Founders.

After the War Between the States, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed to ensure that slaves born in the U.S., and legally subject to its jurisdiction, had the same rights of citizenship as all Americans. It stated, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Concerned about the integrity of the Civil Rights Act given the Supreme Court’s decision a decade earlier in Dred Scott v. Sandford denying citizenship to blacks, and that some future Congress would reverse this legislation, the 14th Amendment was proposed to ensure rights of citizenship. In the plain language of its authors, those who are born to parents legally in the U.S., whose parents have no allegiance to a foreign power (as diplomats), are thus, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and have claim to birthright citizenship. (This would clearly exclude those born to illegal aliens.)

By the constructionist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Marco Rubio is, indeed, a “natural born citizen.”

The Rule of Law as outlined by the 14th Amendment stood until 1982 when it was adulterated by judicial activists who concluded in Plyler v. Doe, that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” That opened the floodgates for “anchor babies,” a gate that should be closed — but that would require a judiciary that abides by its oath to uphold the Rule of Law.

Thus, as adulterated, not only is Marco Rubio a “natural born citizen,” but so is everyone else born in the U.S., regardless of whether their parents were here legally or illegally. However, there is no comparison between the questions of Obama’s citizenship and that of Marco Rubio, which seems to have inspired some reader comments. The legitimate questions about Obama’s citizenship are based on where he was actually born — as posited by some who argue he was not born in the United States. (I would note that enormous political capital has been thrown down this rathole for the last four years, much to the detriment of the campaign to defeat Obama.)

For further reading, I have authored several essays on this subject, including “On the Fourteenth Amendment,” and more particularly, “Birthright Citizenship?” and “Immigration Policy: ‘Subject to the jurisdiction therof’.”

Now, for those so predisposed, you may resume the effort to self-destruct, but understand that effort is worth more to Obama’s re-election than any ad share he can buy.

“In response to Friday’s Digest about Sandra Fluke and the contraception issue, Insurance, including health insurance, is designed as a safety net so that a family, individual or organization won’t suffer financial devastation in the case of an unforeseen event, such as illness, injury or other medical malady. The coverage generally pays for treatment associated with the condition, as long as such coverage is deemed appropriate by the medical community. Please tell me, for what medical malady would contraception provide treatment?” –Steve

The Last Word

“At times, I find myself wondering if, after a thousand postings, I will eventually run out of things to carp, whine and scream about. I should only be so lucky, for it would mean that liberalism had finally all but vanished from our nation’s capital, and the likes of Barack Obama, Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Patty Murray, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy, had all been returned to the various zoos from which they’d been on loan. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I would acknowledge that there are a fair number of naïve bumpkins in both parties. Although they are far more numerous in the voting blocs of Democrats, even in the GOP there are those I refer to as Utopians. Whereas on the Left, such lunkheads tend to think that if only a thousand more laws are enacted, we will achieve Nirvana; on the Right are those who believe there is an ideal presidential candidate who will somehow combine the best elements of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Anything short of that and they threaten to stay home and sulk on Election Day, even if the alternative is to allow an international disaster like Obama to be re-elected.” –columnist Burt Prelutsky

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team


 (Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post