I decided to access Miss Herlihy’s research paper again today.

Guess what?

File not found.

I should not be surprised. Always download anything interesting to your
own computer, don’t just save the link.

But her paper, about the possibility of getting rid of the Natural Born
clause from the US Constitution, disappeared overnight. Sarah P. Herlihy
is still there, but her paper is not. Maybe it is just some technical problem.
Maybe her paper will appear again tomorrow. Let us hope so.

Obama knows.

Mary writes:
I was doing some reading on the SCOTUS blogs and read this : http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/ideological-polarization-among-scotus-clerks.html
…”clerks from the chambers of four conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy) sort themselves ideologically in their career trajectory: Since 1990, they increasingly go to conservative law schools or to law firms with prominent conservative mentors such as Kirkland & Ellis”…
I remembered that name Kirkland & Ellis and looked it up – http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Yes, that is why I remembered it – Obama supporters and the lawfirm that had looked into the natural born aspect of the Constitution around the time that the pres-elect started his campaign.
The interesting article “AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE”
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”
I am now wondering about SCOTUS remaining unbiased in their denials … I don’t know how anyone could NOT find this disturbing. No ‘proof’ but WOW what a coincidence! I’d hate to believe that there is ‘no justice’ (especially in the high courts). I, along with I am sure millions of others think that the entire issue needs to be resolved once and for all – someone has to speak up for the people of this country. Simple dismissials without given reasons are NOT acceptable!

Here’s the entry she is referring to:
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural

Gosh, I Really Hope Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. But Why, Why, Why, Did He Have Kirkland & Ellis Try to Re-write the Clause in 2006?

wallstreetcaptain 4 days ago

Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement right as he starts his presidential run?
::
Coincidence?

http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 :
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts

Comment left by: CreativeOgre:

While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title

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

caught my eye, and had to read it…

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government?

So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com

Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter.

Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that
Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)

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

So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:

“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.

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

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, “undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”

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 eligible for the presidency.

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.

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.

In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.

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.

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.

OBAMA KNOWS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

I rest my case

First I found this tipoff from one of the best posters over at Texasdarlin

Mary writes:
I was doing some reading on the SCOTUS blogs and read this : http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/12/ideological-polarization-among-scotus-clerks.html
…”clerks from the chambers of four conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy) sort themselves ideologically in their career trajectory: Since 1990, they increasingly go to conservative law schools or to law firms with prominent conservative mentors such as Kirkland & Ellis”…
I remembered that name Kirkland & Ellis and looked it up – http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural
Yes, that is why I remembered it – Obama supporters and the lawfirm that had looked into the natural born aspect of the Constitution around the time that the pres-elect started his campaign.
The interesting article “AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE”
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”
I am now wondering about SCOTUS remaining unbiased in their denials … I don’t know how anyone could NOT find this disturbing. No ‘proof’ but WOW what a coincidence! I’d hate to believe that there is ‘no justice’ (especially in the high courts). I, along with I am sure millions of others think that the entire issue needs to be resolved once and for all – someone has to speak up for the people of this country. Simple dismissials without given reasons are NOT acceptable!

Here’s the entry she is referring to:
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/gosh-really-hope-obama-natural

Gosh, I Really Hope Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. But Why, Why, Why, Did He Have Kirkland & Ellis Try to Re-write the Clause in 2006?

wallstreetcaptain 4 days ago

Obama’s Friends Working to Amend the Natural Born Citizen Requirement right as he starts his presidential run?
::
Coincidence?

http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/barracks/index.php?topic=250.0 :
If the Facts Don’t Support the Theory, Destroy the Facts

Comment left by: CreativeOgre:

While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title

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

caught my eye, and had to read it…

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government?

So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP http://www.kirkland.com

Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter.

Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that
Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm … temID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)

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

So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:

“If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.

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

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, “undecidedly un American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”

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 eligible for the presidency.

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.

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.

In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.

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.

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.

OBAMA KNOWS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

I rest my case.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

If one thinks that is “sexist” or out of date, then change the Constitution.
That hasn’t been done. Will the Supreme Court do it’s job?
I have no idea. But I now understand what the framers meant by
“natural born” and they specifically excluded an act of law changing
their understanding/interpretation of the laws of nature.

Anyways, Google filters it’s results in a consensus engine
whatever that is. If you do a Copernic search
(Copernic is a search engine almagamator and I recommend it)

you find this:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

This is only a snippet, Strata let me paste in that other whole
thing, so I won’t abuse the privilege but the argument is
extensive:

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.

————————————————————————–

So there are two tests,

Test1) Why are you spending a fortune to hide your birth
certificate?

Test2) The Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen
needs to be re-tested again.

Actually, I am taking it off
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm

I will paste the whole thing in and let Strata delete it.

The Obama File

Natural Born Citizen Chart
People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.

For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner. His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, “what does Obama have to hide?”

(The actual chart doesn’t reproduce well on blogs, but feel free to go
there/)

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.

Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Besides being a lawyer, I am an accountant as well. We know that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can’t change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de’tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.

Either way, three of the candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero are not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008. Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, then the 2008 presidential election and its results are void. Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a fact that is not in dispute.

From an attorney who practices in Missouri

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

So you say the father doesn’t matter whereas the supreme court
in 1868 and 1939 ruled that both parents must be US citizens
without foreign attachments.

I am sure you will soon blind me with pixelated science, but I note
that only the requests for immediate stays have been rejected
by the Supreme Court. Both cases are still alive.

PARENTS is plural, plural means more than one. Typically 2.
What Supreme Court decisions expanded this definition since 1939?

By Byron York
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTg2NzI4MWVhY2I1OWQ3NTE5YmNhNGRiM2E3OGQxMTY=

The Blago scandal . . .

December 16, 2008

BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

Sneed hears rumbles President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss’ vacant Senate seat!

A lot of chit-chat?

Hot air?

Or trouble?

• • To date: Rahm’s been mum. Stay tuned.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1333057,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article

December 10, 2008
Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.

Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.

On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.

“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,” said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the Secretary of State, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the Secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the Secretary to act.”

Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth.”

http://decalogosintl.org/?p=75

He’s got an interesting argument – problem for him and you is, that’s all it is. The courts have rejected his minimalist construction in favor of an expansive construction. Obama’s mother was a US citizen, therefore Obama is a natural born US citizen. His father’s citizenship is immaterial.

You should note that Donofrio also believes that John McCain was not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama, even though his parents were only there because of US military service.

To put it in precise legal terms, Donofrio is a whack-job.