Fred on the Certificate

I just received this e-mail from Fred:

>I was reading your blog, "Why Was Sarah Herilihy Worrying About Article II?" and I would like to add a dot that you might find interesting.

I think it might shed some light on what we see going on with the court cases that have reached the SC.

Justice Scalia made a talk followed by a Q&A session to The Federalist Society on November 20, 2008 so it is very current.

Here is the link:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

The talk is available at that site in video or audio only. I have a fast server, but the video kept stopping to catch up so I recommend listening to the audio as it is continuous.

I think that Justice Scalia defines himself as an "originalist".

During the Q&A time, Justice Scalia commented on what to do about laws that were on the books at the time the Constitution was written but would not be acceptable today. He referenced "notching the ears" of felons as a means to identify them (I never knew we did that). He spent time discussing that "good" Judges would uphold laws that were constitutional even though they did not agree with them.

He specifically stated that "good Judges" should have a rubber stamp to handle those cases.

The stamp would read, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL".

When he made that statement, I believe he was thinking of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Perhaps he doesn't agree with it , but it is not open to interpretation. Justice Alito had a conversation with Schumer during his confirmation hearing and said that an Amendment was required, but would not discuss whether a child born on U.S. soil of parents that were illegals was entitled to citizenship.

Of the cases that have reached the SC, Berg's was denied based on "Standing", Donofrio's on Jurisdiction, and Cort's was denied without comment.

Is it possible that the SCOTUS is dodging the issue?

I believe that they all, if they are "good" Justices would, since the wording is not ambiguous and the nature and reason for the clause is clearly defined by Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have to rule that the only thing that could alter the "natural born" statement in the Constitution is an Amendment to the Constitution.

The significant problem with Obama's eligibility is that most Senators and Representatives, the voters on January 8 to certify him to be President of the United States, believe that being born on U.S. soil entitles Obama to be proclaimed "Natural Born". It does not! And Obama does not qualify since his father was a British subject "at birth" of Obama (it is on his website) and the very thing that John Jay worried about that motivated him to suggest the wording in Article II, Section I has come upon us! And for good reason!

Fred

Doug Ross's Bumper Stickers

Legendary blogger Doug Ross (h/t Larwyn) has posted the following bumper stickers.

Barack Obama's Socialist Safe House

Jim Robbins forwarded a link to this Texas Darlin which raises some curious questions. For instance, why does the Party for Socialism and Liberation list the phone number associated with Obama’s mansion in Chicago as its phone number? TD asks: "Why on Earth is the phone number for the Party for Socialism and Liberation linked to the Obamas’ private residence in Chicago? Theories?"

Read the whole baffling conundrum here. (Actually it's not so baffling. Obama is a leftwing extremist, a possibility his fellow travelers at the networks never wished to explore.)

Howie Rich on the Blagojevich Scandal

I received an e-mail from Bill Wilson that carried the "Daily Grind", which is produced by GetLiberty.org "in affiliation with Americans for limited government". Rich's article is available on GetLiberty.org. Rich notes that:

"Coverage of the coronation of President-elect Barack Obama has practically ground to a halt, as have media reports on the steadily deteriorating state of our nation's economy. A multi-billion bailout for Detroit? Another Kennedy seeking elected office in New York? A pair of shoes thrown at President George W. Bush?

"It seems all of these stories are playing second fiddle to Chicagoland's scheming, foul-mouthed governor, his screaming 'Lady MacBeth' and the growing list of politicians caught up in their insidious web."

But, Rich points out, legalized corruption, the ultimate fruit of Progressivism, is widespread in Washington:

"The truth is that government entities dole out multi-million dollar contracts, make major regulatory decisions and pass new laws every day in America based on nothing more than who cut the biggest check to the politicians' campaign coffers. In fact, many of these deals come in the form of secretive "no-bid" contracts that often directly benefit politicians' friends and family members.Sadly, the vast majority of these "pay-to-play" scams are perfectly legal..."

But Rich points out that there is hope:

"In Colorado last month, voters took a stand against this pervasive culture of political corruption in America. Over the objection of virtually every elected official (and every public and private sector labor union in the state), citizens passed a comprehensive clean and open government measure that dramatically alters the status quo conditions responsible for politicians' egregious behavior.

"In addition to severely restricting political contribution's from no-bid government contractors including public sector unions, Colorado's new law also creates an online database where taxpayers will be able to follow how every cent of their money is being spent."

Let us applaud GetLiberty.org and its struggle for reform!