BACK TO BASIC W/ DAN CLEMENTS  

Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 12/11/2008 7:42 PM UTC

  Selective Constitutionalism
  

  By Chuck Baldwin
  December 9, 2008
  
  Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect
  Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore,
  not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United
  States.
  
  Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution 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 . . . ." Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of
  Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various
  lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.
  
  Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean
  someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born
  in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's
  secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to
  date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which
  only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
  
  Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a
  "constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a
  "constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only
  get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when
  it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat
  appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but
  when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn
  with utter indifference.
  
  For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to
  actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the
  Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After
  all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House.
  Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he
  has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative
  and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all
  interested in the Obama citizenship issue?
  
  Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama
  was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He
  was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does
  anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack
  Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a
  "constitutional crisis"? Get real!
  
  Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the
  time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign
  country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not
  qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State
  Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief,
  U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular
  facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
  Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to
  the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship
  by reason of birth."
  
  Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential
  Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in
  Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is
  now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized
  citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run
  for President.
  
  But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's
  requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals,
  most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I
  call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional
  government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really
  could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they
  would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W.
  Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
  
  Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was
  assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment
  prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when
  Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by
  federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush
  was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush
  overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush
  dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when
  Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the
  United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were
  conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the
  United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of
  Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where
  were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over
  1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his
  fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional
  pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they
  when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could
  go on and on.
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in
  violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more
  so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S.
  Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as
  their respective Presidential nominees.
  
  While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional
  government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member)
  would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in
  the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S.
  Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate
  members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take
  was raised while they were in Congress.
  
  However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional
  prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the
  salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job
  without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was
  in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It
  is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William
  Saxbe to be attorney general.
  
  Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited
  to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the
  manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil
  magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to
  preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God
  help us!
  
  *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
  editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
  credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
  
  http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
  
  Chuck Baldwin

   

  • Tags:
  • CHRISTIAN
  • POLITICAL
  • CURRENT EVENTS
  • BLOG TALK RADIO
  • CONSTITUTION PARTY
  • Permalink