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

Below is an article written by a Chicago Lawyer. It was part of a paper written in 2006 found at the Chicago/Kent College of Law, though it is no longer in the archives. In any case, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure out where this is going (or went). An author who originally sited this piece back before the election made this comment about the essay:

"Interesting this is indeed. The answer is in further study and discovery, using the legalese of the Friends of Barack, mainly the law firm of whose employ the author of this piece is beholden to. When did Barack decide to run as President? Wasn't it in 2006, officially? What are the odds that Leftinistra law firms and Leftinistra Chicago lawyers of that law firm, which had/have long historical relationships with Czarbie, suddenly be wanting to "deal with" that damned pesky "natural-born clause"? Hmm?"

Even more interesting is the clause Obama added as Senator to Senate Resolution 511 resolving McCain's eligibility by Congress. The author goes on to say:

"In April of 2008, Senator McCain's "natural born" citizen status was settled by Senate Resolution 511. I thought it peculiar that Patrick Leahy would make the comment that the term "natural born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution when it clearly is defined. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the Constitutional definition when the definition is clearly stated in the Constitution. There is other verbiage in the Resolution that is equally suspect."

[...] Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [...]

Wrapping up, the author laments about this question that came to mind: "This statement was added to the Resolution by none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Why?"

Would this not make Obama a "birther"? By logic and accountability it would. You can read this full article here. You can also see that Pelosi removed/changed the clause supporting the Constitution in the Offical Certificate of Nominee sent to 48 states for Obama/Biden.

Below appears the Essay written by the Chicago Lawyer:
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,1 “undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’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 eligible 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 Office 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 Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor 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 outdated 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 amendment 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 Amendment. [...]