Remedial Education for Congress: Natural Born Citizen

©2009 drkate

Hey, Congress!  (blows fog horn vigorously)

Since you don’t read the bills you write, and need assistance in reading and interpreting them anyway, how could we expect you to read and understand Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution???

So today we start our remedial lesson on this particular part of the Constitution.  For our first lesson, so as to not tax your collective brains and its only Monday and all,  we’ll start with a picture found on Jefferson’s Rebels.

Now don’t be scared. 🙄

NBC Defined Graphic

Your assignment? Go dust off that copy of Vattel sitting on your coffee table and find this quote. You have five minutes and you just lost half of it trying to understand the picture… or was it the background writing?

53 Responses to “Remedial Education for Congress: Natural Born Citizen”

  1. 1 d2i November 2, 2009 at 9:07 am

    I love this visual. It says it all!

  2. 2 whats_up November 2, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Interesting, but could you point to the area of the Constitution that defines natural born citizen, because last time I checked Vattel’s definition means zilch when it comes to America. Vattel’s work isnt even mentioned in any of our founding documents. To try and claim that this is the defintion that the founders used is absurd on its face.

      • 4 whats_up November 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm

        Why am I a troll, because I dont automatically agree with you? IF your position is strong enough then it will hold up to scrutiny.

        • 5 no deal November 2, 2009 at 6:40 pm

          Go look it up yourself dipshut…..or better yet…..check the archives here. We don’t honor affirmative action where you get the others to do your work.

          LOL drkate :lol:..after spelling it out in thread after thread you now use visual aids for the constitutional mentally challenged but lo and behold a flaming ignorant lazy troll appears. 😀

          And who did you vote for Troll? Ron Paul? Obama? (prolly not a US citizen)
          Go research about the constitution and stop asking others to hand you the info.

    • 7 Shez ZK November 2, 2009 at 3:08 pm

      What’s this? An absurd “whats_up Theory”? We have our first uninformed pupil for Constitution Remedial School.

      Odd, even on with a whole section on Vattel and his brilliant work of Law of Nations it states on this preface page:

      “This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty’s notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel’s exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience.”

      “.. which became established in the Constitution of 1787” are important operative words, meaning before and while they wrote it. As was the basis in the letter from John Jay to George Washington addressing the Article II Section I requirements to add ‘Natural Born’ to ‘Citizen’, amongst many historical facts and framer’s references to Vattel. Hamilton and Madison didn’t pull the language out of their ass for the final draft. They were indeed heavily influenced by and studied Vattel, and cited him by name for years afterwards. The words “law of nations” are included right in the Constitution. Look it up. Once again, based off of Vattel’s work.

      Know who else studied and taught Constitutional course work about Vattel? Why, Obama himself. Imagine that… He knows perfectly well he is ineligible and exactly why. So do we.

    • 8 jbjd November 2, 2009 at 7:40 pm

      Of course, the Constitution fails to define NBC. Further, in our common law country, until the federal appeals courts, including the SCOTUS, define NBC, that is, rule on the meaning in a case directly on point; the term remains undefined. Yes; insisting on a definition absent one, is absurd on its face. Calling people names just because the ‘truth’ they express is not what you want to hear, is ‘Obamaesque.’

    • 9 drkate November 2, 2009 at 7:59 pm

      what’s up is certainly a good name, lololol. Read up on how the founders came to ARticle II. All there. Yep, remedial education is something you need too

    • 11 drkate November 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm

      YAWN. you must know nothing about the Constitution’s writing, and how the Founders studied many many text books. You also probably never heard of John Jay.

      Well I give you an “F” for failing to do your assignment (find the quote) and for arguing like an idiot. You are exactly the type of person this post is aimed at.

      Gonna argue with a picture? Gotta do better than insult people.

      You are absurd on your face.

      Thanks for dropping by.

  3. 13 Shez ZK November 2, 2009 at 10:10 am

    drkate, can you add the Undead Revolution site to this post and/or your blogroll please?

    Their Part I of The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen is very good, along with the comments. Part II is supposed to be coming out anytime now, we’re looking forward to it. They have done some deep historical research on NBC and the founders, and would be another excellent place to start for the remedial lessons. Leo promotes them in this post:
    and then in other posts & comments of his since then.

    I’m also still in shock to discover how many times and how many people have attempted to attack and get rid of the A2S1C5 Natural Born Citizen clause requirement in the Constitution. (i.e. like Barney Franks, Claire McCaskill, Sarah P. Herlihy, and lots more, most of them tied directly to Obama) Just what part of SOLE ALLEGIANCE and national security don’t they get and want to destroy? I think we already know the answers to that, and why. We need a group research post that concentrates on listing all the attempts to subvert the NBC clause that we can find. There’s congressional bills, written opinions, mp3’s & videos of interviews, all kinds of crap out there. And then put the results in chronological order to show how systematic it has been and how long they have actually been at this, to finish connecting the dots. It is stunning.

  4. 16 curi0us0nefromthe60s November 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Awesome post Dr. Kate.

  5. 17 truthnjustice November 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Hi Dr Kate,

    Trying to use a Vattel’s idea of what constitutes a NBC is silly.

    Hey lets just throw out 200 years of U.S. case law and congressional interpretation of NBC and use the theories of a swiss philosopher who wrote in 1758, but WASN’T TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH UNTIL AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

    Born to a U.S. mother on U.S. soil means NBC. That’s it. Period. Anything else is made up. This disinformation meant to rile the savages is either incompetent or willfully misleading. Shame, shame, shame on you.

    Every heard of Wong Kim Ark? Look it up silly woman. Sheesh.

    • 18 drkate November 2, 2009 at 8:19 pm

      Truth n Justice–did you know that our Founders could speak and read more than one language???? And that Vattel’s ‘law of nations’ is what our founders used not just for article II, but for the whole concept of governing?

      Did you know that Wong Kim Ark says nothing about ‘natural born’, it talks about citizenship?

      And, if you think this is silly, why o why has your messiah refused to come clean with who he is? What is he afraid of?

      Your guy has no BALLS. LOL constitutional law professor ABSOLUTELY KNOWS HE IS INELIGIBLE. LOOK AT HIS COURSE CURRICULA!!

      HA HA!!!! Sheesh, you are uneducated!!

      Thanks for dropping by!!! lololololololololololololol

    • 20 Quantum Leap November 2, 2009 at 9:43 pm

      You look it up. 😆

    • 21 Shez ZK November 5, 2009 at 9:37 am

      truthnjustice says: “.. who wrote in 1758, but WASN’T TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH UNTIL AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.”

      Wrong, very wrong:
      “It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.”

      That means the first English translation was published 27 years BEFORE the Constitution was written. Since many of the framers were fluent in french there are historical records of them studying and consulting both of these versions. They consulted others that were experts on Natural Laws, and Vattel, and other sources concurring or mirroring what Vattel defined. The framers agreed with it. The framers didn’t come up with the term ‘natural born citizen’ lightly, or take it lightly at all for where they placed it under presidential requirements.

      Or perhaps you’d like to try to refute Google books and tons of sources plastered all over the net on the early English version, for the crowd. Where is your evidence that a pre-constitution English version didn’t exist?
      You need to stop spreading falsehoods and untruths. Educate yourself.

  6. 22 jtx November 2, 2009 at 2:59 pm


    Well named, since you obviously don’t know. The Vattel text “Law of Nations” which was a propounding of what is called natural law and was widely studied by the founders when drafting the United States Constitution and Vattel or his definition of natural born citizen is mentioned in several SCOTUS decisions.

    Most people assume that US citizenship law stems from English Common Law which is a gross error; it stems from natural law of which Vattel was one of the giants for something like 125 years after the founding of this country. Educate yourself!

    The Law of Nations is even mentioned in the Constitution. You need to study your American History or – better – go read all of the helpful educational materials on:

    • 23 whats_up November 2, 2009 at 3:09 pm

      Which SCOTUS cases are you refering to? Do you have correspondence from the founders that refrence Vattel? Anything that suggests what you are saying is true? Anything at all. Simply stating something doesnt make it fact, you would have to provide supporting documents, like the founders writing that they used Vattel for the definition of NBC, besides the fact that the founders left it up to Congress to define, and they have for the last 200 years, but ignore that because it doesnt sit with your warped world view.

      • 24 Shez ZK November 2, 2009 at 5:55 pm

        From a forum: (h/t Brianroy)

        A Partial Listing of Relevant Material Involved in stating the Illegality of Obama, focusing on the Natural Born Status and other relevant arguments:

        1. THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
        2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
        3. Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)
        4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
        5. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
        6. Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
        7. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
        8. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        9. Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
        10. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
        11. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
        12. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
        13. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
        14. Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
        15. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)
        16. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
        17. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
        18. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
        19. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
        20. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
        21. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
        22. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
        23. School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963)
        24. Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
        25. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
        26. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
        27. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
        28. Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
        29. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
        30. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)
        31. Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)
        32. Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)
        33. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
        34. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

        District Case

        Documents that would be cited:
        1. Charter of Georgia: 1732
        2. Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765
        3. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774
        4. Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777
        5. Letter of John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787
        6. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
        7. 113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15
        8. DoD 5220.22-M, “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual,” 2/28/2006

        There’s more, much more out there, but YOU need to do YOUR own homework. An absolute fact is that on the major court cases cited that did state outright the understood definition of NBC (not just basic citizenship) as being born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil, is that the definition stated in case laws including the first Supreme Court Justice have NEVER ever been undermined or changed since the writing of the Constitution.

        That means that over 200 years of direct understanding of ancient Natural Law, SCOTUS, and case laws do uphold what WE are saying, not you. You don’t come close. Your bloviating and pathetic spinning shows your utter desperation now that the Hopium is wearing off that you gullibly fell for. I have good reasons to not trust people that gullible and naive. SNAP! Wake up!

        You should start worrying real hard about what the punishment is for Treason for your cult leader. You should start worrying about who comes in the future if NBC safeguards for national security and sole allegiance are meaningless, or unenforceable, or “silly”. You should start worrying about if the Bin Laden family or any enemies of America have impregnated a U.S. citizen yet. Unfortunately Obama and his blind follower lemmings have clued them all in, the world over. Our enemies will be coming for you too. But, with misguided citizens like you that have shat upon the Constitution, (if you aren’t a paid and/or foreign blogger afterall), who needs enemies? You are an enemy of the Constitution already.

        • 25 jbjd November 2, 2009 at 7:46 pm

          I anticipate you will not respond by questioning whether I have done my homework, when I point out that none of these law cases reaches the issue of what is a NBC in a cause of action dependent on defining what is a NBC. Indeed, many of these cases cited have nothing to do with NBC but rather, just “C.”

      • 26 drkate November 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm

        Hello? John Jay, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson. Is this enough for you?

        Oh, and by the way, since you are making the accusation, you need to come up with the proof. Idiot, we have known about this for more than a year, are you just noticing?

        You get an F for being wilfully ignorant. Maybe you should join the ranks of Congress, you would fit right in.

        • 27 Quantum Leap November 2, 2009 at 9:47 pm


          You get an F for being wilfully ignorant

          When the teacher is ready, the student appears. 😆 😆 howl…

  7. 28 Mary November 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Does he look familiar to anyone else(nose, chin, teeth, ears)? Because I never bought the cock-and-bull story that cannibals ate him up and shrunk his head.

    • 29 Quantum Leap November 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm

      Wow. This is a great article Mary. It’s making me laugh even more. Read the remainder. It looks like alot of people are realizing he bamaboozled them. 😆

      Pauline McAreavy voted for President Obama. From the moment she first saw him two years ago, she was smitten by his speeches and sold on his promise of change. She switched parties to support him in the Iowa caucuses, donated money and opened her home to a pair of young campaign workers.
      by the time she received a fund-raising letter last month from the Democratic National Committee, a sense of disappointment had set in. She returned the solicitation with a handwritten note, saying, “Until I see some progress and he lives up to his promises in Iowa, we will not give one penny.”

      “I’m afraid I wasn’t realistic,” Ms. McAreavy, 76, a retired school nurse, said on a recent morning on the deck of her home here in east-central Iowa.

      “I really thought there would be immediate change,”

      There is more to the story.

      • 30 Quantum Leap November 2, 2009 at 10:20 pm

        We told you so…and this part.

        “All my Republican friends — and independents — are sitting back saying, ‘Oh, what did we do?” Ms. McAreavy said. “I’m not to that point yet, but a lot of people are.”

  8. 32 jtx November 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm


    You seem oddly named for you have neither truth nor justice incorporated in yout comments.

    It is probably lost on you, but French was the diplomatic language of that era and almost all of the founders could read it passably well and there are comments in extant letters from them about passing around Vattel to study. He was one of the giants og natural law – on which our own citizenshiop laws are based (not English Common Law as your paid-blogger DOJ CliffsNotes would have you believe).

    In fact it is a historical fact that prior to the Revolutionary War (circa 1778), John Adams (our 2nd President later on) as envoy to France and then Holland took his young son John Quincy (our 6th President later on) with him. During this time Francis Dana (whose granson Dana Point, CA is named for in honor of the grandson’s book “Two Years Before The Mast”) went to the couert at St. Petersburg, Russia as envoy to that country and HIRED John Quincy Adams, then age 14, to be his official interpreter, translating between Russian, French, and English as Dana spoke only English and John Quincy was adept in all three languages.

    So it is quite untrue that being written in French was any impediment. It would have been odd, indeed, if the book had first been wrtitten in English (or any other language) as French was the dominant diplomatic language (Vattel himself was Swiss).

    As for “throwing out 200 years of case law” on the matter of citizenship – that will not occur as American citizenship law is based upon natural law which is not, with respect to citizenship matters, American common law. English Common Law still applies to contracts, torts, and other areas of US law – but not citizenship. The King’s “subjects” and US “citizens” are completely different concepts.

    Wong Kim Ark (aka “bad law”) nowhere says anything that defines anything but (perhaps) citizenship. It nowhere applies to the copncept of natural born citizenship and there are a number of SCOTUS opinions that use the Vattel definition (2 US citizen parents, born on US soil).

    Perhaps you might reenroll in US History 101.

    • 33 no deal November 2, 2009 at 6:46 pm

      You seem oddly named for you have neither truth nor justice incorporated in your comments.

      Oh you all have me laughing in stitches… 😆

  9. 34 jtx November 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm


    Go read all of the many educational essays on Mario Apuzzo’s blog what I linked you to if you’d REALLY like to be informed on the matter … but then you couldn’t continue in your present paid-for blogger job with a shred of intellectual honesty.

    I’ll not pry open you head and pour in the knowledge – it’s right there for the reading.

  10. 35 susan h November 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Interesting article from John Charlton as to why Hawaii may have hiding/covering up for/going along with Obama about sealing his birth records.

    • 36 jbjd November 2, 2009 at 7:58 pm

      I have replied to this comment of yours so that readers can understand better where you are comming from. Being that you are a Democrat, I understand that. Being such a push and rude lady, as you are, I do not.

      This is only part of a quote posted on the newly sprung up blog by the man known as John Charlton. It is incongruous on its face to credit this person and his hyperbolic rants but to disparage a poster who dares to point out the absence in law of a definition of NBC.

      • 37 jbjd November 2, 2009 at 8:01 pm

        Oh, yes, these comments (and more) were directed to me, when I objected to the fact, Mr. C re-posted my work under the name of JB Williams, who had stolen that work, even after I had made the theft known to Mr. C. Further, I explained that misusing my work in this way could jeopardize the successful outcome of my work. As he revealed in his posted comments to me, he could not care less about the theft; or the work.

        • 38 susan h November 3, 2009 at 11:09 am

          jbjd: Are you referring to me? Your reply was to my comment. I am not understanding this at all. Did you call me a rude and pushy lady? Sorry if I have offended anyone here, not was not my intention. I am only presenting articles that seem of interest.

          • 39 jbjd November 3, 2009 at 1:38 pm

            susan h, of course I did not call anyone names. I don’t do that. John Charlton called ME names, on his blog, because I objected to his posting work I had told him, was stolen from me. I am wondering why anyone would credit the words of this johnnie-come-lately, who attempts to discredit me merely by calling me a Democrat, assuming I am a registered Democrat; concluding this imagined political registration explains why I am a “push (sic) rude lady..”

  11. 40 Quantum Leap November 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    Hmmm I have my avatar back but it gave me a different name.. weird. Must be the full moon. (snark)

  12. 41 Tony Stark November 2, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    OT, Iowans having second thoughts about voting for the Usurper.

  13. 42 ILBlue November 2, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Thank you Dr.Kate I posted link. 🙂

    Hello to all !!!

  14. 44 Ali November 3, 2009 at 2:21 am

    🙂 fun post — I see the goblins have come out to play!

  15. 45 Shez ZK November 3, 2009 at 11:21 am

    Mario posted a new thread sometime last night with the topic again being Vattel, that dovetails perfectly with this post:
    Vattel Asked for History to Be His Judge

    In it he reiterates some of the important cases and statements for us. Another good read.

    I agree jbjd, and happily defer to your legal expertise anyday of the week. Thanks for helping to clarify what I was trying to convey above and wasn’t clear on about citizenship cases. The partial list was to make a point that numerous cases have come before the courts on citizenship issues with some of them mentioning what a natural born citizen is and means under our Constitution or citing previous cases that did, even though no case has had to address NBC directly for purposes of A2S1C5 eligibility qualifications. Until Obama came along which will now force it to be addressed. The cases have helped set tons of legal precedent for when his situation does come before the courts on the merits and facts. Which it has to, the current problem is unacceptable and dangerous for us all collectively.

    In return the Obots themselves have diddly squat, just like Osquat. They can’t come up with anything, nothing, nada, no proof whatsoever. They have zero for their side, in more ways than one. The most they have ever produced was the swiftly repealed Naturalization Act of 1790. They try real hard to twist the facts on that, and twist the cases that the rulings pertain to a “Citizen” only. It’s not working. Come on Obots, where are all of your cases and evidence to try to refute the Truth?

    Or they try to insert more meaning into the 14th Amendment than what is there. Sorry Obots and Congress, but just a “Citizen” isn’t enough for CiC and the VP. You’ll have to do much better than that. Your lazy opinions don’t count, add up, or pass the smell test in this most serious, gravest, foundation of matters. For our future, our well being, our safety and liberty, our Rule of Law, and our inspired Constitution based on the self evident ‘natural laws’ and the Law of Nations.

    Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright (1824)-
    “(It)Our Revolution… presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those (laws) of nature… “ (h/t UR)

    The founders rejected Blackstone for Vattel, rejected British monarchy “perpetual allegiance to the Crown” Subject status, rejected English Common Law, fought 2 wars against Britian to secure our liberty that you are taking for granted today. The founders and your ancestors are yelling at you in your sleep trying to get through to you somehow, since you are hypnotized in your waking hours, on how you’ve been fooled and callously used by Obama. He is not what he appears. We’ve been psychologically preparing you for what is coming.

    And the Obots wonder why this life long Democrat rejects them and him. You can look at your behaviors and ignorance, the crass sexism of the ‘truthnjustice’ types above for the past two years getting worse by the day, the caucus fraud and delegate stealing, the cheating and bullying, the LIES. It’s Obama’s multitude of gross lies that will be his undoing. We’re not about to reject the Constitution for your unqualified dual citizen “taqiyya” cult leader.

    • 46 Ali November 3, 2009 at 9:13 pm

      You’ve been knocking it out of the park all day, Shez! Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge — such a pleasure to read.

    • 47 drkate November 3, 2009 at 11:08 pm

      Brava, Shez…so timely and on point. I can feel the founders coming right through your words

      “…yelling at you in your sleep….” you got that right. Not that they’re yelling at me, they are yelling for me, for us—keep going! NOW!

  16. 48 guess who November 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Only the office of the president of the U.S.A requires that person to be a natural born citizen.That alone makes it very clear what the founders meant by natural born citizen.To think that someone who has a foreign parent who never became a citizen of this country would be allowed to run this country only shows how ridiculous this argument is.

  17. 50 Shez ZK November 4, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    guess who, exactly. I can’t help picturing the founders wringing their hands and cussing up a storm about now. Why do naturalized citizens have to pledge sole allegiance to the U.S. yet Obama the frickin Prez be allowed two or more foreign allegiances? This cannot stand.

    Though I’d like to respectfully point out that I disagree with “Only the office of the president of the U.S.A requires that person to be a natural born citizen”, since technically the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement is also in effect for the VP as ratified in 1804 in the 12th Amendment (Election of President and Vice-President) :
    “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    The importance of this statement in the 12th Amendment that the Vice President must be qualified/eligible just like the President becomes clearer in the 20th Amendment (Commencement of Presidential Term and Succession) :
    Section 3 –
    “… shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    And then in the 25th Amendment (Presidential Vacancy, Disability and Inability) :
    Section 3 –
    “… such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”
    Section 4 –
    “… that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

    I try to always say both the Prez & VP must be a Natural Born Citizen under Constitutional laws to hold office. It cuts down on people trying to say we are only attacking or singling out Obama. (It’s impersonally the office’s requirements, not the people in them personally)

    What if he would of chosen someone like Roger Calero or Valerie Jarrett for VP? We’d rightfully and correctly be screaming about both the Prez & VP being ineligible right now. Or, one or the other, depending on the circumstances. It’s amazing how this whole mess has raised our conscious awareness on Constitutional laws forevermore for the present and in the future. Our critical eye for both positions have been heightened. They are not going to get away with it this time or in the future, and we’re not going to let them forget it.

  1. 1 Remedial Education is Definitely Needed « The Odd Blog Trackback on November 2, 2009 at 2:11 am
  2. 2 Mary – backtype | CockBot Trackback on November 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm
  3. 3 Twitter Trackbacks for Remedial Education for Congress: Natural Born Citizen « drkatesview [] on Trackback on November 2, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Comments are currently closed.

November 2009
« Oct   Dec »

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Thinker

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90

%d bloggers like this: