Dec 24 2008
Re-visiting Senate Resolution 511
A lot has been written about Senate Resolution 511, which was passed in April 2008 which confimed that John Sidney McCain III was “eligible” to run for President of the United States. Now only an Act of Congress can change the Constitution and children born to American citizens abroad are not regarded as “natural born citizens”, since the 1790 Nationality Act was repealed in 1795.
Of course McCain was born in the Panama Canal while his parents were stationed there in the Navy in 1936.
What happened is that the Founding Fathers were highly skeptical of any kind of foreign influence in the executive office of the Presidency. Now, what I didn’t know before, is that, when the Resolution was introduced, the architects of the Senate Resolution, MacAskill, Leahy & Obama, also introduced the opinion of the legal scholars, Larry H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olsen, of the firm GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, according to Prowland.wordpress.com. They are, of course, widely respected constitutional scholars as Former Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, and Harvard Law School Professor, Laurence Tribe.
Tribe and Olsen are on record as saying that it was never the intention of the first Chief Justice, John Jay, or George Washington, in excluding “foreigners” from being President, to exclude “Senator McCain as he is certainly not the hypothetical “foreigner,” as his parents were on a military base defending our country. This would be, according to these scholars, the “original intent “of the Founding Fathers.”
As some of you may know, Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski both filed “Writs of Certiorari” with the US Supreme Court against McCain, Obama and Calero stating that these three candidates were ineligible and were put on the State ballots improperly by the respective Secretaries of State. Both of those cases are pending, but the request for a “Stay” of the Electoral college was denied on December 15th.
There is another case that is due in January on the 8th, in Washington State. Attorney Stephen Pidgeon has filed a case there, and in that particular state, and only in that state, does an “ordinary” citizen have “standing” to challenge a candidate’s eligibility. Other state cases have been dismissed due to the plaintiff not having “standing.” A famous case, Berg v. Obama asks who does have “standing,” if not the ordinary citizen? However, Washington is the only State with a law to back it up.
Recently, Mike McGrew, a writer for english.pravda.ru remarked that if a usurper president is inaugurated, then no international treaties made during that tenure are binding. So there are very serious questions now, as we are facing a serious Constitutional crisis, and, in fact, if a “usurper” does take the Office, then the Constitution becomes null and void. So, while we think this is only a domestic issue, the implications are international and the situation is being watched abroad.
