Nov 2010 – enough said

GOP Promises: Obama Investigations are Coming

As news has broken overnight that an Obama administration official may have perjured himself about the dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case, Congressional Republicans have promised they will investigate Barack Obama’s crimes in the new year.

The Hill newspaper reports today Congressman Darrell Issa’s “Oversight and Government Reform Committee anticipate a ramp-up of investigations next year on bailout measures, the economic stimulus and healthcare.”

Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, who sits on the committee, told the paper, “No doubt about it, there needs to be a lot more examination of the TARP, stimulus and Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac].” Committee aide Kurt Bardella added the GOP will take on “anyone [who] is misusing taxpayer dollars,” naming ACORN and General Motors, among others.

Many believe any honest inquest will inevitably turn from investigative hearings to impeachment proceedings.

If the committee has proven anything to date, it is that its members have much to investigate. It produced a 36-page report recounting the Obama administration’s use of tax dollars for covert propaganda, a potentially illegal — and hence, potentially impeachable — offense.

Congressman Issa is asking Americans across the country to send him pictures of the stimulus signs announcing that Obama and local functionaries are “Putting America Back to Work” with porkbarrel projects. Misappropriation of bailout funds, especially by entities Obama forced to take the funds, are sure to make the investigate docket in 2011.

As today’s news shows, not all investigations are limited to the misuse or misappropriation of funds. Allegations remain that the administration illegally offered Joe Sestak a job to drop out of his primary race against Arlen Specter. Bill Clinton’s recent words on the subject contradict the White House party line and could open the door to the president’s downfall. Rep. Issa has already promised to investigate. Issa’s colleague from New Jersey, Rep. Chris Smith, believes the administration’s lobbying for Kenya’s new, pro-abortion, pro-Shari’a constitution is illegal, and thus an impeachable offense, the State Department’s whitewashing notwithstanding.

Issa’s chairmanship, and the ascension of Rep. Chaffetz, will be necessary, not merely to restore honor and decency to the White House, but if Americans ever hope to drain the swamp of kickbacks and goldbricking D.C. insiders have raised to a new art.

Ultimately, only conservatives (and not merely Republicans) can end Washington’s corruption. As long as the federal government continues to dole out trillions of dollars in “stimulus,” businesses will try to obtain as many tax dollars as possible. As long as left-wing Democrats regulate every activity under the sun, they will hire lobbyists to protect themselves from Obama’s extortion racket. As long as the administration threatens to punish success with confiscatory tax rates, they will hire lawyers to exploit every loophole in the IRS code.

And they will hire Congressmen to write them.

The problem of corruption is an out of control government that exceeds any limits dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, at times it seems the government exceeds the limits dream of by Thomas Hobbes.

The corruption is a symptom and necessary correlate of the welfare state. The long-term solution is to return the government to its constitutional limits and specifically enumerated functions. Only by shrinking the size, scope, cost, and reach of government — by depriving it of boons to hand out and selective punishments to impose — can corruption come to an end.

WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

As of this date 17 Nov 2009, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro has spent in excess of $1.8 million to defend lawsuits regarding his eligibility under the United States Constitution. It should be noted that this $1.8 million is NOT his own personal funds, but Obama has been defended by the Dept of Justice at taxpayer expense.

Robert ‘Felix’ Bauer the newly appointed White House Counsel, lead lawyer from Perkins Coie in the eligibility lawsuits, the same lawyer who used threatening tactics and language in the Hollister vs. Soetoro case, the Missouri Truth Squads, and the like, is now Chief legal Counsel to the un-documented illegal alien resident in the Oval Office.

 Maybe Robert Bauer would like to offer the answer on, WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Bauer’s client Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro might like to explain why he claims to have his original Birth Certificate.   As mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” he claims finding his birth certificate.

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

 “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”

 While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?

The forged COLB versions posted on the Fight the Smears and FactCheck web-sites are in no way what Barack Hussein Obama claimed to discover in that box, along with his vaccination forms. [Which by the way, I still have mine, along with my other documents that have been posted in my video’s on Youtube].

As Alan Keyes stated on CNN, segment included in my ‘Media and the Birthers Pt1 video, Barack Hussein Obama and legal crew are directing you to a photograph on the internet and hearsay statements that would not be accepted as evidence in any court of law.

Remember that a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ only certifies that a birth took place [prima facie as stated on the COLB] not to where or when, same as the Hawaiian newspaper announcements [only that a birth took place, not to where or when].

Herein lays the point, Prima Facie meaning a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts at first glance. The burden of proof when presented based on prima facie is need not be conclusive or irrefutable, the introduction of prima facie evidence is often called ‘making a case or building a case.’  Such evidence [prima facie] might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial.

Now why is it significant that Obama had a real birth certificate – presumably the kind we’re all familiar with that discloses the name of the hospital in which the birth took place, the names of the parents, notes and signatures of attending physicians, etc.?

Based upon the Prime Facie evidence on the forged COLB, one might believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. However, first glance evidence is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the birth took place. With other evidence that contradicts a Hawaiian birth [Obama’s forged COLB’s, Kenyan Birth certificates, statements from other media sources, newspapers, and relatives], Obama’s defense can only be reconciled with a full trial. Necessitating the secondary evidence on what records Hawaii holds regarding any and all vital records that it maintains on Barack Hussein Obama. To date no trial has taken place.

Below is an image of the ‘data’ fields in the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] and a Birth Certificate.

UPDATE*******

(Nov. 17, 2009) — Yesterday, The Post & Email reported that Mr. Paul Tsukiyama, Director of the Office of Information Practices — the very office overseeing public complaints regarding the Hawaii Department of Health’s refusal to release public documents or information regarding Obama’s alleged vital records kept by that department — resigned quietly on Nov. 6th, and that no one knew where he went.

Yesterday, The American Spectator also spoke about resignations, and speculated about their motives, but these regarding a place on the opposite site of the country: Washington, D.C..

In an editorial by The Washington Prowler, “Obama goes to the Matresses”, we are told that Cassandra Butts,  “a Harvard classmate of Obama’s and one of the administration’s highest-ranking African Americans . . . quietly resigned on Friday, November 6 . . .” .

This resignation preceded that of her immediate superior, Gregory Craig, who left the position of White House Counsel only days ago.

However, what The Washington Prowler writes is more telling in the intrigue and politics behind the Craig resignation and the ascendency of Robert Bauer, whose appointment to Craig’s old position was made last Friday:

“[Bauer] knows where all the bodies are buried, and this indicates that there is something amiss with this White House, or at least someone is nervous about what is going on,” says a former Obama transition team adviser. “You don’t just make these kinds of changes for the sake of rearranging the deck chairs, and not at this time with at least three legislative and policy decisions looming that the Counsel’s office would have been deeply involved in.”

“This doesn’t come close to the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ in the Nixon days, but it’s pretty damn weird,” says Washington, D.C.-based Democrat lawyer, who has held counsel positions both in the Senate and in previous presidential administrations. “I’m surprised not only that the press seems to be ignoring the fact that two presidential lawyers have left at about the same time, but that no one seems to care that for the first time, I think ever, we have a President’s personal attorney also serving as White House counsel. I don’t care if Bob [Bauer] recuses himself from future personal legal business, this should be troubling to anyone who cares about the Executive Office of the President.”

Here is some additional comments on Robert Bauer. The following is an excerpt from Michelle Malkin’s blog

During the 2008 campaign, Bauer pooh-poohed GOP complaints about voter fraud. While decrying the Republicans’ “fear message,” it was Bauer who was on a fear-inducing crusade – pulling out all legal stops to silence conservative critics of Obama’s ties to the radical Left.

As I’ve noted previously, and in light of Obama’s self-serving praise for political dissent abroad, I note again: It was Bauer who lobbied the Justice Department unsuccessfully last fall to pursue a criminal probe of American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad spotlighting Obama’s ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

It was Bauer and his legal goon squad who attempted to sic the DOJ on GOP donor Harold Simmons and sought his prosecution for funding the ad. In a parallel effort launched the same week as Bauer’s legal efforts, a nonprofit called “Accountable America” spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit began trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with “warnig letters” in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising.

It was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country to compel them to pull the spot. Team Obama then summoned their troops to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

With Bob “The Silencer” Bauer now working from the inside and Anita “News Commissar” Dunn working from the outside, Obama has a state media police apparatus the Chinese regime could love.

Senate Resolution 511 and what it really means

Most people looking into the eligibility issue concerning Barack Obama aka Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama, [sounds more like a wanted posted with all these alias’s], have seen SR511. Senate Resolution 511 is in terms the defining moment when the Senate gave its approval for one of their own, to circumvent the laws of this nation.

Let’s look at  SR511 and it’s interpretation of the Presidential eligibility

 Here is the Resolution text.

 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

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

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

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

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

Natural Born Citizen legally defined

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. 

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress.  Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following; 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

 

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.