Order of the Ephors – Can the Republic be saved?

Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states that, “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.”

From the outset of Barack Obama’s quest for the presidency, liberals, Democrats, those in the mainstream media, and even a few conservatives and Republicans, have insisted that nowhere in the Constitution is the term “natural born Citizen” defined.  But that simply is not true.  The answer to the question is implicit in the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”  

Why did the Framers include those qualifying words?  They could have left those words out and the term “natural born Citizen” would have been construed as something entirely different from what they intended.  Instead, they specified that, in order to serve as President of the United States, one had to be EITHER a “natural born Citizen,” OR, a “citizen” of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Framers understood and intended that a “natural born” citizen is something more than a mere “citizen.”  Those words were included in Article II, Section 1 because, on the day the Constitution was ratified, June 21, 1788, there were no “natural born” citizens who were also 35 years of age and who had resided in the United States for at least 14 years.

The oldest “natural born” citizens living in the United States on the day that the Constitution was ratified… those born to U.S. citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776…  were only 11 years, 11 months, and 17 days old, not nearly old enough to serve as President of the United States.

Of course, there were many male “citizens” who met the age and residency requirements:

A.   Individuals who, because they were born in one of the original 13 colonies (states) on or before June 21, 1753, making      them at least 35 years of age on the day the Constitution was ratified, or,

B.  Those born in Europe, or elsewhere, prior to June 21, 1753 and who became citizens at some point prior to the ratification of the Constitution on June 21, 1788.

These were individuals who were eligible to serve as president prior to July 4, 1811 because they were “citizens” at least 35 years of age with the necessary residency requirements.  After that date, only “natural born” citizens were eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Since the new nation needed a pool of individuals from which to draw candidates for the presidency until such time as the first “natural born” citizens reached the age of 35, the Framers included a “grandfather” clause which made it possible for our earliest presidents to serve without meeting the “natural born” standard.   For example, presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson were all “citizens,” but not “natural born” citizens because they were born prior to July 4, 1776.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”  Martin Van Buren, born to U.S. citizen parents on December 5, 1782, became our first “natural born” U.S. president.

While all “natural born” citizens are “citizens” of the United States, the reverse is not true.  To be a mere “citizen” or a “native born” citizen does not mean that one is also “natural born”… which brings us to the current case of Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Since the onset of efforts by mainstream media talking heads, pundits, uninformed conservatives,  and inside-the-beltway hangers-on to promote Florida Senator Marco Rubio for the 2012 GOP vice presidential nomination, little has been said or written about Rubio’s lack of status as a “natural born” US citizen.

The Constitution tells us that “No person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President,” and short of a Constitutional amendment, that restriction is and shall remain the law of the land; there can be no exceptions.  Inasmuch as Rubio’s parents were both citizens of Cuba and did not become US citizens until 4 years after he was born, Rubio does not meet the basic qualification necessary to serve as president or vice president of the United States.

However, in their tireless effort to find a loophole big enough for Senator Rubio to slip through, some have correctly pointed out that Article II, Section 1 makes no mention of qualifications for the vice presidency.  Nowhere does it say that “No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President or Vice President.”  Some apparently take this to mean that candidates for the vice presidency need not meet the “natural born” standard.

While it is easy to see how some might arrive at that tortured conclusion, any reasonable man might question what could possibly cause the members of the Electoral College to elect a man or a woman to the vice presidency if… in the event the president was deceased or incapacitated… the vice president was unqualified to assume the reins of power.

The 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution deals with presidential succession.  Section 1 of the Amendment provides that, “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 3 of the Amendment provides that, “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

In the unlikely event that a sitting vice president would be unqualified to assume the powers of the presidency, one must assume that the powers and duties of the president would then fall to the next in line to the presidency, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

However, while the Constitution does not clearly specify that the vice president must meet the same qualifications as the president, it is clear from a reading of the Federalist Papers that that is precisely what the Founders intended.  Federalist Paper No. 68, by Alexander Hamilton, tells us, “… The other consideration is that, as the Vice President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the extreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other…”

Because 8 of our 44 presidents (nearly 1 in 5) have either died in office or have been assassinated (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Warren  G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy), vice presidential succession has not been as rare as might be expected.  So while it is clear that some may wish to nominate a candidate for vice president who may possess political strengths sufficient to bolster a national ticket (e.g. Senator Marco Rubio)… regardless of that candidate’s lack of qualification to serve as president… that is not what the Founders had in mind when they drafted Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

While a great many activists on the political left are convinced that the US Constitution is a “living” document, meaning only what they would like it to mean on any given day.  And while a great many others simply prefer to ignore constitutional principles until such time as they find their own ox being gored, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Constitution is what it is and it means exactly what it says…. nothing more, nothing less.

Senator Marco Rubio is not a “natural born” citizen and he cannot stand for the 2012 Republican vice presidential nomination.  If delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention choose to ignore Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, for no better reason than that the Democrats have done so successfully for the past three and one-half years, then they will have established a precedent that will legitimize the Obama presidency for all time.  That, we cannot allow.

If Senator Rubio were an honorable man he would do the honorable thing.  He would publicly announce that his name must be withdrawn from consideration for the 2012 vice presidential nomination because he is not a “natural born” citizen and does not meet the Article II, Section 1 requirements for the office of president or vice president.

If he fails to do so, then we will know that Senator Rubio is not the honorable man we thought him to be.

Bill Clinton is the stereotypical southern Democrat politician: smooth, personable, sly as a fox, everyman’s friend on the outside, but tough, manipulative, hard as nails, and totally corrupt on the inside.  He and his wife have been through many adventures and misadventures together, and when their final story is written a generation or two from now those who read it will shake their heads in disbelief… especially when they review the events of the week of April 30, 2012.

Unlike Barack Obama, Clinton was not corrupted by the power of the presidency; Clinton was already corrupt when he arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  In attempting to deflect charges of sexual harassment by an Arkansas state employee, Paula Corbin Jones, Clinton added a long list of offenses to his resume.  Because of his unwillingness to admit guilt, the American people found themselves led by a man who was guilty of rape, aggravated assault, perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, contempt of court, evidence tampering, witness tampering, lying to federal investigators, Pendleton Act violations, and other offenses… almost all of which he committed while serving as President of the United States.

In attempting to shield himself from the charges lodged by Ms. Jones, Clinton called upon his family, his friends, and scores of political subordinates to “fall on their swords” for him.  In doing so, 71 aides and associates engaged in criminal conspiracy, 32 were guilty of obstruction of justice, and 30 perjured themselves.  Dozens more either lied to or interfered with federal investigators, suborned the perjury of others, or engaged in evidence or witness tampering.

Like his Democratic successor, Barack Obama, Clinton was blessed with a thoroughly corrupt Attorney General.  Between January 1993 and January 2001, Attorney General Janet Reno ignored prima facie evidence of criminal offenses on the part of White House functionaries, preventing FBI Director Louis Freeh and his agents from doing the job they were paid to do.  In all, 3 corporations and 111 individuals were shown to have committed felony crimes, 56 were indicted, 58 went unindicted, and only 40 were convicted.  Three resigned rather than face indictment and three were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.

Leaving the White House in January 2001, Clinton left behind the worst pardon-selling scandal in American history.  A cocaine smuggler from California won a Clinton pardon after paying a $200,000 fee to Hillary’s brother.  Four Hasidic Jews were pardoned after defrauding the federal government out of $11 million by applying for funds for a school that didn’t exist (The Hasidic community of New Square, NY later voted 1400 to 12 for Hillary in her New York senate race.)  When Hillary needed the Puerto Rican vote in her senate race, Clinton pardoned 14 Puerto Rican terrorists who claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings in New York and Chicago that took 6 lives and injured some 130 people.  And, of course, everyone remembers Denise Rich and the pardon purchased for her fugitive ex-husband, financier Marc Rich.

In a March 11, 2001 op-ed column, liberal commentator Chris Matthews put the Clintons into perspective.  In discussing Hillary Clinton’s role in the blatant selling of pardons, Matthews said, “The junior senator from New York reminds me of the drug dealer’s wife in (the movie) ‘Traffic.’  She makes it her business not to know her husband’s.”

Matthews went on to remind us that Mrs. Clinton admitted to innocently “passing envelopes” from the pardon-seekers to the White House counsel’s office.  He said, “What convenience of mind!  She only ‘attended a meeting,’ only ‘heard rumors,’ only ‘passed envelopes.’  Admitting the fact of her behavior, she denies its purpose.  She admits what is provable, denies what is not.”

But Hillary Clinton was no slouch in her own right.  According to a May 27, 1994 story in the Washington Post, Mrs. Clinton deposited $1,000 in a commodity trading account in Arkansas in October 1978, during her husband’s term as Arkansas Attorney General.  She was allowed to use those funds to purchase ten cattle futures contracts which would have cost any other investor $12,000.  According to the Post, records of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange show that she was able to turn her initial ($1,000) investment into $6,300, overnight.

In just ten months of trading, Mrs. Clinton turned her $1,000 investment into nearly $100,000.   In doing so, she relied on the advice of James B. Blair, who served as outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest employer in Arkansas.  The Post also reported that a close examination of Mrs. Clinton’s trades “underscores Blair’s pivotal role” in her futures trading success.

In 2008, after being absent from the White House for eight years, Mrs. Clinton decided to fulfill her destiny by running for the Democratic presidential nomination.  And while she was initially seen as a shoo-in for the nomination, she could not have foreseen that she would be opposed by a charismatic young black man from the streets of Chicago… a totally inexperienced candidate, backed by the most corrupt, most ruthless, political operatives in American political history.

A documentary titled We will Not Be Silenced, produced by former Steven Spielberg associate Bettina Viviano, tells the story of how the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was stolen by the Obama organization.  Viviano tells of a telephone conference call with Bill Clinton during which Clinton referred to Obama as being “ineligible for the presidency,” and as the “non-citizen.”  She recalls Clinton saying, “He’s not legit.  That’s the end of it, period, end of story.”

Viviano reports that it was well known within the Clinton organization that, at the appropriate time, Clinton would publicly disclose Obama’s lack of “natural born” eligibility.

But then, on Wednesday, August 13, 2008, a man named Timothy Dale Johnson walked into the  Democratic Party state headquarters in Little Rock and shot the State Chairman, Bill Gwatney, to death.  Gwatney was one of Bill Clinton’s closest friends and political allies.  This occurred just one day after Gwatney, a Clinton super-delegate, announced that the Arkansas delegation would cast all of their votes for Hillary on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, thus denying Barack Obama the 2008 nomination by acclamation.

Viviano is quoted as saying that she was told by a campaign staffer close to Hillary that the Gwatney assassination was a message: “Shut up, Bill, or you’re next.”  However, the campaign staffer insisted that Clinton was still prepared to speak out about Obama’s lack of Article II, Section 1 eligibility.  “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter.  Now we’ll go after her…’ And then Bill never said anything.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been dutiful Obama supporters ever since… but in recent days things have begun to turn a bit sour.

On the day that Hillary Clinton, now Obama’s Secretary of State, arrived in Beijing for high level talks with the Chinese, it was learned that a blind Chinese dissident, Cheng Guangcheng, had escaped house arrest and had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy.  What would Hillary do?  What grand strategy would the foreign policy geniuses at the White House devise to unravel the embarrassing situation in Beijing?  Would the Obama administration grant asylum, as has been long-standing practice, or would they push Cheng out the front door to an uncertain fate?

On Wednesday, May 2, Cheng Guangcheng left the American embassy in the custody of Chinese authorities.  Cheng has said that he wished to leave China to study in the United States.  Will he be allowed to do so?  If not, what will be his fate?  Will his wife be beaten to death?  If he and his family are harmed, their blood will be on the hands of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But the diplomatic difficulties in Beijing were not the worst to befall the Clintons in what must have been one of the worst weeks in their political lives.  As Bill Clinton reveled in his role as “elder statesman” of the Democrat Party, the impeached former president was called upon to play a major role in a tasteless campaign ad in which Obama shamelessly “spiked the football,” taking personal credit for the killing of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

In the ad, Clinton is seen complimenting Obama for approving the military raid on the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  Then, looking straight into the camera, Clinton said, solemnly, “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there, and it hadn’t been bin Laden.  Suppose they’d been captured or killed.  The downside would have been horrible for him…”

The downside would have been horrible for Obama?  What about the SEALS who put their lives on the line, and their superior officer, Admiral Bill McRaven, who put his long Navy career on the line?  In Obama’s world, they were only secondary players in the drama.  If the Obama ad is to be believed, the only real hero in the killing of Usama bin Laden was Barack Obama.

It is a political faux pas of major proportions and it will not soon be forgotten.  If there is one event or one line of dialogue that Obama will remember as he slinks out of the White House on January 20, 2013, it will be Bill Clinton’s words: “The downside would have been horrible for him…”

We may never know what was running through Clinton’s mind as he uttered those words.  Was he fully aware that they could drive the final nail in the coffin of the Obama presidency?  Did he relish the occasion as pay-back time for what had been done to Hillary?  Whatever the truth of the matter, that simple 8-word sentence will forever be seen as a game-changer for both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.  All in all, it was a very bad week in Clintonville.