THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

archives
articles

LAW: NO OVERSTATING THE DISRESPECT OF THE CONSTITUTION | nationalsalvation.net

Trager Smith asks, in a nice short piece - you had me worried because your last one was so long it would have embarrassed AFKAN at his worst - whether anyone would bring up McCain's place of birth if he is elected.

I think of McCain as the new Bob Dole so it's unlikely to come up. But the fact is that if Schwarzenegger were elected president the Court would simply declare that, according to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, anyone who believes in the proposition that all men are created equal is a natural born citizen.

No, I am not overstating this. Since Virginia vs. Loving abolished all anti-miscegenation laws, the Court can declare absolutely anything it chooses, and it will. There is no possibility whatsoever that in McCain's case this matter will be taken seriously.

If it were Schwarzenegger I would recommend a phrase in a treaty with Austria allowing someone born in Austria to be classed as a "natural born citizen" in terms of qualifying for the presidency. Treaties are above the Constitution, hence the old Bricker Amendment.

The point is that this is just an excuse for whatever the powers that be want the Constitution to say.

What if the First Amendment had said, "A well informed public being essential to the national welfare, there shall be no abridgement of the right of free speech or freedom of the press." as the Second Amendment refers to well regulated militia before the right to bear arms?

The court could have said that racism does not contribute to a well-informed public, just as the Second Amendment has been effectively repealed subject to the "well-regulated" part.

In the real world, the wording would not have made a practical difference. The bottom line here is that the media matters while three million paid-up NRA members do not represent "We the People of the United States. The Court represents "We the People." One of the main functions of that "We the People" is to kick the people into line when they vote wrong.

Only a Mantra thinker would bring this up.

Like assimilation and immigration into EVERY white country and ONLY white countries, this is so basic that no respectable conservative would ever think of it much less question it. Mantra thinking can have a huge and UNIQUE impact by stating reality in plain English and sticking with it.

You ain't going to do any of that by being the 100,000th rooter for Ron Paul. It's not as much fun doing the real job alone. But no one else can do it.

Back to constitutionality: Even a respectable conservative once had balls enough to correct an ACLU spokesman who said that that organization protests the Bill of Right. This one conservative said, once, "except the Second Amendment."

Decades ago when Bob Jones defended its right to keep its tax deductible status while banning interracial dating, all the mainline churches were on its side in court. By the same token it is the American media, not the first amendment alone that makes the first amendment effective here.

While people talk about the power of the Bill of Rights, it makes little practical difference if there is no power behind it.

While the courts can screw around with Hung Chu Pow or somebody on the details, when

it comes to the presidency there is no power in favor of the natural born citizen provision.

That is all that matters.

Once the power was there, the antimiscegenation laws no state ever even considered it had the right to enforce for two centuries were simply nullified.

Article III says that Congress "shall" limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is the only "shall" in the document that is not considered an imperative according to those same courts. In fact, most people consider any restriction on the courts to be unconstitutional.

Trager notes that I "have been around the block" on these issues. I have taught what is called Constitutional Law and I have helped restrict the courts in Congress. So the above is the situation as I see it.