Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

he latest political website, fanned by liberal activists who want to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton does not run into an invisible glass wall when she announces her own candidacy for the presidency of the United States after the 2006 elections (providing she is reelected to the U.S. Senate). There now appears to be a website attempting to capitalize on California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new-found popularity with the American right. The website, www.AmendForArnold.com builds a case for enacting a constitutional amendment that will allow naturalized American citizens like the movie star turned politiciqan Schwarzenegger and Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm to run for the highest office in the land. (Editor's Note, Feb. 20, 2015: In 2004 when this article was written I thought it's whole purpose was to degenerize Article II. Hindsight suggests the reason was twofold. First, to give Hillary Clinton a shot at the gold ring in 2008 and, at the same time, to open the door for an Indonesian citizen named Barack Hussein Obama to legally run for the highest office in the land in either 2008 or 2012. That's why the American people did not want that amendment to pass. They did not want Hillary anywhere near the Oval Office, nor did they want a foreigner whose roots are planted elsewhere functioning as the President of the United States of America.)

Advocates for such an amendment argue that we are a nation of immigrants, so its okay for an immigrant to run for President. They argue that citizenship should be equal to all everyone because ouir immigrant-ancestors entered this nation through Ellis Island over the past 100 years or so. Two National Review editors, John Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru jumped on the Arnold Schwarzenegger bandwagon early, arguing that "...an immigrant president [would] most likely...embrace America with the zeal of a convert," adding that "...he would be a flag-waving patriot whose love of country exceeds that of most native-born Americans." ([Editor's Note: 2/20/15] Barack Obama is living proof that's not the case. Obama's core loyalty is to Islam and the Islamic world in which he was born, raised and cultured.)

One might easily reach that conclusion looking back on this nation's isolationist, patriotic pre-UN history. Currently about 25% of America's naturally-born citizens are revisionist globalists who spend every waking hour denouncing this nation, which embraced them, as the world's last super power gone amuck (as they try to figure out how—through a UN parliament—to return the United States to its European motherlands: England, France, Germany, Holland and Spain; or, at least, to unilaterally bind us, politically and economically to the emerging one-world system). It is because of the open border policies of the world community and the last three presidents of the United States that we, as a nation, can ill afford to open that door since what will eventually happen is that an immigrant president, whose own cultural perspectives that were developed elsewhere would bring about the destruction of America's cultural and political distinctions. We can see the devastating influence and impact of Old World "New Age" liberalism at work in the United States through judicial activist judges and the unelected federal bureaucracy that now controls the uniworld agenda, and is implementing the open borders policy that originated in the United Nations.

Clearly the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the current immigration crisis that is facing this nation and all of the industrial nations in the world, but they did recognize that allowing immigrants—who did not possess a native generational bond to the uniquely American culture of the United States (that is now being destroyed by an immigrant class who came here not to partake in the opportunities America provides, but to divide and conquer this nation, to pillage its economic systems and take their spoils back to their native lands)—to lead this nation was a dangerous precedent that would lead to the undoing of this great and unique nation.

While the adherents of the constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to serve as chief executive of this nation argue that since we have so many immigrants today, that is reason enough for such an amendment. As citizens, they argue, immigrant citizens should not be denied the right to seek the highest office in the land.

The Framers, however, specifically penned that exclusion—"no person except a natural born citizen"—into the Constitution specifically because they were afraid that if a naturalized foreigner was elected president and a conflict with his former country arose, his loyalties might be divided, and in seeking a compromise with that nation, might not act in the best interests of this nation. The Founding Fathers wanted to make certain that whomever became President would not only be born and raised here, and not only would understand and appreciate this nation's unique culture, but would be solely and indivisibly dedicated to defending this nation and its people against all threats to its sovereignty from any source, for any reason.

The language—both the term "...except a natural born citizen"—and the gendered presidency were drafted in the original document by John Jay (who later became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) during the convention's deliberations in 1787.

There was a fear that America's aristocrats—the landed gentry that was in many instances related to the crown heads of Europe—were secretly plotting to import a monarch from Europe, use their wealth and power to get him elected, and create a defacto monarchy in America. The "natural born citizen" provision prevented a blood-line monarch from coming to the United States and assuming the presidency. (There was a sense in colonial America that monarchs came from "special human stock," and because of they did, they were thought to be superior to common people who, in medieval days, were deemed to be the chattel of the rich.)

Actually, that is probably reason enough—even today—never to consider changing what Godly wisdom placed in the most unique rules of law in the history of the world since the Ten Commandments. One needs look no farther than Sen. John Kerry and his arguments about seeking an international consensus before deciding the fate of America. While he is "native born," Kerry comes from one of those old American aristocrat families who is philosophically tied to the European mindset. If Kerry, whose family has been in this nation for over 100 years, has a globalist loyalty, how can you trust an "immigrant citizen" to place the interests of the United States over the interests of the rest of the world when that "person" came to America with a globalist rather than a nationalist perspective—and an utopian agenda?

But the meddlers on both sides of the aisle—who have agendas of their own—are using that issue as a smoke screen to place a presidential qualification amendment before the Congress. Quite simply, Hillary Clinton can't constitutionally run for president if Article II of the Constitution is not amended since Article II very succinctly dictates that the President of the United States shall be a man. And while Hillary clearly acts like a man, and can kick butt with the best of them, biologically she is still a woman.

At a glance Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution appears to establish only three ironclad qualifications for president. The president must (1) be at least 35 years old, (2) have lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) be a natural-born citizen Article II, Section 1 specifically declares on 16 occasions, that the President will be a man. Article II, Section 1 begins: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows..." You really do not have to read further to realize the role of President of the United States is gender-specific.

For clarification purposes (to show that gender specification for the office of President was not an accidental choice of pronouns) note the qualifications for the office of Congressman found in Article I, Section 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States...No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen..." Note the position of Congressman is not gender specific. Although all members of Congress were men until Jeanette Rankin of Montana was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1916, there is not—nor ever was—a Constitutional prohibition to a woman holding a seat in the House of Representatives. And until Rebecca Felton of Georgia was appointed by Gov. Tom Hardwick to fill the void between the death of US Senator Tom Watson and Walter F. George's being elected to fill his unexpired term (she served one day), no woman sat in the upper chamber. In 1932, Hattie Wyatt Caraway ran for, and won, the US Senate seat from Arkansas. While it took 145 years for a woman to be elected to the US Senate, there was no prohibition to a woman holding a seat in the upper chamber. Article I, Section 2 is gender blind. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the legislature thereof...No person shall be a Senator who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Only one time, in one sentence, in Article I are the members of the House and/or Senate collectively referred to in male gender, and that is in Section 6, paragraph 2. In that instance, the usage is generic since there is no individual gender specific reference made for individual persons. In this single instance, the Constitution clarified that Congressmen and Senators may not serve a dual role in the Executive Branch of government.

Four times in Article I, Section 7 the President is referred to specifically as a man. Again, this was not an accident. The President is referred to, by gender, a total of 20 times in the Constitution. Most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a male gender national leader. In doing so, they explicitly barred women from ever becoming the President of the United States without first enacting a constitutional amendment that would allow them to accept the office if elected (since there appears to be nothing that bars them from seeking the office—only serving it if elected). In his book, "America's Constitution: A Guided Tour," Yale law professor Akhill Reed Amar suggests that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, also granted them the implied corresponding right to seek the office of President of the United States. "In effect," he said, "that amendment required that the word 'he' in the original constitutional clauses dealing with the president would henceforth be read to mean 'he' or 'she.'"

Amar unfortunately, read words or meanings not in evidence. The 19th Amendment merely grants women the right to vote. Although liberals have mastered the art of creating supra rights in existing case law by implication, there is no implied corresponding right to be construed here—particularly for women seeking the office of President of the United States which, constitutionally, is uniquely a male job. Sexist, isn't it?

Simply stated, the 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Granted, starry-eyed liberals will automatically see the expansive nature of the phrase "...shall not be...abridged..." and will expand that phrase sufficiently to drive a Mack truck through it since the entire Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 were crafted from the "commerce clause" in Article I, Section 8. But the simple truth is that all the 19th Amendment does is provide women with the right to vote in federal, State, county and local elections. While women have never been denied the right to seek public office (even when they could not vote for themselves or for other female candidates for office), there is nothing in the 19th Amendment (or any other amendment for that matter) that neutralizes the gender specific qualities required of those who become the President of the United States.

That would change under the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment proposed in July, 2003 by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (who, it appears, will be replaced by liberal Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter on Jan. 3, 2005 unless enough pressure is brought to bear on the US Senate while it is in recess in December). Hatch—a close friend of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—said he proposed Senate Joint Resolution 15 to amend the Constitution to provide naturalized citizens like Schwarzenegger and Canadian born Governor Jennifer Granholm [D-MI] the right to seek the highest office in the land. S.J. Res. 15 and its H.J. 104 (proffered by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]) would specifically amend Article II, Section 5 while effectively amending all of Amendment II by innocuously degenderizing it by using the term "person" to describe those seeking the Office of the President. The proposed new amendment concealed its purpose well:

The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, proffered on October 5, 2004 for consideration by Congress says: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: `Article-- `SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States. `SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.'" The Hatch-Rohrabacher proposal mirrors the initial naturalized citizen resolution offered by Congressman Barney Frank as House Joint Resolution 88 on July 24, 2000 when there was much speculation in liberal circles of a Hillary Clinton "primary test" against Vice President Al Gore that never materialized. Frank's H.J. Res. 88 said: "A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible for the Office of President is not ineligible to that office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."

While Orrin Hatch made it sound like he was proposing S.J. Res. 15 to assist his friend Schwarzenegger (and quite accidentally, people like Democrat Granholm, or down the road, newly elected Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL] or perhaps even Dutch-born Larry Klayman (the former CEO of Washington-based judicial advocacy group, Judicial Watch), who ran and lost the race for that Florida Senate seat in the primaries. But the simple truth is, this amendment—if it makes it through Congress and ends up as a bonafide constitutional amendment that requires ratification by three-fourths (38) of the States—would be better named as the Hillary Rodham Clinton Constitutional Opportunity to Govern Amendment since it will be pushed through the 109th Congress and sent to the States in order to provide Hillary with constitutional grounds to seek the office of President in 2008 (even though the States will have seven years to ratify or the amendment).

By not specifically degenderizing the proposed amendment, the liberals can continue to argue that when women were given the right to vote, they were tacitly given the right to run for any office in the land—including the presidency. Otherwise, being natural born citizens, citizenship would not be equal to all Americans.

When Barney Frank proposed the initial amendment, H.J. Res. 88 before a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution (now chaired by Steve Chabot [R-OH], he brought several naturalized citizens to argue the position that American citizenship should be equal to all Americans—a point well made by Dr. Raimundo Delgado when he addressed the committee and argued that citizenship in America is currently a caste system comprised of natural born males with 100% citizenship rights and those with only partial rights. Among those with partial rights are not only naturalized citizens but those who, for other reasons, might not be entitled to run for the office of President.

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.