A Government Unto Himself: Obama Administration Creates New Sweeping Exemption Under The ACA [UPDATED]

President_Barack_ObamaI recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. This week, President Obama went even further with the announcement of a new sweeping exemption that not only has no foundation in the federal law but directly contradicts the law. It also happens (again) to be a change debated but not accepted by Congress. The exemption appears an effort to blunt growing criticism of Obama for a false assurance given to citizens before the enactment of the ACA. It is also coming at a time of new polls indicating that Obama is not only hitting a record low in popularity but Republicans appear poised to gain seats in both houses (and potentially could retake the Senate as well as add seats in the House). [Update: The White House is now denying that it will implement the hardship exemption despite the article in the Wall Street Journal and other media]


The individual mandate has long been the most controversial part of the ACA. That controversy magnified after millions of people lost their insurance plans despite assurances from Obama that no one would be forced to give up plans that they like. Even the Washington Post declared the statement to be false and a case of consistent and repeated misrepresentation.

The political damage over the ACA is clearly growing. That damage was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of the rollout by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her staff. Such political costs of federal law however are not a basis for regulatory changes, even when such changes are allowed under the federal law. In this case, the President has far exceeded any plausible claim of statutory or regulatory authority. The individual mandate is the heart of the ACA and was the subject of heated and careful drafting. There is no provision for an exemption, but Obama has now rewritten much of the act with a series of extra-legislative changes — no fewer than 13 such executive changes to the law.

This last change will allow virtually anyone to avoid the individual mandate requirement — precisely the option that the White House successfully blocked when proposed in Congress.

The new change would allow individual to claim a “hardship exemption” to avoid paying a penalty for not buying insurance. That would fundamentally change the operation of the law. Not only does this contradict the law but the Administration fails to clear define what a “hardship” would be. It only says that such an exemption can be claimed if citizens “experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.” It seems designed to allow the maximum number of people claim the exemption, particularly given the rather forgiving standard that the person should “submit documentation if possible.”

The President continues to operate well off the Madisonian map — inventing exemptions and granting suspensions where no provision is made under the law. Most importantly, he is ordering changes proposed and rejected in Congress.

These changes are unlikely to receive serious judicial review if past cases are any measure. The Administration has repeatedly relied standing challenges to block review. Since the Rehnquist Court, standing has steadily shrunk to the point that constitutional violations are now being left unreviewed for lack of standing. The courts have long been, in my view, absent without constitutional lead as discussed in prior testimony (here and here and here).

Democrats continue to enable this shift of power to the Executive Branch with no concern for the changes that they are making to our balance of power. They continue to yield power to the Executive Branch even as evidence mounts that they are headed to a possible electoral disaster. It is the ultimate example of personality overwhelming principle. It is not just incredibly short sighted but self-destructive. A future president can easily claim the same inherent authority to suspend or grant exemptions to environmental or anti-discrimination law or suspend tax burdens for the top one percent. It would also mean that a president is virtually unlimited in being able to amend or suspend laws. It makes the legislative process merely a discretionary stage for presidents.

The animus toward the Republicans is blinding Democrats to the implications of what President Obama is creating in this new uber presidency. The President is appealing to that animus in taking these steps and aggrandizing power in his branch. It is part of “all is fair and love and politics” approach to constitutional law. It would take offline the stabilizing elements of the system and reduce the system to little more than raw muscle plays by politicians. Under our current system, there is only so much harm that any branch can do if it remains within the constitutional lines. It is designed to be idiot-proof and we have truly tested that design. However, once one branch goes outside of the lines, the system is left as little more than politics at any means.

While there will be many who applaud the latest insular change either for its political or practical benefits, it will join a troubling mosaic of unilateral and unchecked executive power. There will come a day when people step back and see the entire mosaic for what it truly represents: a new system with a dominant president with both legislative and executive powers.

237 thoughts on “A Government Unto Himself: Obama Administration Creates New Sweeping Exemption Under The ACA [UPDATED]”

  1. Re: “His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.”

    They said that they were sponsoring A foreign student. But they did not say that it was Obama. There is no evidence whatever that Obama, who was born in Hawaii and attended a US high school, entered college as a foreign student. And he certainly was NEVER an Indonesian citizen, since the Indonesian government says that he wasn’t. Since Obama never gave up US citizenship—-which BTW, a child cannot do AT ALL, and an adult can only do IN WRITING before the appropriate US government official (overseas, a US consul), Obama remains what he was when he was born, a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

    Birthers and two-fers were not able to get a single member of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama in either 2008 or 2012 with the nutty stories that Obama was born in a foreign country or gave up US citizenship or the loony constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and he received the votes of 356 electors. He won 332 electoral votes in the 2012 general election, and he received the votes of 332 electors. Not one changed. And he was confirmed by the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY after both the 2008 and the 2012 elections, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul. Not one of them believed that Obama had been born in a foreign country, or gave up his US citizenship———or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  2. Forget the transcripts, let’s have the records that go to citizenship, natural born or otherwise:

    The Postman
    Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.
    His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.
    This is a huge revelation on not one, but two separate fronts.
    Bill Ayers of dubious “Weatherman” fame, was not just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.
    Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.
    There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
    As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.
    If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.
    The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
    8 USC 1481
    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481
    Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.
    The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family’s subsequent relocation to Indonesia.
    Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack’s situation adoption was necessary to gain it.
    In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child’s American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.
    However, Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.
    This would explain the president’s refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton’s testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.
    In reality, due to his father’s British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his “Fight the Smears” website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website “http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/” has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com “http://www.attackwatch.com/”. Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.
    Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/barack-obama-foreign-student-american-media-threatened-into-silence/#J7s6864A9bVdYCJ2.99

  3. Apparently James Madison was aware of British governmental tradition and he was acutely aware that different opinions prevailed in the U.S. It is not possible that this man had no knowledge of Vattel, his “parents” requirement and foreign allegiances when the Founders employed the novel phrase, “natural born citizen.” When he assigned different grades of citizenship to different offices, he must have assigned the highest, “parents,” to one of them. If not, he surely would have told us why and he would not have provided the waiver for those whose status preceded the date of “adoption.”

    Read the Madison text of this date and tell me this man skipped over even minor details.

    “…Privileges of the people are unguarded in the British constitution…a different opinion prevails in the United States.”

    James Madison, June 8, 1789

    “Some policy has been made use of perhaps by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great-Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore the arguments drawn from that source, were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther, than to raise a barrier against the power of the crown; the power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite. Altho’ I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which, the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.

    But altho’ the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States.”

  4. I have no idea or proof where the current officeholder was born. I find the “natural born citizen” and Vattel’s “parents” subject interesting and unresolved. You evaded my question if Vattel was castigated for daring to introduce a new concept of “parents,” eschewing the 300-year-old citizen by in-country birth, and what the Founders’ reactions were.

    Anecdotes exist that there is no American passport; that travel was done on something other than an American passport. As Nixon had an 18 minute gap and Oswald was a patsy set-up with a job in the Depository, the following is historical fact, that Brennan interceded with records – these and the college records have been manipulated and suppressed:

    “In July 2008, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a 104-page investigative report on the passport breach incidents, stamped “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The report was so heavily redacted, it was virtually useless to the public. Scores of passages were blacked out entirely, including one sequence of 29 consecutive pages that were each obliterated by a solid black box that made it impossible even to determine paragraph structures.

    Investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breach incidents was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his eligibility to be president.”

    What say you?

  5. Your focus, entirely, has been on the ignorance or rejection of Vattel’s two parents requirement by the Founders. Was Vattel’s presentation of the “parents” requirement completely missed? Was Vattel widely criticized for introducing the concept of “parents?” Was Vattel verbally rejected for proposing “parents?” Why would they have been so adverse to the obvious benefit of “parents?”

    Did the Founders write why they ignored or rejected the idea of maximally addressing national allegiance regarding eligibility for high office through the two “parents” requirement? Why and how were the Founders so OBLIVIOUS to self-evident and logical measures? Who originated the concept of “foreign allegiances” related to citizenship if Washington, Jay, et. al. ignored or rejected it? Why did the Founders address the fact that many, of the era, would not have been natural citizens and provide the waiver of insufficient status before “the time of adoption” of the Constitution? It seems somebody missed something somewhere in this overall process.

  6. Re: “I’m sorry. I meant comprehensive college records including applications for financial assistance, other forms requiring personal history, etc. that indicate citizenship or national origin. Congress (i.e. the people) has a duty to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. ”

    None of the other candidates showed those things EITHER. And, btw, it is supremely nutty, truly loony, to think that there was even a rational chance that Obama was born anywhere else than IN HAWAII:

    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

    So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

    (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

    Re: ” if that natural born citizen becomes a citizen of another country and travels on a passport issued by another country? ”

    Answer: The simple fact is that Obama NEVER became a citizen of Indonesia nor did he have a passport from that country, as a simple telephone all to the INDONESIAN EMBASSY will confirm (Phone (202) 775 – 5200——-and ask for the press officer.)

    Re: “which country issued a passport for international travel by the current presidential officeholder, demonstrating citizenship at that time?”

    Answer: The answer to the question “which country” is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT country issued Obama a passport, and there is no evidence that any other country did, and Indonesia says for sure that it DIDN’T DO SO.

    Obama had his own US passport from the time that he returned from Indonesian ALONE (so he had to have his own passport), and it had to be a US passport because if it was the passport of any other country HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED A US VISA on it, and there has never been any evidence that he applied for a US visa in Jakarta (or anywhere else), and it would be EASY for such an application to have been found, if there were any, since the Bush Administration was in charge of the US State Department for eight years up until January 2009.

  7. I’m sorry. I meant comprehensive college records including applications for financial assistance, other forms requiring personal history, etc. that indicate citizenship or national origin. Congress (i.e. the people) has a duty to scrutinize candidates for eligibility.

    Personal history must have been in question since there was extended residence in Indonesia, complete with statue (since torn down). Is a citizen with only one citizen parent (a minor) a natural born citizen and retain that status if that natural born citizen becomes a citizen of another country and travels on a passport issued by another country?

    Since this thread broached the subject of the current officeholder’s history, how does a person become a citizen of a foreign country (i.e. Indonesia) without denouncing his citizenship of a previous country? In that it goes to the point of citizenship, which country issued a passport for international travel by the current presidential officeholder, demonstrating citizenship at that time?

  8. Re: “The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.””

    Answer: If the Founders had switched to Vattel from the common law, they would have SAID SO. Instead they did not mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers AT ALL, while they mentioned the common law about twenty time and always with praise.

    Re: “the issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?”

    Answer: I see, so you were not interested in the grades but in Obama’s place of birth. IF so, you should know—wait for it—-that college transcripts DO NOT show the place of birth or whether or not a person is a foreign student. Transcripts only show the courses and the grades in them.

    Re: “You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

    Answer: What do you mean :”you and you alone.” What I stated is EXACTLY the same thing as what (1) Tucker and (2) Rawle; and (3) the Lynch v. Clarke decision; and (4) the Wong Kim Ark Decision, and (5) the Heritage Foundation book ALL SAID.

  9. The Founders imposed requirements thusly:

    HIGHEST REQUIREMENT – HIGHIEST OFFICE – HIGHEST REFERENCE

    PARENTS – PRESIDENT – NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.” The highest semantic phrase (i.e. newest) for citizenship requirement was “natural born citizen.” The Founders differentiated between President and Senator regarding citizenship requirements. The highest office has the highest standard unless you believe the Founders required a lower standard for President than for Senator. Perhaps, you believe the Founders eschewed the highest standard and employed only the lowest.

    You imply that the Founders did not write one novel word or phrase without attribution. I’m not so sure. Did the Founders comprehensively describe their introduction and use of the phrase “natural born citizen” which you stated was never used before, specifically by Vattel?

    It is the duty of the Congress to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. If a candidate’s eligibility is in question, that candidate, and that candidate specifically and in particular, must make all relevant material available.

    It may well have been that the citizenship of other candidates was not in question and that college transcripts would not bear, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?

    Are the phrases Natural Born and Natural Born Citizen the same or are they different? They seem about 30% different to me. If they are different, by how much? Can you assign a degree? Because that degree may have been just enough for the Founders to have meant something entirely different. You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

  10. Re: “the issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?”

    Answer: I see, so you were not interested in the grades but in Obama’s place of birth. IF so, wait for it, you should know, that college transcripts do not show the place of birth or whether or not a person is a foreign student. Transcripts only show the courses and the grades in them.

    And, since other presidents and presidential candidates did not show their grades, Obama does not have to either.

  11. Re: “You might begin your revelation of liars by impeaching, with evidence, the veracity of the quote of the Jay letter below:”

    Answer: NO problem. Here is a link to an image of John Jay’s letter in his own handwriting. Notice that there is no mention of PARENTS:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=john+jay+letter&client=firefox-a&hs=j0M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aqU5U6W-Aur42gXrnIGYDw&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=607#channel=sb&q=john+jay+letter+to+george+washington+june+27+1786&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_O-QeGXCc8p7nM%253A%3BVGHPCNch9WS4LM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.greschak.com%252Fessays%252Fnatborn%252Fjtwj25sh.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.greschak.com%252Fessays%252Fnatborn%252F%3B1633%3B1482

    Re: “Clearly, a requirement of two parents as citizens is imperative if the goal is to avoid all foreign allegiances.”

    Answer: Since the writers of the US Constitution did not consider the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners, there is no evidence that they considered that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners had “foreign allegiances.”

  12. You might begin your revelation of liars by impeaching, with evidence, the veracity of the quote of the Jay letter below:

    “John Jay, the first US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington(yes that one- the one who wouldn’t tell a lie and who became our first Pres.) The letter specifically deals with the concept of natural born citizenship, meaning being born to citizen parents. Jay states this is necessary so that there can be no question that the Commander in Chief could have dual allegiances.”

    Clearly, a requirement of two parents as citizens is imperative if the goal is to avoid all foreign allegiances.

  13. There are many multiple references in Wikipedia with which you disagree. I have stated that I have used Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia presented Vattel as a legal reference of the highest reputation of the era with whom the Founders were well acquainted. Wikipedia assigned the use of the phrase “natural born citizen” to Vattel. You really should correct Wikipedia if you are the definitive source of the value of the firing of every last synapse in the minds of the Founders. It seems that Wikipedia persists as a popular reference despite your incessant protestations.

    The Founders imposed the HIGHEST REQUIREMENT for the HIGHIEST OFFICE using the HIGHEST REFERENCE: PARENTS, PRESIDENT, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Founders knew well of Vattel and Vattel required “parents.” The highest semantic phrase (i.e. newest) for citizenship requirement was “natural born citizen.” The Founders differentiated between President and Senator regarding citizenship requirements. The highest office has the highest standard unless you believe the Founders required a lower standard for President than for Senator.

    You imply that the Founders did not write one novel word or phrase without attribution. I’m not so sure. Did the Founders comprehensively describe their introduction and use of the phrase “natural born citizen” which you stated was never used before, specifically by Vattel?

    It is the duty of the Congress to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. If a candidate’s eligibility is in question, that candidate, and that candidate specifically and in particular, must make all relevant material available.

    It may well have been that the citizenship of other candidates was not in question and that college transcripts would not bear, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the eligibility of the current officeholder during the term of candidacy. Is there a compelling reason for your attempt to obfuscate?

    Are the phrases Natural Born and Natural Born Citizen the same or are they different? They seem about 30% different to me. If they are different, by how much? Can you assign a degree? Because that degree may have been just enough for the Founders to have meant something entirely different. You can’t expect anyone to take seriously your contention that you and you alone know exactly and precisely what the Founders were actually thinking and whether or not they intended to perpetuate English tradition or break with it. Many described them as “revolutionary.”

  14. Re: “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.”

    Answer: The meaning of Natural Born in the common law—-which was far more commonly used than Vattel at the time—–referred to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents.

  15. Re: “And they knew nothing of Vattel and his “parents” criterion – I gotcha: ”

    Answer: IF they had used Vattel, they would have said that they used Vattel and not the common law——which was, wait for it, far more common——-and they didn’t.

  16. Re: ” The college transcripts of the current officeholder have been deliberately suppressed and hidden from the scrutiny of the Congress. ”

    Answer: Are you intentionally TRYING to show the world how poorly informed you and others like you are??

    Obama did not show his college transcripts because, wait for it, presidents and presidential candidates never show their college transcripts. (Bush’s was leaked by a source at Yale, but the point is that BUSH did not show it.) Neither did John McCain or MItt Romney or Clinton or Bush41 or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or LBJ or JFK or Eisenhower or Truman or FDR or Hoover.

    They did not show their transcripts—–so why should Obama?

    1. Is there record of any president presenting his transcript – to what body or authority?

      Seems to me I recall conjecture about Kennedy being sort of middle of the class. But, didn’t he have a thesis published ‘Why England Slept’ or something like that – so every body could make up their own mind about what his ability might be.

      On the other hand it might be a good idea for members of congress to present their transcript at the same time they are tested for drugs – better yet just give them a pass fail test for mental acuity and stability when they pee in the cup. Anyone want to wager how many will call in sick that day?

  17. Re: “Below is a quote from your reference material which quotes John Jay requiring “parents” to avoid foreign allegiances and this is the opposite of what you said related to Jay:”

    Answer: John Jay never said any such thing. He said that a Natural Born Citizen was required and that that would keep the USA away from foreign entanglements. But he never use the word “parents.” The word “parents” does not appear in the John Jay letter, so that the BIRTHER that you quote was, wait for it, LYING.

    John Jay, an expert in THE COMMON LAW never used the term Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents. Nor did John Adams or Alexander Hamilton or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention. The meaning refers simply to the place of birth. John Jay and the other members of the Constitutional Convention believed that children born on US soil REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS AT THE TIME would be good citizens of the USA—just as good citizens as the children of US citizens. If they had thought that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners, or that they were lower level citizens—more likely to be security risks than the US-born children of US citizens——-THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they never said anything like that at all.

    Here are John Jay’s words:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Do you see any mention of PARENTS?????? Do you see anything indicating that a US-born child was a foreigner?????

  18. Below is a quote from your reference material which quotes John Jay requiring “parents” to avoid foreign allegiances and this is the opposite of what you said related to Jay:

    “So the Economist thinks that an Indiana state court ruling overrides the Constitution of the US. Interesting. Has there been a constitutional amendment to override Art. 2 that I haven’t heard about? Of course, that is nonsense. It takes very little research to determine the intent of the authors of the Constitution regarding the singular requirement of the Presidency. John Jay, the first US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington(yes that one- the one who wouldn’t tell a lie and who became our first Pres.) The letter specifically deals with the concept of natural born citizenship, meaning being born to citizen parents. Jay states this is necessary so that there can be no question that the Commander in Chief could have dual allegiances. Apparently, the Economist is too lazy to discover the truth, or their motives for promulgating this fiction is less than honorable.”

  19. One further point worth consideration. The college transcripts of the current officeholder have been deliberately suppressed and hidden from the scrutiny of the Congress.

    How would the Founders have viewed that? Did they deem certain data information the Congress should not have when considering eligibility? Perhaps you have knowledge that Congress saw those transcripts in a secret session.

    All information and records related to the birth location were released but all information and records related to the college transcripts were not? That dudn’t make any sense. You stated that you saw voluminous, incontrovertible proof from the state of Hawaii related to the birth location. You must have incontrovertible proof that the college transcripts were necessarily, appropriately or legally withheld, or not.

    You must know of friends of the Founders who told them that the Congress and voters didn’t need ANY AND ALL information regarding a candidate for the highest office.

    The FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE TOLD US if the Congress and voters should consider the candidate comprehensively and in his entirety, but THEY DIDN’T.

    Right?

Comments are closed.