tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post3522391472948180422..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: THE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLES OBAMA HAS TO OVERCOME TO BE PRESIDENTMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51016729802165339762009-01-31T20:52:00.000-05:002009-01-31T20:52:00.000-05:00Do you not think that there was a conspiracy by th...Do you not think that there was a conspiracy by the Candidates, the DNC/RNC, members of Congress, state officials and probably high ranking advisors/cabinet members to put an “ineligible” candidate (Obama and McCain) on the Presidential ballot in all 50 states, knowing that the candidates were not eligible for that office due to the fact that neither of them was a Natural Born Citizen, thereby, interfering with a “the free exercise or enjoyment of any voter, the right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or laws of the United States under color of law to exercise their constitutional right to cast a “valid” vote.<BR/><BR/>Why can’t Article 241 be interpreted broadly? This type of conspiracy, if proven to have existed, could, in fact, be interpreted to be a conspiracy that was intended to “injure voters.” In fact, no one would even have to show that the conspiracy was successful or that there was an overt act.<BR/><BR/>And, what about fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, are these not viable? Have they been explored? <BR/><BR/>Obviously, the 384 page manual that the DOJ has published, the one that is referenced in my original post, may have a few gems in it that can be further explored.<BR/><BR/>Again, I profess to be no legal expert, as I stated, I am not an attorney, I am just seeing how far it MAY BE possible to conform alternative arguments to existing law and precedent or to push judges to make new law.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, most would agree that we are in “uncharted” water here. I don’t think any laws were specifically drafted by the legislators to take into account what has recently transpired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86829145115338553412009-01-31T15:14:00.000-05:002009-01-31T15:14:00.000-05:00Just a clarification regarding the above comment.I...Just a clarification regarding the above comment.<BR/><BR/>I am not stating that section 241 will be the winning arguement, like I said, I am not even an attorney, and for that reason, sometimes, someone like me, may be able to see things that others don’t or may be able to offer a suggestion that a skilled attorney can run with. <BR/><BR/>My only purpose in bringing this up at all, was to stress that point, that the attorneys that are filing these lawsuits have to “start thinking out of the box.” The arguments that are being used, continually seems to fail, case after case.<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a story I heard long ago. It was the story of a truck that was stuck under an overpass and a number of engineers were called in to figure out how to get the truck out. The truck was completely wedged under the overpass and the top part of the truck was particially crushed. <BR/><BR/>The engineers began to scratch their heads, one suggested that they would should bring in equipment to lift the overpass, another suggested that the top section of the truck would have to be cut off. Then a little boy riding his bike came up to the scene and informed the engineers that if they let the air out of the truck’s tires, the truck would fall lower than the overpass and it could be rolled out. And, presto, the problem of the stuck truck was solved, by a little boy that was looking at the problem with a fresh set of eyes. <BR/><BR/>I am not trying to belittle or minimize the legal work that is being done or the legal arguments that are being made. I am only trying to look at the legal arguments with a “fresh set of eyes,” and make observations that may help someone try a “new approach.” Something that could make the “lightbulb” go on in someone’s head, so they start to think “outside of the box.” <BR/><BR/>My only pupose in writing the original comment is to ask, “If we let air out of the tires, could we make a better case?”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45431390897465923382009-01-30T14:41:00.000-05:002009-01-30T14:41:00.000-05:00Why does “injury in fact” have to be “injury to on...Why does “injury in fact” have to be “injury to one’s person?” The law is clear that an injury can be to one’s constitutional rights.<BR/><BR/>I am not even a lawyer and I am certain that I could come up with a creative way to get around this “Standing Issue.” <BR/><BR/>Please read this post and maybe there is something that can help these attorneys come up with some creative legal maneuvers by using the Department of Justice’s “How To Prosecute Election Fraud Manual” against them: http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/letter-to-the-attorney-general<BR/><BR/>In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). <BR/><BR/>Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). <BR/><BR/>Section 241 embrace conspiracies intended to injure because an injury does NOT really even need to occur?<BR/><BR/>Why does an “injury have to be a physical injury>” Why can’t it be injury to one’s mental and emotional state? Why not an injury to one’s confidence in government? <BR/><BR/>I don’t understand why this doesn’t matter and why attorneys continue to do the SAME THING over and over again seem to expect to have DIFFERENT results.<BR/><BR/>Come on Legal Eagles, STEP-UP your game and start thinking “out of the box” or will never get at the truth!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80632298983577630182009-01-02T01:17:00.000-05:002009-01-02T01:17:00.000-05:00To Anonymous: I agree with you. Our U.S. Supreme...To Anonymous: <BR/><BR/>I agree with you. Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in The Law of Nations. The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S. <BR/><BR/>The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is: <BR/><BR/>"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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.” <BR/><BR/>Hence, from the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers grandfathered to be eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " made up this second category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. The Framers were particularly concerned with allegiance, which was the requirement for becoming the first citizen of the United States. By creating this two-generation requirement, the Framers were assuring that the nation would benefit from a President who was born to parents who had that allegiance and who would pass that allegiance on to the child, for they believed that true citizenship came from the parents and not from the place where one was born. It is important to understand that here we are dealing with what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, which specifies the requirements to be President, and not with what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act, which do not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship. <BR/><BR/>Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii. <BR/><BR/>(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <BR/>January 2, 2009Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-1066991136179634152009-01-01T20:38:00.000-05:002009-01-01T20:38:00.000-05:00The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Minor v....The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett supports the Emerich de Vattel interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Senator Obama's own website admits that he was born with dual citizenship and divided allegiance.<BR/><BR/>In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite in the decision dated March 29, 1875, wrote: <BR/><BR/>"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." (88 U.S. 162)<BR/><BR/>"It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves . . . natural-born citizens." <BR/> <BR/>Furthermore, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray in a decision dated March 28, 1898, re-affirmed the Minor v. Happersett interpretation:<BR/><BR/>"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167." (169 U.S. 649)<BR/><BR/>Thus under the test of Minor v. Happersett Sen. Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15468548338307362552008-12-31T07:16:00.000-05:002008-12-31T07:16:00.000-05:00I am a NJ resident.Mario, I wish all members of Co...I am a NJ resident.<BR/>Mario, <BR/>I wish all members of Congress take their time to read all your answers.<BR/>I am so proud that NJ has (at least) 2 brilliant, outstanding citizens, Leo Donofrio and you, who love our country so much that they stand up to educate us and demand the truth.<BR/>How can we convince the people who are so uninformed and misinformed, and those who close their eyes to anything outside of what they want to believe? It is all but impossible to educate and inform the members of Congress who, by their replies, have shown that they are either lazy, ignorant or simply don't care to uphold the Constitution. It is totally impossible to get the MSM to tell the truth because to them the 'truth' is to push their agenda; in Obama's case, their agenda is to brainwash the people into supporting Obama no matter what. <BR/>We have a really big battle on our hands. We are against all the establishments (politicians, media, special interests, the 'liberals' who wish to harm United States, the blind Obama followers, the politically correct elitists...)<BR/>Fear not. We will win the battle in upholding the Constitution because we have the truth behind us! The truth will always prevail!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60294054293581202902008-12-31T03:52:00.000-05:002008-12-31T03:52:00.000-05:00I am just a simple citizen of the USA. But as I un...I am just a simple citizen of the USA. But as I understand the constitution...it is the duty of ALL citizens to uphold and protect the constitution, not just government workers and elected officials. This includes all of the workers that processed mr. Obamas college applications,drivers license,passport,marriage certificate and on and on through the years.including anyone that has access to those documents privacy laws or not. The protection of the constitution trumps all other law...does it not? I can not understand why not one has come forward by now and either said they know what his status is,or isn't or that they personally have seen a birth cert.Or that he couldn't produce the needed documents when asked or whatever. And if he did produce a real birht cert. I would think that that would have been remembered by them and what the document said How can anyone do all that Mr. Obama has without showing a real Birth cert. like everyone else in this country has had to when getting these things? Did he or did he not show the necessary documents and proof at the time of all of those registrations?(after all he was not a big shot back then) and if not, how did he get them? or now has $$$ or other means been used to convince all of them to protect Mr. Obama and not protect the constitution and speak out?Is it the case that up till this time he has been showing a birth cert. but that it didn't matter where he was born and what hospital and so on for any of the things he was getting and now he has to hide all his records and bc. if this is the case those folks with access to those records have a duty to come forward with that info. This is what whistle blower laws are for. Bradley BrooksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76534667203612305482008-12-28T00:14:00.000-05:002008-12-28T00:14:00.000-05:00OBAMA HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ...OBAMA HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DEBATE GO AWAY: WHY DOESN’T HE USE IT?<BR/><BR/>When Obama was running for office, some criticized him for being nonchalant and too soft. They were afraid that he would not stand up for himself or his country when the going gets tough. The way the birth certificate debate just keeps festering with no end in sight, maybe these critics were right.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Obama ran for the Office of President and he therefore has to show that he is a "natural born Citizen." He can at least start to satisfy this showing by proving he was born in Hawaii. This is very simple for him to do-he just produces a certified copy of his Birth Certificate (not a Certification of Live Birth) showing he was born in Hawaii. See my previous post on an explanation of the difference between the two documents. Why as of December 27, 2008 he has yet to produce this document? Is there no official in the whole United States who can provide the public with this very simple bit of evidence? Where is the credible proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth? Let this one official provide our Nation with this piece of evidence so that we can all stop arguing about it and spending so much time and money in the process. If the official's hands are tied because of some State or Federal law on privacy, Obama can help and do the right thing by simply consenting to release the document. I hope that he does not put himself in such high regard that he believes that his privacy rights have greater weight than the public's interest in assuring itself that he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.<BR/><BR/>Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<BR/>December 27, 2008Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16611794779322515992008-12-26T13:29:00.000-05:002008-12-26T13:29:00.000-05:00OBAMA'S PERSONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY CANNOT TRUMP THE...OBAMA'S PERSONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY CANNOT TRUMP THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS<BR/><BR/>The whole reason the PUBLIC cannot get credible information as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii along with other information revealing his past experiences seems to be Obama asserting a privacy right over his personal information. This right to privacy comes from State law and maybe could also have a basis in Federal law. But how can someone running for President of the United States, a public position to say the least, have any reasonable expectation of privacy over his or her personal information regarding who he or she is or what he or she has done in the past. How could any person running for President not reasonably expect to have to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that he or she is a "natural born Citizen?" How could any such individual reasonably expect to put legal blocks up which prevent the public from learning whether he or she is in fact a "natural born Citizen?" <BR/><BR/>Being President of the United States involves protecting national security at its highest level. Given that the United States is a nuclear superpower which can destroy the world and send all its inhabitants to their respective afterlives, I believe that not only do the American people have a right to know who their President is but probably also the rest of the world. Would America want some unknown person gaining control of the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and other nuclear power possessing nations? I believe that the "law of nations" would demand that any nation which will give such power to one individual should at least know the most basic information about that person(like where he was born and what are his or her past accomplishments), even though such information is no guarantee on how that individual will act once he or she gains power. Surely, under these circumstances, a person's individual right to privacy, whether grounded in State or Federal law, must give way to the AMERICAN PUBLIC'S (and that of the international community's) much weightier right to know who such a person is, for not only is America's survival at stake but also that of the World. <BR/><BR/>The public officials who have so far managed to keep Obama's personal information secret need to really understand the consequences of their actions. This is not some little "frivolous" political game (sour grapes, etc.) that concerned Americans are playing in wanting to know who Obama is. Other than President Chester A. Arthur, I do not know when in American history such an ongoing debate about where the President was born came up. Which leads me to the next question as to why then all the alleged "sour grapes" in this Election? Some people argue that today's birth place issue exists simply because Obama is the first African American who stands to become President and that the losers just cannot get over having to have a "Black" President. First, McCain is "White" and the birth place issue was raised by his political opponents without much public fanfare. Also, President Arthur was "White" and the issue was also hotly contested when he ran for Vice President. Additionally, I do not believe that so many truly concerned Americans would be giving this issue so much importance simply because Obama is "Black." <BR/><BR/>Let our Nation come together on this most important national security issue and put it to rest with WE THE PEOPLE having obtained the collective knowledge of who their next President is. <BR/><BR/>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <BR/>Jamesburg, New JerseyMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10651112177815862482008-12-21T23:31:00.000-05:002008-12-21T23:31:00.000-05:00I just watched a YouTube video. It shows Libyan l...I just watched a YouTube video. It shows Libyan leader, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, on Al-Jazeera television giving a speech on June 11, 2008. His speech is heard in his native language and translated into English via English subtitles. During his speech, he refers to Obama as a "black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim." He later refers to Obama as "our African Kenyan brother who is an American national." My question is why would Qadhafi refer to Obama in such a way? What information did Qadhafi rely upon to come to his conclusions regarding Obama's origins? This is more food for thought. The YouTube video can be seen here: <BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZiqexz7aqQ&NR=1<BR/><BR/>Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67193151511439841752008-12-21T19:29:00.000-05:002008-12-21T19:29:00.000-05:00One commentator wrote to me that it was not "ratio...One commentator wrote to me that it was not "rational" to keep questioning where Obama was born. I responded that it was not rational not to demand credible and sufficient proof of such an event. Then someone wrote me the following: "What would happen to our country, if Obama became 'un-elected' based on a birth certificate technicality? Maybe that is the 'rational' reasoning Mr. Snowflack is talking about."<BR/><BR/>To that question, I give the following response: <BR/><BR/>A birth certificate is only a document which provides information as to, among other things, when and were someone was born. The point of contention is not in essence the document but rather the underlying events which are reported in that document. Hence, the issue here is not the birth certificate, but rather where Obama was born. Where he is born is highly relevant given the birth place and undivided allegiance requirements ("natural born Citizen") of Article II of the Constitution. We are therefore not talking about a mere "birth certificate technicality." Rather, we are talking about making sure that Obama is constitutionally eligible (born on U.S. soil) to be President.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, being born on U.S. soil only gets Obama one-half to the finish line. He still has to prove that when he was born on U.S. soil, he had no allegiance to any other country. It must be understood that the snapshot is taken at the time of Obama's birth and not at any subsequent time. I submit that he did have such an allegiance because his father was a British subject. Under the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, a "natural born Citizen," i.e. a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, would not have any such divided allegiance. In deciding the eligibility standard of the President and Vice President, the Framers imposed this most exacting requirement (born on U.S. soil at a time that both mother and father have U.S. citizenship/allegiance) to assure that the new nation would not be attacked from within.<BR/><BR/>Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7932323054341278302008-12-21T14:43:00.000-05:002008-12-21T14:43:00.000-05:00OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AN HONEST ANS...OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AN HONEST ANSWER <BR/><BR/>On the question of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" as that term is used by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, some might simply say it is too late to address such an issue, for the "American people" have spoken and it would be an "injustice" not to carry out their will. But to properly respond to this answer, we have to first analyze who voted for Obama. Then we have to ask ourselves whether we, as a nation founded upon and flourished from our Constitution, can simply refuse to exercise our obligation to make sure that our Constitution has been followed in this Presidential election. <BR/><BR/>First, I would like to comment on who are the "American people" who voted for Obama. Robert Stevens wrote the following at http://drorly.blogspot.com/: "[R]eportedly, Obama votes constituted 63.7 million out of the 122.4 million votes in the 2008 election, out of an estimated population of 305.9 million Americans, not counting US nationals not resident in the US; in other words, no more than 20.89 percent of Americans voted for Obama. . ., and there are currently substantial defections from his base among the liberals, left-wing media, African Americans and anti-war and gay rights activists." I believe that these statistics, assuming they are accurate, lead to a more important question and that is one raised by Alan Keyes, "a high-level Reagan era diplomat, a media personality and a conservative political activist, a well-known staunch pro-life champion and a leader in the effort to restore the eroded sovereignty of the American people by securing our borders, abolishing the federal income tax and bringing the federal Judiciary back within proper constitutional bounds. He formally severed his Republican affiliation in April and was the presidential nominee of America's Independent Party in 2008." This is how he describes himself and I offer the information not to show that I am his supporter but only so that you may have a little background on him. <BR/><BR/>Alan Keyes wrote an excellent piece on the importance of our nation adhering to our Constitution. He states how "passions and affections" can blind us from the reality with which we are faced, causing us to pay "scant attention" to that which is important. He explains the difference between a "constitutional democratic republic" and a "democratic republic," arguing that the United States is the former and not the latter. He shows how in a "constitutional democratic republic," the will of the simple majority is put in check by its Constitution while with a "democratic republic," the will of a simple majority has no such control and can assert its power, for good or bad, over all other elements of the society. Hence, he so distinguishes between a "constitutional democratic majority" and a "simple majority." He explains how it was the Constitution itself which allowed the civil rights advances of the 20th century and allowed black Americans to obtain many of the freedoms they enjoy today, notwithstanding the will of a simple majority that may have wanted things otherwise. He goes on to say that failing to adhere to the Constitution is the beginnings of the creation of a democratic dictatorship. He argues that if our leaders lack the character now to uphold the Constitution for ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition, what can we expect from them once an abuse of power actually materializes. He demands that every government official of the United States must make sure that the Constitution is respected in full, for these officials enter their office upon their oath that they will uphold the Constitution. As part of this duty, he maintains that they must assure that all relevant facts and evidence be publicly and fully presented on the issue of whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. For those who want to read Mr. Keyes full article, it may be read at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640. <BR/><BR/>Our nation is now debating whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be President. It is critical to the continuing positive development of our Constitutional democracy that our leaders comprehensively and honestly address this question. To do otherwise will at best cause millions of Americans to lose faith in the greatness of America and at worst only history can tell. <BR/><BR/>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <BR/>Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com