Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Some might wonder whatdoes health care and the “natural born Citizen” clause have to do witheach other. The answer is the survival of our Constitution and Republicby stopping the usurpation of government power.

In the context of speaking about slavery that existed during theFounding era, Obama told us that the Constitution is an “imperfectdocument.” It has now become apparent that the flaw that Obama seeswith our governing document is much more fundamental and goes wellbeyond what he said related to the early slave experience. For Obama,that flaw is that the Constitution is obligatory, is a strong check ongovernment power, and cannot be changed by just one person.

We have seen Obama brazenly ignore the Constitution’s eligibilityrequirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, theOffice of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We haveseen how Obama has the audacity to be President and Commander withouthonoring and respecting the Constitution by showing that he is at leastborn in Hawaii as he claims and satisfying the definition of a “naturalborn Citizen” as originally intended by the Framers and Founders. Thatis a violation of the document he swore twice to “preserve, protect anddefend.”

Such conduct by Obama lead many to ask if Obama does not respectand defend the Constitution and so publicly defies it once, what willstop him from doing the same a second and third time. These Americanswere right in expressing such concern, for now we have Obamacare whichis just another example of Obama flouting and ignoring the Constitution.

Now he wants to force upon the nation a health care system under theguise that the Federal Government can do so because that system doesnothing more than regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, he wantsto accomplish his plan without even adhering to legitimate legislativeprocess. How he can honestly believe that a person who does not buy agood or service (such as health insurance) or who the governmentcompels to do so under the threat of a camouflaged income tax isengaged in interstate commerce or gives the government the right tointerfere in such personal decisions based on some other constitutionalprovision defies reason and common sense. Treating people’s refusal tobuy health insurance as interstate commerce or triggering some otherconstitutional governmental power would in effect give Congressunlimited authority to control every aspect of people’s lives. Whensomething defies logic, we have to ask ourselves what is the realmotive involved. Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama’shealth care plan is nothing more than the government taking more moneyfrom productive members of society and giving it to those who needmoney but do not have it for various reasons, with the centralgovernment in the process usurping great powers and control over thepeople’s lives including but not limited to violating their privacyrights over their own bodies, their medical and financial privacy,their right to decide how much medical care one needs, their right tofree speech and association, their right to exercise their religion,doctors’ right to earn a living as they see fit, their right not to beillegally taxed, and their right to make end-of-life decisions. This isnothing but Obama and his Congress declaring a socialist revolutionupon the American people and attempting to sneak that revolution rightby them by dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There exists proof in the form of Obama’s own words that his healthinsurance plan is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth whichthe government has no power to do under our Constitution. Obama madesome appearances as a guest on Odyssey, a talk show at Chicago PublicRadio. Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at theUniversity of Chicago Law School, was on the program 3 times between1998 and 2002. Here is an excerpt from the call-in segment for theSlavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. Hereis the transcript from 2001 as posted at Free Republic at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts:

“MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FMand we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the Universityof Chicago.

“OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rightsmovement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where itsucceeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sitat the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d beokay.

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistributionof wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economicjustice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people triedto characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’tbreak free from the essential constraints that were placed by thefounding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s beeninterpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way thatgenerally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It sayswhat the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal governmentcan’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or thestate government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. Oneof the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because thecivil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was atendency to lose track of the political and community organizing andactivities on the ground that are able to put together the actualcoalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed changeand in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Indeed, there we have it in Obama’s own words. There is little doubtthat Obamacare is nothing more than Obama’s means of achieving what heperceives to be “political and economic justice in this society” byusing “redistribution of wealth.” He even concedes that redistributionof wealth is a “radical” idea. He admits that the Warren court couldnot achieve such “political and economic justice” because it could notbreak free from the “essential constraints that were placed by thefounding fathers in the Constitution.” And here is the real flaw thatObama sees with the Constitution: “it doesn’t say what the federalgovernment or the state government must do on your behalf.”

We can see that Obama does not accept that the Tenth Amendment saysthat whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the federalgovernment or prohibit to the States is reserved to the States or thepeople. What is it that Obama wants the government to do “on yourbehalf?” One can only wonder why Obama believes that a government mustdo some unspecified thing for people. Is it love of power and controlover people that compels him to harbor such ideas? We can see thatObama realizes that my right to sit at the lunch counter is freedom “aslong as I could pay for it.” Hence, comes his plan to redistributewealth. Obama admits that such radical change has not yet beenaccomplished through the courts. He also does not accept the “essentialconstraints” the Founders and Framers wrote into the Constitution.Hence, he offers a plan on how to get around those limitations. Hetells us that such radical change must be accomplished through“political and community organizing and activities on the ground thatare able to put together the actual coalitions of power through whichyou bring about redistributed change.” So there you have it very loudand clear. Obama admits that the Constitution does not allow him toengage in any such “redistribution of wealth” and that the Courts havenever gone as far to permit it. But his plan is to accomplish it bychanging the political structure of America which would give him thepower to accomplish what is currently unconstitutional. Obama’s fear ofthe courts is evidenced from provisions that provide that no companycan sue the government for price fixing and there will be no judicialreview of government monopoly of health care. Of course, Obama’s plannecessarily includes also changing the current make-up of our courts.Maybe this is the “change” that he had in mind when he said that if hewon the Presidency he was going to “change” America.

Obama has totally ignored the Constitution’s eligibility requirementsfor the highest and most powerful office in the land, the President andCommander in Chief of the Military. The problem with that violation isthat we have a person sitting in the President’s and Commander’s seatwho is not eligible to be there. Practically speaking, that is a gravenational security matter that puts America at risk not only from attackfrom enemies both foreign and domestic but as we can see also threatensAmerica’s basic political institutions and freedoms. I believe it is afair question to ask whether we would have an attack on America’sfundamental political, social, and economic institutions from aPresident who was a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders and Framersincluded the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitutionbelieving that it would give America a better chance of avoiding such aperson coming to power. The remedy for such usurpation is toimmediately remove Obama from office and to secure that office with areplacement, all consistent with constitutional procedure.

During the Revolution, the People risked their lives, fortunes, andhonor to earn the right to decide what powers they wanted to give toany national government that they would eventually constitute for thepurpose of protecting themselves. The People drafted and ratified theConstitution as their written expression of their decision in thatregard. Now through his new government-run health care system, Obamaflouts the will of the People as expressed in the Constitution that thefederal government stay out of the private affairs of the People. Obamaand his Congress have now assumed powers that the Constitution does notgive to the central government but rather leaves in the hands of thePeople and the States under the Tenth Amendment. And we have seenthrough Obama’s own words, that he knows that what he is attempting toaccomplish is unconstitutional but he will nevertheless force itthrough by utilizing “political and community organizing and activitieson the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions ofpower through which you bring about redistributed change.”

Practically speaking, such usurpation is a government attempt atnationalizing over one-sixth (and probably even more once we learn byexperience what the full impact of his plan really is) of the privateeconomy. Add to that government ownership of some banks, auto makers,and insurance companies, and we have a very serious assault upon thefree enterprise system and the American way of life. Thomas Jeffersontold us that “[w]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegatedpowers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force” and that"nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." Thomas Jefferson,November 16, 1798, Kentucky Resolution athttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj080201)).

Jefferson also warned against construing the "necessary and proper"clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers bythe general government. He said that the intent of the clause was toonly enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extendthe general government's scope. If a broader interpretation were to begiven to the clause, this part of the Constitution would be used "todestroy the whole residue of that instrument." Jefferson also counseledthe states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitution andnot hesitant to attack unconstitutional measures by Congress or thePresident. He continued: "[F]ree government is founded in jealously andnot in confidence" and therefore urged that "no more be heard ofconfidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of theConstitution." In other words, the states and the People should nottrust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply becausethose officials might be otherwise trusted to exercise those powersbenevolently. He warned that this kind of "confidence of man" leads tothe destruction of free government. The next question we should askourselves is what other assaults upon the Constitution can we expectfrom Obama and his Congress? Let us keep open our ears and eyes. Letour great States follow Jefferson’s wisdom and protect our freedoms.

The Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case, whichchallenges both Obama and Congress over Obama having usurped the Officeof President and Commander in Chief, is currently pending in the ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and is awaiting the Court’sdecision on plaintiffs’ request for oral argument. Many States andprivate persons have recently filed lawsuits over Obama’s new nationalhealth care plan. It is hoped that the People closely monitor theprogress of these law suits as they make their way through the courtsand that they make themselves publicly heard on the matter.

This leads me to my final point. We the People need to understand thatObama will surely attempt to change the composition of or influence ourjudicial branch of government so that he can accomplish hisunconstitutional ends. Now we can clearly see how important judicialappointments and an independent judiciary are to the survival of ourConstitution and Republic and the freedoms we individuals all enjoy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 26, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####