NYT columnist needs to read the Constitution

posted at 11:20 am on November 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Do the editors of the New York Times’ opinion pages ever exercise editorial control over their content?  I missed Gail Collins’ ignorant and obtuse entry yesterday while traveling, but it’s worth highlighting for its sheer stupidity.  She wants George Bush to resign now so that Barack Obama can start running the country before the inauguration:

Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.

Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.

The problem we have is not a vacuum at the top, but an overactive executive throwing money away like there’s no tomorrow — and which has actually intimated that to excuse their actions.  They’ve spent more money in a few short weeks than any time in American history.  At the same time, Bush has negotiated a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq and worked with the G20 to coordinate other economic policies.  He’s not taking two months off, although Congress might take most of December as a vacation.

Beyond her ignorance of the President’s schedule, Collins shows a remarkable ignorance of the Constitution and of American government.  Let’s focus first on the practical implications of her suggestion.  The sudden resignation of the duly elected executive would bring government to a standstill.  Obama hasn’t had enough time to transition between the Bush administration to his team, and Pelosi hasn’t even thought about it.  What happens in the meantime?  Congress hasn’t even received the nominations of the political appointees from Obama.  The new White House staff hasn’t even been chosen.

And Pelosi will suddenly be able to run the executive branch?  Uh, sure.  Collins bases this on the fact that she has two X chromosomes and nothing else.  In fact, while celebrating the idea of making a woman temporary President, she then says that Pelosi will simply do what another man will order her to do.  That little bit of irony somehow escapes Collins, along with common sense and procedural issues.

More importantly, no one voted for Pelosi to be president. The succession act Collins references exists to ensure continuity in case of disaster, not on the whim of a constipated New York Times columnist whose need for instant gratification apparently outweighs the rest of her cerebral processes.

We have representative government with legal processes in place to protect against instability and abuse.  Bush has the responsibility to fulfill the rest of his term and to assist Obama in transitioning smoothly between the two administrations in order to ensure the stability of the US government.  Our constitutional form of government is strong enough to allow for this kind of transition, which it has for 220 years.

Obama will be President on January 20, 2009, and not before.  If Gail Collins can’t wait for that date, then perhaps the New York Times should send her on an extended leave of absence so that she doesn’t further embarrass herself or her paper in the next two months.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

On the rare occasions that a NYT, LAT or WaPo reporter or any Democrat politician has actually read the Constitution, it has only been in the vain attempt to find a loophole.

Same with our current administration.

sethstorm on November 24, 2008 at 1:22 AM

Stupid is as stupid does…Since the NYT isn’t a very endearing entity now, how ’bout a new moniker for “the Old Grey Lady”…something like, “the old grey mare” or “the wrinkly old grey lady” or “Dunsil”?…

Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 2:07 AM

Uhm yeah … and what is NYT stock trading at these days?

Perhaps their hiring uneducated idiots in order to cut costs.

HondaV65 on November 24, 2008 at 2:31 AM

I would like to endorse this plan. It could be handled constitutionally, and here’s how.

First, Vice President Cheney resigns. President Bush pardons him for shits and giggles, which infuriates the lefties all that much more. Then He can resign under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. The Speaker of the House becomes President. Nancy Pelosi then has to resign from Congress in order to become President, and that means we’re rid of that a$$. She doesn’t get her seat back automatically, she actually has to run for it again in a special election. We republicans throw our weight behind Cindy Sheehan, and really muck up the works in Frisco.

Then Barack Obama is nominated as Vice President, confirmed by both houses of Congress. Then Nancy Pelosi resigns, and Barack Obama is President. Most it would take, is a day.

Here’s the best part. The remaining two months of this Presidential Term, counts as one term in his two term limit. Yes, check it out, read the Amendments if you doubt me. Then, he can’t run for re-election in 2012, making that Presidential Election a free form fight all over again. This time, we don’t accept Huckabee, Romney, or any of the Moderates, instead throwing all our mighty weight behind Palin or Jindal. We have a conservative President, a term and two months of Obama, and Pelosi gone. What a great system this NY Times reporter has. Awesome. Turning Obama into a fifty month President.

Snake307 on November 24, 2008 at 3:05 AM

And Bimbo Betty doesn’t take into account what a double executive resignation would do to Wall Street.
Think the DJA have tanked? What would you think a double resignation would do?
Bimbo Betty the Screeching Goose.

Amendment X on November 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM

I’ve come to the conclusion that the left have absolutely no grasp on the concept of cause&effect as it pertains to a free market economy.

For example – they don’t seem to understand that businesses won’t simply EAT higher taxes – they will pass along the cost to their employees and customers.

Religious_Zealot on November 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM

For the left, intent is everything. It makes no difference whether it works or not, or what the negative side effects are, or even if it will backfire. The important thing is that you tried!

That’s one reason we have trouble communicating with them. We tend to ask, “Is this a good idea?” They only ask, “Is this a good goal?”

There’s an old saying that conservatives immediately understand: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” That concept is absent on the left.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 24, 2008 at 3:20 AM

Liberalism seems to degrade brain function…

darwin on November 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM

A minor nitpick, but you’re reversing the causal relationship. ‘liberalism’ doesn’t cause degraded brain function. Degraded brain function causes ‘liberalism’.

DarkCurrent on November 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM

I think darwin had it right in the first place. Liberalism is the cause of degraded brain functioning. This is due primarily to the stultifying effects of political correctness. A liberal has to refuse any thought that might lead to a (politically) incorrect thought. It’s just a matter of time before they stop thinking altogether.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 24, 2008 at 3:26 AM

Snake307 on November 24, 2008 at 3:05 AM

Apparently you missed the 22nd Amendment.
Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
So NO, you are wrong.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2008 at 3:56 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Benny, you are an absolute idiot to defend what this deranged woman has said. Once upon a time the NYT might have been respectable, but in recent times it isn’t.

But of course, one cannot expect much of an idiotic liberal – certainly not intelligence.

MBP1982 on November 24, 2008 at 4:30 AM

Collins don’t need to read the Constitution. She got a summary of the penumbras.

curved space on November 24, 2008 at 6:03 AM

Man, I need to get a job in Journalism. Where else can you be as STUPID as this woman seems to be, and actually get paid for letting everyone know it???

Wanderlust on November 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM

a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Oooooh. Does that mean they’re good? I idolize award winners. Especially Pulitzers. I guess all the actual idiocy and drivel on their pages must have some higher purpose to it …

progressoverpeace on November 24, 2008 at 6:17 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Come to think of it, what’s a Pulitzer worth these days?

Dee2008 on November 24, 2008 at 6:47 AM

A Pulitzer Prize is what is awarded to a sleazy, deceitful socialist propagandist pretending to be a journalist by an organization dedicated to rewarding sleazy, deceitful socialist propagandists.

Phil Byler on November 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM

I am sure Obama and his team treasure every day they can get between now and inauguration day. And they probably wish they had even more time until they take on the Presidency.

albill on November 24, 2008 at 7:04 AM

2012, Sarah Palin is elected President of the US. Will ANYBODY at the NY Times suggest that Obama immediately resign? BIAS, ignorance, unprincipled Democrat Media of America makes Joe Goebbels look like an unhonorable journalist.

Max47 on November 24, 2008 at 7:15 AM

This woman is a full-blown caricature of a galloping moron. She’s unbelievable!

AntonK on November 23, 2008 at 2:42 PM

HA! “Galloping moron”, I love that. I’m stealing that.

Dash on November 24, 2008 at 7:23 AM

You guys compare the New York Times to Der Angriff?

You are so wrong. I abhor Nazis but compared to the New York Times and MSNBC — they were absolutely effervescent. Probably because Gobbels had much more talent as an editor and a mission that was defined beyond trashing the greatest nation in history and Anglo-Saxon culture.

Those publications had a sense of style that used the best of the 30′s decade and a defined mission with a glorification of their readership. The whole country probably felt great after reading them. And ready to continue to fight and sacrifice instead of looking for allies or nanny government.

They also had an attitude, a tilt of the head if you will, that signaled to everyone that they would do anything they wanted to achieve their goals — and were probably lying.

I was wndering what would become of Keith Olberman, Chrissy and the NYT staff if they found themselves in a Nazi regime. Then I realized that they would fit right in. The anger, the supine scratching to please The One and his minions, the creativity in finding new things to glory The One and his party. Just following orders…And Maddow would look better in a black SS uniform than those sharkskin suits and phony tie substitutes she wears.

IlikedAUH2O on November 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM

“…take the risk in the name of a greater good god.”

There. Fixed it.

TimBuk3 on November 24, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

Ha. It’s even cuter when people who get their news from the NYT think that the Pulitzer is a meaningful award anymore….

Priscilla on November 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM

And liberals said Bush likes to abuse the Constitution.

It’s always acceptable for liberals to abuse the Constitution, because they mean well.

drjohn on November 24, 2008 at 9:16 AM

Pulitzer Prizes.

That’s the prize awarded to those who do the most damage to consservative causes and to conservatives directly.

It is as meaningful today as the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize is no longer awarded to those who accomplish anything. Potential recipients need only care. Those who care the most win the award.

drjohn on November 24, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Ed, if you are going to keep this person’s picture on the front page of the site. Can you put a virtual paper bag over her face so I don’t have to look at it?

Kjeil on November 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Hey benny, keep that up and you’ll win an Oscar for a film whose every premise has been debunked.

Liberals think everything is American Idol.

BKennedy on November 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM

I’m trying to imagine the scene at the NYT where some editor got this column, read it, and actually said, “yeah, this is good. We should print this.” Seriously, I want to know what was going on in the newsroom when this (surely Ivy-league-credentialed) newspaperman saw this piece of crap, ignored everything he ever learned in 7th grade civics, and thought that it was worthy to be printed. I mean, really. I’ve seen more insightful and educated op eds in my junior high newspaper. And those were on mundane topics like the quality of chicken nuggets in the school cafeteria.

patriette on November 24, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Rather than comment on her generic/idiot NYTimes columnist opinion, let’s look at the bigger picture of who these people are. Her picture tells you everything you need to know – the lesbo haircut (it’s not a “hairdo”), the brown teeth, the dullard look.

She’s a liberal frump. I thought that with the dashing Obama, all these dumpy little oafs were going to try and doll themselves up, or something?

Jaibones on November 24, 2008 at 9:34 AM

As someone who lives in the Midwest, you will have to excuse me, but I really don’t care what the NYT has to say unless they are undermining our security. Why get all worked up over a publication that you cannot trust to give you the news straight to begin with?

jjjdad on November 24, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Heh. Hey, bozo, how many prestigious awards did they get from their ideological buddies at Pulitzer for their stunning work on Stalin and the USSR?

Pulitzer is a meaningless award outside of the leftist ranks. It’s like Nobel, a badge of shame.

Jaibones on November 24, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Gail Collins has been watching too much Keith Olbermann.

SoulGlo on November 24, 2008 at 9:41 AM

NYT’s columnist = irrelevant left-leaning writer of questionable ability, working for a company desperate to regain it’s past relevance.

We may as well debate the significance of posts on the Onion.

hawksruleva on November 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Speak for yourself. I don’t like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. But I’m sure you get your news from Keith Olberman, Bill Maher on the weekends, and Jon Stewart. I hate Republicans because comedians Bill Maher and Jon Stewart told me to!!!

terryannonline on November 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM

hey, Benny Shakar. Are you saying you think the columnist’s idea is valid, or has merit?

We’re just providing our honest analysis of the NY Times and its role in modern life. It is, by and large, a political organ espousing a minority viewpoint, that endeavors to portray its favored candidates in a fair light, and its opponent’s candidates in a negative light. What’s scurrilous is that it still maintains that it’s the newspaper of record. But tons of news goes unremarked or underreported there. For example, NY Times didn’t realize that we were winning the Iraq war until months after most objective observer had pointed it out. In fact, some NY Times reporters had come to that conclusion, but that information couldn’t force it’s way past the “Iraq is irretrievably lost” headlines.

hawksruleva on November 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM

This is just one of the many reasons people trust getting information from the Internet now more then the Media. What boggles me though is how most of the media does not realize this or understand why. It is like they live with their heads in the sand.

JeffinSac on November 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

A putz with a Pulitzer Prize is still a putz.

SoulGlo on November 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM

The National Enquirer has more credibly these days than the Times. It is a joke and no one I know takes it seriously at all.

Repubtallygirl on November 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Same with our current administration.

sethstorm on November 24, 2008 at 1:22 AM

You know, this is a favorite meme by the left – President Bush has mangled the Constitution.

Yet that is all I ever hear – I never hear any detailed analysis of:
- WHICH parts of the Constitution have been violated and
- a detailed explanation on WHY they believe they those parts have been violated (besides “just because”)

Religious_Zealot on November 24, 2008 at 10:13 AM

NYT’s columnist = irrelevant left-leaning writer of questionable ability, working for a company desperate to regain it’s past relevance.

We may as well debate the significance of posts on the Onion.

hawksruleva on November 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Truest Post ever.

BiasedGirl on November 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM

And, Obama hasn’t even been elected yet, since the Electoral College hasn’t met. The Electoral College elects the President, after all.. I wonder which 220-year old document that piece of information was from..

I guess to the socialist scum who are now preparing to lord over us, the constitution means absolutely nothing. Well, it means a lot to us, and we own 95% of the guns… (that pesky Second Amendment thingy).

If this crazy woman were a dog (albeit a very ugly, stupid one), she’d be mercifully put out of her misery..

TexasJew on November 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Well that certainly cuts it for me! How could we possibly question a “news”paper of such sterling reputation? Oh yea, there are those pesky little problems with Jason Blair and other reporters fired for making stuff up, I believe! And then there is the shameless promotion of all things democRATic! But they do have their little awards, passed on by other people in the same business that they are in…in other words they get recognized by the same idiots that write the same tripe that they do… Yup…I’m impressed!!!

sabbott on November 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM

How nice of the idiot columnist to suggest that he’s president-elect. Not until December 15 when the electoral college meets.

Details, details, details.

Tennman on November 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Just another reason why The Journal is eating that paper’s marketshare one mouthful at a time….she’s classless and ignorant.

Biffstir on November 24, 2008 at 12:34 PM

NYT columnist needs to read the Constitution

Journalists write, they don’t read…if they read they would read what they wrote and not write it…a Catch 22 (if they read that they would know it).

right2bright on November 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM

so that she doesn’t further embarrass herself or her paper in the next two months.

Is this even possible? There is actually room for them to be dumber? Holy crap.

wildweasel on November 24, 2008 at 12:51 PM

What boggles me though is how most of the media does not realize this or understand why. It is like they live with their heads in the sand.

JeffinSac on November 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM

You’re making assumptions about the intelligence of the media without any evidence that this moron even passed third grade civics.

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Ed: Would you please remove this dumb woman’s ugly mug and yellow teeth from your blog. I’d settle for a picture of the NYT’s building or newspaper. I’ve gotten so used to Mrs. Palin’s pretty face…the guys I expect to be gruesome, but not the gals…Sorry, my sexism is showing itself.

gracie on November 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Silly beeyotch.
I would hope she’s not serious, but alas, I believe in her twisted mind, she is.
Please bring back REAL civics education in the classroom.

Badger40 on November 24, 2008 at 1:16 PM

They used to have a name for women like this “brown birds” dull and and non discript.

Dr Evil on November 24, 2008 at 1:29 PM

The NYT does hire based on educational or occpational abilities or experience but rather based on political ideology. Mind you, there’s the “token’ rublican hired now and then but they’re few and far between. One things for certain, the NYT isn’t a journalistic venture so much as a propaganda outlet for the far left and I for one think Barrack Hussien Obama should have all the air and print that was dedicated to him during the election counted as campaign contributions which, BTW, would’ve been illegal contributions considering their worth.

TrickyDick on November 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Both will use trickle up socialism.

Happy Holidays comrades!

getalife on November 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM

The National Enquirer has more credibly these days than the Times.
Repubtallygirl on November 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Ohhhhhh, now I understand you people.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM

You can never accuse NYT of hiring journalists for their looks…

right2bright on November 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Well, you moronic leftist douchebag, the National Enquirer did break the Edwards-mistress-cheating-on-his-cancer-stricken-wife story. When has the NYT broke something as significant.

Jayson Blair stories don’t count.

PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2008 at 1:58 PM

awww aint she a bute?

and the icing on the cake is that
shes just as beautiful on the inside :)

tamtam20 on November 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM

And maybe we could get an adult to write opinion at the NYT

I got an idea. Skip elections because people vote wrong. Fire anyone with bushy eyebrows. Get all new people at the NYT who write good. Make a funny. Do smart stuff. Find thingees people need and buy a bunch. If a guy does bad stuff make him go away. Group hugs. Articulate gooder. Use your thinking cap to think higher than anyone has thunked before. God dodn’t give me a brain, people gave me a brain so use it for me.

I can do this forever. Where is my paycheck. Who am I and why am I still here? Where is here? Where is my pizza. I hate the delivery guy. Kill him and eat his pizza. Thanks mommy I have to hang up now

entagor on November 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM

the National Enquirer did break the Edwards-mistress-cheating-on-his-cancer-stricken-wife story. When has the NYT broke something as significant?
PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Congratulations, my friend…

This is the funniest post in the history of the internet.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Really, isn’t it time to take down her picture and replace it with something easier on the eyes? It’s getting harder and harder to refresh the page.

exlibris on November 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Really, isn’t it time to take down her picture and replace it with something easier on the eyes? It’s getting harder and harder to refresh the page.

exlibris on November 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Who ever said journalism was pretty?

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Who ever said journalism was pretty?
highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 3:06 PM

I’d imagine it was the people responsible for this mess.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Mental masturbation from the gray lady. Color me surprised.

steadyrock on November 24, 2008 at 3:33 PM

It’s amazing how such a stupid woman could be a writer at such and old newspaper. I could do a better job, without a journalism degree.

worlok on November 24, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

Stupid is as stupid does. You can try to defend the NYT, but the idiocy of this column speaks for itself.

tom on November 24, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Our Constitution means nothing anymore according to some.
One man is enduring death threats and is currently being protected by the FBI for standing up for the Constitution AGAINST OBAMA.Listen on YouTube here and here.
.

Constitution, what constitution?
The grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

NightmareOnKStreet on November 24, 2008 at 5:18 PM

“perhaps the New York Times should send her on an extended leave of absence so that she doesn’t further embarrass herself or her paper ”

how could the NY Slimes possible further embarras itself?

Maybe it could make all of its reporter wear speedos all the time?

notagool on November 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM

She reminds me of a girl I knew in High School back in the mid 70′s. Dull, nearly lifeless, and people thought she smelled of dirty clothes baskets. No one could ever remember her name even when they had the same class as her, and according to a search on classmates.com she had moved to California to stalk Ann Heche.

Yes, she must be used to disappointment.

44Magnum on November 24, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Has Ms. Collins ever heard of Crest White strips?

katy on November 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Katy hit the nail on the head. The woman is so fugly and needs to fix her teeth!!!! Stupid and ugly — what a bad combo.

Callie C. on November 24, 2008 at 7:26 PM

We could put Frank and Dodd in charge. They seem to know how to manage finances /s

wepeople on November 24, 2008 at 7:36 PM

It’s people like this that want to make laws based on warm and fuzzy feelings.

JellyToast on November 24, 2008 at 8:16 PM

I’d imagine it was the people responsible for this mess.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Say what you want about Ann Coulter (and she can be overbearing at times) but she’s always factually correct.

Answer me this. How is it that a rabid Bush-hater can get a commentary published in one of the nation’s most influential newspapers without any editor bothering to point out that her blather doesn’t even make sense from a Constitutional, let alone practical standpoint. This ugly stupid woman doesn’t write for The Pennysaver! Supposedly there are intelligent highly-paid professionals as part of the process to step in when stuff like this gets past the initial gatekeepers. So how does something this stupid make it to print?

The bastard-elect CAN’T take office until the Electoral College votes and he is inagurated in accordance with the Constitution. This was nothing more than a spiteful piece by a rabid liberal who has no reason to live beyond hating people who don’t precisely think like she does. Mark my words she has cats at home and a really crappy dental plan.

To close, I’ll point out the fact that transition period used to extend into March. Waiting that long to change administrations would probably put Collins in a mental health facilty, which wouldn’t be a bad thing since she is clearly unhinged. I’d just be concerned about the plight of her cats.

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 8:36 PM

How do people like this get to write for a major newspaper?

I sure wish I had enough money to buy out the Times and make it a respectable paper for the first time.

Sapwolf on November 24, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Mono-brow plucked — NO CHANGE!

Remember that old Twilight Zone, where the ugly woman had plastic surgery? It’s like that — only without the surprise ending.

Feedie on November 24, 2008 at 9:25 PM

….but it’s worth highlighting for its sheer stupidity.

Yup! That’s what it was.

I suppose that there is a course in journalism schools that teach this now.

JohnnyD on November 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

TRY to disparage? Who’s trying? I just sit back and let those nitwits do it all by themselves.

Kowboy on November 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM

This was nothing more than a spiteful piece by a rabid liberal who has no reason to live beyond hating people who don’t precisely think like she does. Mark my words she has cats at home and a really crappy dental plan.

Hey! What do cats have to do with anything?

I used to be strictly a dog lover (for my first 42 years of life), until I married a cat lover, thereby becoming a cat lover by default. We now have 3 beautiful, affectionate, amusing felines, each with a personality all his/her own.

Still love dogs though. Hope to have one again someday, but that will require a bigger house, or a few of the cats dying, or some combination of both.

So, I submit that Gail Collins’ poor attitude and lack of intellect is more likely due to her crappy benefits package than her preference of four-legged companionship.

UltimateBob on November 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM

UltimateBob on November 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Yeah, I love kittehs too. I’ve owned six or seven of them, with a fair amount of dogs thrown in. Right now, I have a Siberian husky and a gray haired 8 year old cat that has nothing better to do all day than sleep on my pillow.

Ryan Gandy on November 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM

UltimateBob

The cats aren’t the issue, it’s the crazy cat lady thing. She probably has thirty feral felines living in a one bedroom apartment eating roaches, crapping in her handbag.

benny shakar

The same paper who brought you the likes of Jayson Blair. The same paper stating “Mr Blair repeatedly violated the cardinal tenet of journalism, which is simply truth,” yet runs a story above the fold of McCain “affair” with Vicki Iseman? That same bastion of truth that refused to report on John Edwards real affair while his wife was suffering with cancer? Refused ads from people they wanted to censor, published the infamous General Betrayus…man you must be as dumb as a bag of rocks.

PatriotPete on November 25, 2008 at 12:19 PM

SHE DON’T NEED NO STEENKING CONSTITUTION–it isn’t a lot of help to a person too stupid to read it and understand it. (With apology to Humphrey Bogart.)

John Bibb

rocketman on November 25, 2008 at 1:13 PM

It’s been hours since anybody has commented on this ugly woman’s idiotic comments. Can we at least relegate this thread to the bottom of the right-hand side? I’m sick and tired of looking at this whore.

highhopes on November 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Three years and the NYT will be out of business.

Static on November 26, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Someone may have mentioned this, but Obama hasn’t even been elected to office (in the technical and procedural sense). That happens, IIRC, on 15 December.

Roxeanne de Luca on November 26, 2008 at 1:38 PM

She looks like she has body hair and BO and a girl friend!

sabbott on November 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Thank goodness this butt ugly face is going to be off the front page soon.

Kjeil on November 26, 2008 at 8:51 PM

She looks like Huck with hair. Check him out above…..get the both of them off the front page and give us all a Happy Thanksgiving.

gracie on November 27, 2008 at 8:04 AM

NightmareOnKStreet, I don’t condone death threats against anybody, but this idiot should be getting his share of “withdraw this case now or lose your law license” threats from the judge and “sorry, Mr. Attention-Grabber, but your mommy doesn’t love you and neither do we” non-threats from everyone else. His argument is even more frivolous than Alan Keyes’s, which I previously didn’t think was possible.

Xrlq on November 27, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3