Some have argued that the president could use this as justification to unilaterally raise the debt limit, though it’s unclear whether courts would consider such a move constitutional.

Because the constitutionality of a law or action has always stopped Barry in the past, right?

The 14th Amendment asserts that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” Some have argued that the president could use this as justification to unilaterally raise the debt limit, though it’s unclear whether courts would consider such a move constitutional.

The 14th amendment clearly does NOt give the President the power to unilaterally raise the debt limit though it certainly does preclude the Precedent from going on TV and erroneously claiming that the US might default on its debt if the limit isn’t raised (when the US gets over $200 billion/mnth in receipts versus debt service of about $20 billion/mnth). What Barky did in making these idiotic threats to default on the debt if the limit wasn’t raised was most certainly un-Constitutional and should have led to his impeachment, conviction, and unceremoniously being tossed from his illegitimate occupation fo the White House … but, instead, the GOP let the Indonesian blame them for his un-Constitutional act and allowed that lie to become accepted wisdom.

What the 14th amendment says is that the debt needs to be serviced with available money before any other feral government expenditures can be made, save defense. THAT is what the 14th amendment means. Of course, we have a SCOTASS that thinks that the feral government can make taxes out of penalties and can tax inaction, at that, so I wouldn’t count on this SCOTASS to know jack about the Constitution or be able to accurately interpret any part of it. Benedict Roberts is an idiot who isn’t qualified to sit on anything other than a park bench.

Establishme… No I won’t make that accusation.

Why do you think the Obama campaign had to scrub their initial claim that “Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”?

Could it be becuase the Supreme Court, in the case of Minor v. Happersett, ruled that

The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.

…

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. 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.

The Supreme Court did not construe the 14th Amendment in that case because Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizens do not need the 14th Amendment in order to be considered citizens.

The contrapositive is that anyone who needs the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a citizen is therefore not a natural born citizen.

And Obama’s own campaign web site in 2008 said:

“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”.

And Obama’s own campaign web site later in 2008 said:

“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.”

Regardless of birthplace, Obama was born a British subject, subject to the British crown. He needed the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a U.S. Citizen. But natural born citizens, born in the country to parents who are its citizens, do not need the 14th Amendment.

Obama may have been a U.S. citizen at birth, but he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Someone born a natural born subject of the British crown is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

The Obama campaign initially claimed:

The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110318175449/http://www.fightthesmears.com//articles/5/birthcertificate.html

However, note that that page also says the following:

“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.”

Obama’s own campaign web site admitted that his “citizenship status” was “governed by” The British Nationality Act of 1948, because his was father was a British subject, not a U.S. citizen.

Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born a British subject… subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.
—————-

Then they updated that page again…

http://web.archive.org/web/20110504021510/http://my.democrats.org/page/content/president-obama-birth-certificate

In 2008, President Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth—the legal birth certificate provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state.

But conspiracy theorists have continued to question the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate in order to manipulate voters into thinking that the President isn’t an American citizen.

It’s time to put an end to this fake controversy—and refocus on debating how we grow our economy, create jobs, get our fiscal house in order, and educate our children for the challenges of the 21st century.

To move on from this distraction, President Obama directed his attorneys to request a waiver from the State of Hawaii to release the long-form version of his birth certificate. That waiver was granted.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Bill Ayres bombed the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon. Bill Ayers engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the United States.

Question: Did Barack Obama ever give aid or comfort to Bill Ayers?

Bill Ayers admitted that Obama and he are “Family Friends”.

You have evidently decided to chuck the entire Constitution and tell the President that he is not bound by his oath to uphold it.

Resist We Much on December 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Sorry, RWM, but that ship sailed a few years back.

You people are utterly shameless and resemble more the leaders of a third world banana republic than the United States of America.

Resist We Much on December 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Heck, some of those banana republic leaders would blush at some of their antics.

There is NO 14th Amendment option, ya bloody totalitarian t@rd.

Resist We Much on December 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Reminds me of how liberals rewrite the “general welfare” clause from “promote the general welfare” to “provide for the general welfare”. Seeing stuff in the Constitution that just isn’t there.