Constitutional law professor reminds us that Congress can't amend the constitution!!

The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood

Mary Brigid McManamon 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444766

Widener University Delaware Law School
June 2, 2014

********************

[Re: 1952 McCarran-Walter Act--lgstarr]

Page 345: “A bedrock principle of our constitutional system holds that Congress cannot make such an alteration…”

Page 346: “Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute.”

********************

The relationship between Congress and the American Constitution is quite different. According to the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, ¹²¹ to allow Congress the same latitude as Parliament

would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbid[d]en, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.¹²²

Therefore, Congress cannot alter who is eligible to run for President by statute. Such a dramatic change requires a constitutional amendment.¹²³

Unsurprisingly, no evidence suggests Congress intended to expand the class of persons who could run for President. Moreover, early commentators agreed that the use of “natural born” in the first naturalization act did not amend Article II. For example, St. George Tucker¾a professor of law at the College of William and Mary¹²⁴¾published his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries in 1803, wherein he provided his own notes concerning the differences between English and American law.¹²⁵ With respect to naturalization and citizenship, he cited all of the American naturalization statutes enacted to that date, including the 1790 Act.¹²⁶ He then concluded that “[p]ersons [] naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural-born citizens, except . . . they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.”¹²⁷ In any event, Congress swiftly repealed the 1790 statute in 1795.¹²⁸

********************

IV. CONCLUSION The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a ‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?” The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.”

Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

30-year law professor offers correction to Fox News anchor Bret Baier’s explanation of “natural born citizen.”

Attorney Herb Titus, who has taught constitutional law for nearly 30 years and was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., is offering a correction to Fox News anchor Bret Baier’s explanation of “natural born citizen.”

READ MORE

As a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms

My friend, Robert, reminded me that "Obama's first job as an attorney was representing the Joyce Foundation, in convincing law professors that the 2nd Amendment did not pertain to an individual right--in spite of an understanding by all, for 200 years, that it was a right conferred by our Creator, and only enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

Here's the complete story via PJ Media's 2008 article:

Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment.