Follow Sunlit Uplands by E-Mail

Showing posts with label U. S. Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U. S. Constitution. Show all posts

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Dr. Larry Arnn: Introduction to the U. S. Constitution


This excellent presentation by Hillsdale President Larry Arnn is part of a superb series of courses offered online by Hillsdale College.

Hillsdale's educational mission rests upon two principles: academic excellence and institutional independence. The College does not accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies for any of its operations.

Located in rural southern Michigan, the nearly 400-acre Hillsdale campus includes both modern and historic buildings. Excellent facilities include comfortable residence halls, subject-specific computer labs, a state-of-the-art health education and sports complex, Michael Alex Mossey Library with its Leighton-Taylor Wing, the Sage Center for the Arts, the Herbert Henry Dow Science Building, Howard Music Hall and two new classroom buildings—Kendall Hall and Lane Hall. Adjacent to the campus is the model primary and secondary school, Hillsdale Academy, whose comprehensive Reference Guide is used in hundreds of schools throughout the country.


Saturday, June 2, 2012

Obama At Large: Where Are The Lawyers?

"The bombings by Mr. Obama, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, trample proper constitutional authority, separation of powers, and checks and balances and constitute repeated impeachable offenses."

By Ralph Nader

The rule of law is rapidly breaking down at the top levels of our government. As officers of the court, we have sworn to “support the Constitution,” which clearly implies an affirmative commitment on our part.

Take the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The conservative American Bar Association sent three white papers to President Bush describing his continual unconstitutional policies. Then and now civil liberties groups and a few law professors, such as the stalwart David Cole of Georgetown University and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, have distinguished themselves in calling out both presidents for such violations and the necessity for enforcing the rule of law.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Dr. Larry Arnn: 'Self-Government or Czarist Bureaucracy'



The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document, but also a humble one. American government, it proclaimed, would be at all times subservient to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Today, in higher education and in politics, those laws are held not to exist. As a direct result, our government rules according to its unchecked will, and we are seeing the reduction of politics to force. The key to reversing this trend--thus to reviving liberty--is a return to our ancient faith.

Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. He also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he was director of research for Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985-2000, Dr. Arnn was president of the Claremont Institute. He is the author of Liberty and Learning: The Evolution of American Education.

The First Principles on First Fridays monthly lecture series was launched in 2008 by the Hillsdale College Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President


Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

OBAMA - Admitted:

1. I was born in Kenya.

2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.

4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.

6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham. 7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.

8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen. 9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.

10. I was not born in Hawaii. 11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.

12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii. 13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.

14. I am a citizen of Indonesia. 15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.

16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen. 17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.

18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends. 19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.

20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. 21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.

22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. 23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.

24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen. 25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.

26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name. 27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth. 29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name. 31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine. 33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.

34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed. 35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.

36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen. 37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.

40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law. 41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.

42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.

44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means. 45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.

46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.

48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. 51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.

52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. 53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.

54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law. 55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.

56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.

DNC - Admitted:

1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.

2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama. 3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.

4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.

8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.
9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.

10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.

12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States. 13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.

14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States. 15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.

16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from. 17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.

18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates. 19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.

22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.

26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans. 27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

Friday, June 27, 2008

McCain's Day of Repudiation


From Real Clear Politics
By George Will

Two of Thursday's Supreme Court rulings -- both decided 5-4, and with the same alignment of justices -- concerned the Constitution's first two amendments. One ruling benefits Barack Obama by not reviving the dormant debate about gun control. The other embarrasses John McCain by underscoring discordance between his deeds and his promises.

The District of Columbia's gun control law essentially banned ownership of guns not kept at businesses and not disassembled or disabled by trigger locks, even guns for personal protection in the home. The issue in the case was: Does the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" guarantee an individual right? Or does the amendment's prefatory clause -- "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" -- mean that the amendment guarantees only the right of a collectivity ("the people," embodied in militias) to "bear" arms in military contexts?

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who believes that construing the Constitution should begin, and often end, with analysis of what the text meant to its authors, the court affirmed the individual right. Scalia cited the ancient British right -- deemed a pre-existing, inherent, natural right, not one created by government -- of individuals to own arms as protection against tyrannical government and life's other hazards. Scalia also cited American state constitutional protections of the right to arms, protections written contemporaneously with the drafting of the Second Amendment.

Scalia's opinion, joined by John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, radiates an understanding that the right to arms is the right of each individual to protect his rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence the Second Amendment is integral to the Bill of Rights and is, for weighty reasons, second only to the First.

Obama benefits from this decision. Although he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation -- nullification, really -- of the Second Amendment, as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the "individual right" interpretation. Had the court held otherwise, emboldened gun-control enthusiasts would have thrust this issue, with its myriad cultural overtones, into the campaign, forcing Obama either to irritate his liberal base or alienate many socially conservative Democratic men.

The McCain-Feingold law abridging freedom of political speech -- it restricts the quantity, timing and content of such speech -- included a provision, the Millionaires' Amendment, that mocked the law's veneer of disinterested moralizing about "corruption." The provision unmasked the law's constitutional recklessness and its primary purpose, which is protection of incumbents.

The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor -- the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.

Declaring the Millionaires' Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government's interest in combating "corruption" or the "appearance" thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates' financial resources.

The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires' Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.

This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona's and Maine's, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.

The more McCain talks -- about wicked "speculators," about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet's thermostat, etc. -- the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

American Liberty Teetering on Edge of Abyss

As an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts became known as the “Father of Reaganomics.” A distinguished economist, journalist, and nationally syndicated columnist, he is the author of eight books and a recipient of the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.

His recent column in Chronicles, “American Liberty Teetering on Edge of Abyss,” is a “must read” for anyone who cares about liberty and the rule of law under the United States Constitution. In it Roberts summarizes the shocking erosion of power from the people and their representatives to a President “who can do whatever he wants.”

Conservatives may acquiesce to this subverting of the Constitution now, but will a Democrat President be any more respectful of the “separate but equal” legislative branch, or be willing to part with those powers Bush has usurped?