Sotomayor: “Constitution is a “Timeless” Document That Was Written to Take Us “Generations & Decades” Into the Future

It is day 2 of the confirmation hearings and I have to say, not since the Thomas confirmation hearings have I been so glued to the debate because of its impact on our future as well as all generations to come.

Now, while some say that Sotomayor’s confirmation will not really have an impact on the overall balance of the court, I couldn’t disagree more. Sotomayor’s history is fact to that and also the recent interviews of Ginsburg & Breyer are very disturbing in the fact that for the 1st time, we could actually have a Supreme Court so radically balanced in favor of the progressive/statist agenda. A balance unequally  in favor of the possibility of the statists/progressives getting many of their unconstitutional social programs deemed constitutional under the guise of the 14th amendment.

One answer by Sotomayor has really stood out to me thus far today. In a response to Senator Hatch, Sotomayor claimed:

The Constitution is a timeless document, written with such thought as to address every issue that may come before the Supreme Court for generations and decades to come, so it is a Supreme Court Justices duty to always look to the original intent of the framers at the time the Constitution was written.

OK, let’s do that, let’s bring a hypothetical to the Court. A hypothetical that could very well be in front of them very soon.

Imagine it is 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040 or 2044, etc.

A good looking young person arises from nowhere, or maybe has served in another elected office with less stringent qualifications, to become a candidate for President. The candidate is the child of a well-known anti-American, anti-Democracy touting parent from say Cuba, Venezuela or even possibly Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. From a country that is against everything our Constitution stands for and despises the freedoms it allows its citizens.

Also, imagine that all major political parties put forth several candidates who are also, under the qualifications of Article II, not qualified to hold the office of President and imagine even a non-major party candidate, who is not even an American as he is here on a green card from Nicaragua, is allowed on the ballots in atleast a half a dozen states.

Now as a child, one of the candidates,  though having one American parent, was taken to live in the foreign parent’s native land and made to learn and adhere to the laws of that regime only to return to live in communities that are steep in the tendencies of the regime of that foreign parent.

When the child grows up, he/she seeks out like minded individuals and begins working with them to promote the political agenda they were raised in. Promoting and teaching that this agenda is a much better way and  thus it is that candidates platform to “fundamentally change” the structure of our Republic. The candidate campaigns that it is dire to push through unconstitutional socialistic programs in the guise of the redistributive inactions taken in prior history. Redistributive action that they felt that they were owed and thus use the 14th amendment as their premise to a favorable outcome on their part.

Would you be willing to accept an heir of the Castro family, the Chavez family, or possibly even an heir of the Mahmoud Ahamadinejad family as your President or Commander in Chief? A President/CINC born with the possibility that, that they held dual citizenship at the time of their birth. A President/CINC that had spent their most impressionable years living and studying the ways of their foreign parent’s beliefs, the same beliefs their American parent has adopted?

If you say “NO”, then you are agreeing with me and thus agreeing to the fact that to be a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers that both parents must be citizens prior to the birth of the immediate candidate/President in question. (see article on the intent of the framers of our constitution )

If you say “YES”, then I can only suggest that you might like trying to find some property in one of those repressive countries and begin packing since you like their way of life so much.

The precedence being set forth, in the lack of any court including the Supreme Court, until yesterday, agreeing to address this issue, just goes to show the deterioration of our Constitution, the state of our free society and our country’s sovereignty. By pushing this issue under the rug, all courts and elected officials thus far have opened the door for the fore mentioned hypothetical.

 Barack Hussein Obama has had possibly 4 citizenships governing him thus far in his life: British at birth, Kenyan, Indonesian and possibly American. The later has yet to actually been proven due to the law & the age of his mother at the time of his birth and the lack of any visible/photo proof of his existence prior to being a toddler on his grandfathers shoulders or on a tricycle.

I was born in 1960 and even I have a hospital photo that was taken before I went home to live with my parents. My mother, who was born at home in 1941, has a photo that was within days of her birth.  My father, who was born in a hospital in 1940, also has a photo that was taken within days of his birth.

Today, in the age of a renegade, run-a-way Congress and Administration we are suppose to just roll over and accept, from the time of Obama’s birth until he was able to ride a tricycle, there were absolutely “NO” photos taken of him. As John Stossel would say: “give me a break”.

In conclusion, there is but one obvious and unavoidable fact of this day we now live in:

We are truly regressing and thus are once again becoming a nation ruled by “MEN instead of by “LAW”. Our fore fathers surely must be rolling in their graves and shedding tears of utter disappointment at the current state of the “Free Republic” they fought and died for. Should Sotomayor be confirmed it will be of grave concern to our future sovereignty. And, although the words come out of her mouth about the applying the original intent of the framers when making judicial decisions, the passion is not there for those words. Sotomayor’s answers to overturned rulings, answers in which she adamantly stands behind her decisions in those rulings that have been overturned( RICCI case for exp), are in complete contradiction to her fore mentioned answer to Sen. Hatch about adhering and using original intent when deciding cases. It is as if the current White House is somehow feeding her scripted answers to the tough questions to get the pass to and be confirmed.

%d bloggers like this: