Two Americas or One Nation with Liberty & Justice for All
By: Nancy Salvato
Fundamental law is the key to maintaining the rights and freedoms of every citizen in the United States of America. It is questionable how many people actually understand what is considered fundamental law, or why it is referred to as such. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights -which was promised as part of the ratification of the US Constitution in order to ensure its passage-, are both considered to be the fundamental law of the United States. These documents, along with the Declaration of Independence are commonly referred to as our founding documents â€“ the Charters of Freedom.
Fundamental law is so important to this society that the justices working in our federal judicial system are sworn to uphold it. Every case that comes before the Supreme Court brings into question fundamental law. If a law or decision contradicts fundamental law, it is to be overturned. The only way to change the fundamental law of our nation is through the amendment process and in the history of our country, this has only occurred 27 times, including the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution -which are encompassed in the Bill of Rights.
Every President and every US Representative and Senator take an oath of elected office, swearing to uphold the US Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
House of Representatives and Senate:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and its text is set by statute (5 U.S.C., Sec. 3331).
In light of the importance of fundamental law, it may strike one-and rightfully so- as disingenuous that the media is trying to downplay the importance of the primary requirements of one who aspires to the highest office of the land, by that; Iâ€™m referring to the provision that is addressed by Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that states the President of our country be a â€œnatural born citizen.â€ The 14th Amendment says “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. Note there is a deliberate difference between natural born citizen and citizen. The issue of the importance of the requirement is not going away.
Still, the media persists in trying to malign those who would like to see whether or not President Obama satisfies the requirements under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. To date, he has provided a certificate of live birth. Should it be proven that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, it is likely we would witness one of two scenarios. The first possibility is that we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands because everything that transpired under this manâ€™s leadership would have to be reevaluated since he would be considered a usurper, translation: fraud. The second scenario is the likelihood there would not be enough votes to remove him from office. His party holds the majority in both Houses and either didnâ€™t properly vet him in the first place or is not willing to disclose the truth. What could be so hard about presenting a birth certificate, again, not to be mistaken with a certificate of live birth? While the President has spent personal money on lawyers to keep those documents sealed, his defenders have waged a campaign to discredit those who wonâ€™t let the issue die. The citizens who have tried to bring this omission before the federal judiciary system have been told they have no standing to have this case heard.
Probably the most frustrating aspect of this situation is that when any aspect of fundamental law is disregarded, then we have embarked on a slippery slope, in which no aspect of the fundamental law will any longer be considered sacred. This has been witnessed already with federal and state statutes that arenâ€™t considered fundamental. Who doesnâ€™t wonder why celebrities and those with money and influence are often treated differently under the law? Who doesnâ€™t wonder why Professor Henry Louis Gates could verbally assault a police officer and the police officer is the one who is called into question?
Senator John Edwards campaigned on the idea that there are two Americas. Perhaps he was right. There is the America for which â€œWe the Peopleâ€ ordained and established the Constitution of the United States and there is the America currently run by a minority faction of oligarchs.
â€œAnd he took out his pencil and he wrote 2+2=5.â€ (Iâ€™m taking liberty with this quote from George Orwellâ€™s 1984 because it is nowhere to be found on Google) 2+2=5…2+2=5. If a statement such as this is heard long enough, people will believe it. 2+2=5 is the party line…as is the idea that the birth certificate isnâ€™t in question…the birth certificate isnâ€™t important. Only right wingnuts who hate the President keep bringing up the issue of the birth certificate. Bill Oâ€™Reilly calls fanatics those who demand to see the evidence so IT MUST BE SO. Therefore, fundamental law, itâ€™s not such a big deal, itâ€™s just a minor technicality.
You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world. It must be so. We voted for this change.