I’ll be flamed as a liberal, but I have too much respect for both Tom McClintock and Mark Steyn to disagree with BOTH of them on this issue. If they say it is settled, then I believe it is settled.
Honestly, I think that Obama was eligible for the presidency and I believe that for 2 reasons.
First, I am convinced that Hitlery Clinton would have used that fact during the campaign, if it was true.
But here is the single biggest reason I can’t believe Obama was ineligible to run for president.
Obama was hand picked by George Soros to do his bidding. Soros had thousands upon thousands of communist leaning politicians from which to choose in order to groom his boy for the presidency. I don’t believe Soros is so stupid that he would pick a guy to run for the Senate and run him and groom him for the presidency, all the while a small technical detail like the lack of being a natural born citizen, was a time bomb waiting to blow up and nullify his entire investment in time and money.
I just can’t believe Soros is that stupid. He had countless thousands of communist politicians from which to choose his guy to groom to do his bidding. Why would he pick one who was technically ineligible to be president.
That defies logic to me. Soros isn’t that stupid. All of you who think Obama is not a natural born citizen have to clue me in on why you think Soros is that stupid that he picked Obama over any of the other thousands of communist politicians that could do the same job for him and was a natural born citizen.
Sorry, it just doesn’t make sense.
I can see where you would believe it being that ALL of Obama’s records are sealed back to birth. So it does make you wonder what they are hiding. What they are hiding may be other embarrassing things or politically unpalatable histories in his background. It could be things other than his being a natural born citizen. There are other reasons he may seal his LFBC besides that reason.
I acknowledge the possibility he is not a NBC but I just don’t think Soros would be so stupid as to hand pick someone who was not NBC. I find that hard to imagine.
No, you’re not a liberal. You’re rational, unlike birthers. Here is the first paragraph of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), which birthers cite for their absurd arguments:
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”
Any first semester, first year law student should be able to state that this paragraph means that by the express words of the decision, the ONLY the Court is deciding is whether a State could restrict voting rights to men. It has abosultely nothing to do with who is a NBC under Article II of the Const.
Now let’s move on to the part of the Minor opinion the birthers love to cite.
“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Notice the last sentence referring to the question of whether a person can become a citizen by being born here even if the parents are not citizens. The Court doesn’t say whether those doubts are correct.
Indeed, the VERY NEXT LINE of the opinion is: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Anybody who is not willfully and/or congenitally ignorant would therefore understand that the Minor Court is expressly NOT making any holding regarding birth citizenship.
Birtherism is to Constitutional scholarship as the game of “Operation” is to neurosurgery.
You completely ignore the fact that Obama could not be eligible because of his British citizenship.
That fact will never go away; conflicting allegiance was the sole reason for the NB citizenship clause.
I do not think he was necessarily groomed by Soros at first. I think at first we had the Ayers commie groups and then the middle eastern Muslims came on board. I believe that once they knew Obama has some "problems" with his citizenship, they were first OVERJOYED and then cocky. "We can pull this off." And they were right. Ayers LOVES how stupid the American public is.