Skip to comments.Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Posted on 01/02/2009 1:16:10 PM PST by patriot08
Ed Hale of Plains Radio has secured a copy of the Dunham/Obama divorce decree as promised. He has registered this at the courthouse and has turned the document over to lawyers who are reported to be happy and enthused over the contents.
This is the first page. This is all that can be divulged at this time as those who have seen the decree are sworn to silence. You may hear information about it tonight on Ed's plainsradio show.
You need to read some US history about public pressure, civil disobedience, and investigations of "closed issues."
I mentioned abortion earlier. Anyone who's been alive the last 25 years knows that a supreme court action is not the final word on everything.
I just can’t see her traveling alone. I would thin that she would accompany SR to Kenya and return to the US with him.....She was a young wgirl with a new baby....She may have travel from the east to west coast alone, but not all the way from Africa....No Africa—England—East Coast and then onward by herself to WA or HI.
What is the closest airport to Harvard?
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
... "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
You couldn’t be more wrong and more ignorant of US history.
Okay, then the Vice President has to be qualified under the same provisions as the President. That clears it up....
So, President Arthur was neither Constitutionally qualified as Vice President or as President of the United States...
My God... President Arthur is doing “twice” what people say that Obama is doing — but he’s only doing it for one office (Arthur did it for two offices [i.e., not qualified]
Secondly, so what?
Do yo have a port of entry section, for those who immigrated to the US, at that sight?
Here we may find some common ground.
There is a difference between accepting a Supreme Court ruling on the here and now, and fighting to change it (which is not an accepting behavior).
For example, I offer the recent Kelo eminent domain "takings" decision. People accepted the taking of their property because the alternative was forcible removable by law enforcement. But, that did not stop states from enacting laws to nullify the Supreme Court ruling for future eminent domain claims in their states.
So, Supreme Court rulings are not "final" in that sense. If Obama can't be stopped in 2009, he might still be prevented from running in 2012, as was Arthur, by new laws requiring the positive proof of qualification by candidates before running for president.
Class is adjourned. Do your homework and correct your misconceptions about supreme court decisions.
PS: good night.
They might have made some type of copy and included info from the b.c. in the immigration paperwork.
That would depend on what sort of precedent it sets. If there’s not a sufficient factual basis for the court to take any action, it wouldn’t be of much value.
But he looks very much like his typical white grandfather.
Cheekbones, nose, teeth, ears, even the hairline. He looks like Grandpa. Only his skin tone, slightly "nappy" hair, and maybe fuller lips show that some man with African ancestory, almost anyone would do, was his biological father.
It is leftwing liberals who believe that whatever the Court says is automatically a proper interpretation of the Constitution. They would love for conservatives to just accept whatever the Court rules on as being the new Constitution. Just re-write it from the bench.
Honestly you are sounding more and more like a leftwinger. You want to make it seem like it wont be a big deal if Obama serves even if he is ineligibe just because Arthur did, we should just accept anything that the Supreme dictators in black robes say as Constitutional, etc...
Typical liberal talking points.
It has port of entry for ships, most stopping around 1957 or so.
You said — “You couldnt be more wrong and more ignorant of US history.”
Well, I’m certainly called by a lot of names here..., it seems... LOL...
But, still — it’s very odd that people are not going to accept the highest court in the land’s decision — if they don’t agree with it. It certainly would be what I have heard that “others” should accept — if — the court were to rule in our favor — that is the “others” who disagree *should* abide by it.
However, if “we” are the “others” — then we shouldn’t abide by their decision. That makes for a very confusing type of government. Which *we* should be be listening to as right — if not the Supreme Court and if not the Constitution which has endowed the Supreme Court with this power...
That’s almost like getting into Alice in Wonderland...
Ignor the person who is trying to keep us from finding the answers, by changing the subject...It is a AXELTURFF TECHNIQUE.....
Let’s get to work! We can, if we all work together, find the answer.
Good to hear that... I thought there was a big loophole there...
I guess President Arthur violated that provision two times in two offices...
He looks a LOT like grandpa... first time I’ve seen that picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.