Not buying this crackpot conspiracy theory does not make one willfully ignorant. There are good reasons why no conservative radio host (or anyone with a professional reputation to uphold) is buying this. Because it is so convoluted as to not make any sense.
This "Chip" guy is the voice of reason. He makes sense. You BC folks don't. That's why no one is buying this garbage and after December 5th, hopefully everyone trying to sell it will be relegated to the tin foil hat brigade where they belong.
This isn't convoluted - it is a rather simple matter of law. The fact that no one wants to pay attention to the clear meaning of the Constitution - because they are too stupid to understand the concepts involved - or just don't care - is irrelevant. Why, specifically is this "garbage"?
It only doesn’t make sense if you make a cursory glance at it.
For those of us who can read and speak English and value the words of that Constitution of ours, it makes perfect sense.
This "Chip" guy is the voice of reason. He makes sense.
Thank You
Drew, ad hominem attack is very often a poor substitue for an argument, made by someone who does not have one.
To be kind, I will count your post as a cry for a education. Read the article featued in this FR post and if it is confusing to you, read it again; repeat it as necessary, until you at least begin to see what the founders/framers meant by "natural" in "natural born citizen."
Defining Natural-Born Citizen (Does it matter where Obama was born?)
Feel free to check what I've put in larger, bold letters at the top post.
And to answer fightinJAG's question, according to the "natural" in the Constitution's "natural born citizen," it matters not a whit, eh?
Drew68, you should really understand the nature of Donofrio’s case before commenting on it. Not only is he questioning Obama’s status as a candidate, he’s also questioning McCain’s and Calero’s. He voted for Ron Paul!
I believe the case is based in part on a 1948 British law that says a British father automatically confers British citizenship on any of his children born anywhere in the world. Kenya was part of the British empire in 1961. Certainly legal questions can be raised. And the fact remains — why hasn’t Obama furnished his birth certificate? McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, knew his citizenship might be an issue and dealt with it publicly.
Here’s the deal:
At this point, even if one has concluded that Obama most certainly is qualified to be President, or that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise, it still remains true that, while our Constitution requires an individual to be a “natural born citizen” to be President and Vice President-—
1. No one actually is sure what, given all the available fact permutations, a “natural born citizen” is. IOW, this precise question-—that goes not just to citizenship, but to *qualification to be President*-—is not settled law.
2. Through this public discussion on the qualifications of the candidates (yes, the Left also strongly questions McCain’s status as a “natural born citizen” since he was born in the Republic of Panama, albeit to two U.S. citizens), we have learned that *no one* is charged with actually verifying a President-elect’s eligibility to serve, much less candidate’s eligibility.
Even in states where Secretaries of States have various statutory duties, many have responded to this issue by saying they interpret their duties as “ministerial” only; IOW, they state that “it’s not my job” to figure out if a candidate is constitutional qualified.
While it may be implied that the electors in the Electoral College, or congressmembers can and should verify eligibility, there is no specific responsibility, procedure or other mechanism for doing so. Nor is there, then, any straightforward way for a citizen to have standing to challege the electors or congresscritters for NOT doing what is NOT their explicit duty.
So, at this point, there are many reasons why it would be useful for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this matter, regardless if the nominees were qualified. Even if they refuse cert., at least then citizens will know it is imperative to get better legislative processes to vouchsafe the constitutional requirements.
Viewing this solely as about some attempt to oust Obama is way too myopic. Those chips will lie where they fall.
In the meantime, there are many legal and procedural issues that will only become more frequent in the future, and this is one of the few times in history (maybe the only time) where a candidate about whom there was a citizenship controversy actually won the election. Therefore, it is a unique opportunity for the Court to either settle the law or at least give some helpful guidance on how these questions should be handled.
P.S. In constitutional law, the fact that a legal question or fact pattern is “convoluted” (as you said) usually indicates that there may be some “there” actually there, not the opposite, as you argue.
Radio talk show hosts, however, don’t do “convoluted” because, well, they’re radio talk show hosts. I applaud them for generally not jawboning about issues of constitutional law that they can’t possibly do justice in their format and which even constitutional lawyers are not in agreement on.
Do you think that calling a theory “crack-pot” makes it so?
You do not give the impression of being rational by such name calling. We would suspect that you cannot put forth a rational observation that justifies such criticism of the possibility that very clear language in the Constitution has been ignored in what, if it has been, is obviously a deception that is long-standing.
By such name-calling you give the impression of not being the least bit interested in rational debate. If that is the case you would not seem to be on this forum for the same reason as most who participate in it.