Posted on 12/05/2008 4:48:05 PM PST by Bill Dupray
BTTT!!!!!!! I am listen now.
Thank you, SunkenCiv. Without your ping, I would have missed this article.
Ping.
They want to get it right. It will be used as much as precedence as the Very Constitution is quoted.....It is a historical finding, that must be done correctly.....after much thought and research....
They have just laid the foundation and we are expecting to see the finished spire....
Patience, Lord, patience....but hurry!
“There are people out there who know the truth — and the truth will come out.”
You bet your backside there are folks in the know!! My bet is PUTIN,CHAVEZ,IMMANUTJOB, CHINA and every enemy of the United States knows the truth and are waiting with baited breath to blackmail our POTUS ELECT.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Barack Obama's citizenship status.
There are two requirements to become President of the United States: you must be 35 and a natural born U.S. Citizen. Many people have argued, based on immigration law relating to the transfer of citizenship from either parent when born off of U.S. soil, that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for president. However, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Though those born in U.S. territories are automatically considered citizens, Hawaii became a state in 1959. The arguments against Obama's citizenship based on his parents' status are moot, since being born on American soil automatically makes Senator Obama a U.S. citizen.
Thank you again for contacting my office. It is honor to serve as your Congressman for the 6th district of Texas. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I may be of further service.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton, Member of Congress
Same old BS. And I voted for you.
This was received after the election. I wrote it way before.
You are no longer my Congressman. *&^$#@@$%
Write back and ask what proof he has that Obama was born on US soil.
I just sent 50 bucks to Laurie, never heard of her before, thanks for the link, as far as Rush goes, he can stick his steaks where the sun doesn’t shine.
I am not sure about this. But it seems to me that if the SCOTUS declares any of the Presidential candidates Constitutionally ineligible it would not toss the election. It would only mean the Electors could not elect that man President. In other words, determining Obama ineligible would merely free "his" Electors to elect another.
This was how the Constitution was originally written and I believe is still written. The Constitution has no provisions for political parties and binding by the States of Electors to vote for a particular candidate has always been of dubious Constitutionality (in my estimation).
Food for thought.
Then IGNORE IT. How frickin easy is that? You don’t have to worry your mind one more cotton picking second. You can go about discussing Obama’s cabinet and Pelosi’s Christmas statement.
O’Bammy the Basturd can spend the weekend with his “TIC”,,,
I just hope I don't get Trampled !!!
Gun Show for me tomorrow...;0)
He would say the same thing. Their canned response.
I hope so. I won’t help him.
Write him back and inform him that there are three requirements not two.
* be a natural born citizen of the united States
* be at least 35 years old
* have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years
Then ask him if he is smarter than a fifth-grader.
From Wikipedia:
The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.
However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.
Joe Barton, US Congress. Toast in 2010. We might start something right here and right now.
He probably would but I love poking them.
Love it!
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.