Posted on 01/12/2009 5:34:10 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
real_patriotic_american to PlainOleAmerican
The law is the law. Obama must provide proof that he is a natural born American citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.
***Well, when a real patriotic american says such a thing to a plain ole american, it’s time for all of us to take notice.
Yes, it’s been right out there for all to see from
the beginning; not a NBC See CitizenWells blog
of December 7 2008 for a short summary. “Born A Brit”
See Leo Donofrio’s NaturalBornCitizen dot typepad
for more, and for Chester Arthur’s obfuscations about
his own status.
The precedent has already been set. Our USSC has in previous rulings set aside Constitutional law for what it poses as the “greater good of society.”
The justices will not review Hussein’s eligibility. Since if they were too, they might possibly find themselves in a position to yet again set aside the Constitution for the “greater good of society.” So they figure, why risk it?
They figure the best thing for them to do right now is assume the current military posture of, “don’t ask don’t tell.” With this approach, they can avoid any possible known wrong doing when Chief Justice Roberts swears in Hussein.
The bottomline is, even if they did look now or later, and Hussein were discovered to be ineligible, nothing would change. Since, if forced to, they would fall back on the “greater good” philopsophy as they have done in the past.
Right on! If Obama takes the oath knowing that he is ineligible to be President, then it is termed a “perjured oath.”
Just a real patriotic American here chatted with the kin folk.
The precedent has already been set. Our USSC has in previous rulings set aside Constitutional law for what it poses as the “greater good of society.”
If that’s the way they think, what good are they?
I personally would not be surprised if Chief Justice Roberts were too busy to swear in our President-Elect. After all, the Supremes have been extraordinarily busy lately, FAR TOO BUSY to deal with what is one of the most burning constitutional issues of our time: The natural-born citizen question and the fact that no one is vetting presidential candidates for constitutional eligibility.
I believe that the Robed Nine have been playing cards in their chambers and even have taken up cultivating orchids to brighten the winter days. So what if we could have the American-born child of two illegal aliens elected president in the years to come and charged with enforcing our immigration laws. No biggie!
I believe that the chief justice will be trying out a new recipe for chocolate chip cookies next Tuesday and will be unable to attend. He will be using chocolate-nut-toffee bits instead of chocolate chips. At least the Supreme Court is breaking ground in some area of life.
“If that’s the way they think, what good are they?
Obviously, they excel at avoiding controversial matters like POTUS eligibility on technicalities. Then when challenged to a point where containment is no longer an option, they super excel at determing what is best for the “greater good of society.” Often in total disregard for the Constitution.
To answer your question, as obligated strict adherents to our Constitution, they are increasingy becoming irrevelent. Especially when their rulings are founded upon the “greater good” rather than our Constitution.
There are many examples of this precedent. You may be able to recall some of them from the past. That’s why I argue the precedent for the “greater good” has been well established.
Husseins’s eligibility fits neatly into this precedent.
It sounds like a lot of waffling on the issue, in that article. At the end, the writer said — “The next nine days are critical to the survival of constitutional law and the free republic as it has existed for more than 230 years. How many Americans still care? And is Justice Roberts one of them? “
Ummm..., this write must not have heard about the other President we had (and also when he was Vice President, too) — who did not qualify under the Constitutional requirements — but still was Vice President and President of the United States.
If this author is wondering about how critical this is to our Constitutional law and free Republic — I wonder what this author thinks about the last President who violated the provisions of the Constitution in his qualifications for office?
Pretty much our entire political class is in breach of their sworn oaths before God.
Unfortunately, they’ve forgotten that God is much more powerful than they are, and has the ultimate Veto.
LOL Well, good luck trying to get the court to think she isn't.
Untwist your panties, dear. It isn't up to me, or to you. It is up to the court. My point is, I don't think the court is going to do a darn thing.
But hey, if you have to attack someone who dares to say that as an 'Obama supporter', that just shows how weak you believe your position to be.
I do. That's not even a fact that's been proven here.
"...the fact that Obammy was not qualified because he failed to produce the required birth certificate."
No, failure to produce it wouldn't make him unqualified. He has apparently produced everything that he's been required to produce so far, else he wouldn't have made it on every ballot and through the process to win the election.
What would make him ineligible is if the actual facts of his birth (age, citizenship) failed to meet the qualifications. None of that has been proven to be true.
Sorry, I misread this when I first responded, so I want to come back to it.
His father's citizenship has no bearing on Obama's NBC status.
It doesn’t matter what his father was a citizen of. If Obama was born in Honolulu then he had citizenship at birth and is a natural born citizen.
I was unaware that the Supreme Court considered the “greater good of society” instead of the Constitution at times! Irrelevant is a good description of judges who shirk their duty in favor of POLITICAL considerations. They exist to act as a check on the other two branches of government and to ensure that the constitution is upheld.
We should get rid of them if that is how they operate. Perhaps they could together write some kind of “Dear Abby” column if they are not yet ready to retire. They could call it Ask the Irrelevant Nine.
“I was unaware that the Supreme Court considered the “greater good of society” instead of the Constitution at times! “
affirmative action
forced busing
eminent domain
roadblocks/checkpoints
property seizures/forfeitures
etc etc
I didn’t know they reached those decisions using the “greater good of society” rationale. Doesn’t sound very “good” to me!
Kelo is one “greater good” decision that might one day prove very damaging in my neck of the woods.
In Massachusetts we have a state law that, when invoked after state approval, allows local officials to seize up to 25% of a city’s acreage for transfer to developers. I live in an oceanfront city which is a hotbed of development plans. Our local officials invoked this law, although they didn’t attempt to use the eminent-domain provisions. (There is another provision of the law which allows officials to take out multi-million-dollar loans guaranteed by the taxpayers and give the money to a developer. They were apparently looking at that provision, although they ended up gaving a developer millions of our money using another mechanism.)
One unsuccessful candidate for mayor suggested that they use eminent domain to move development forward. Though those in power now say they won’t seize private property, you never know. They treat the developers like gods and don’t want to answer questions about why they want certain zoning changes in a neighborhood where families have owned homes for generations. City Hall has been trying to incite a “lynch mob” mentality, charging that small property owners are preventing the rest of us from benefiting from an expanded tax base.
Thanks, Supreme Court, for your “greater good” trashing of the Constitution! Keep up the good work—NOT!
Not so. See the cites in my previous post.
Those same cites have been debated repeatedly here. They do not prove the point. There is no legal definition of "natural born citizen" that requires citizenship of the parents.
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.