Dear Freepers, Oppose Obama on the issues, not his alleged legitimacy (he really is legit)

Aug 5, 2009

[Edward Watson]

Cute. One accuses me of flooding the thread with hundreds of posts and the other with not replying at all.

Can`t satisfy everyone ... :-(

[Sloth]

Based on the US Constitution, is a president ethically (if not legally) bound to demonstrate that he meets the qualifications listed in that Constitution on which his oath of office is based?

I don't know that I could prove from the Constitution whether the legal burden of ensuring it lies more heavily on the candidate himself, on the state officials who determine ballot access, on the Electors, or on the Congress when they certify results. But yes, certainly it's reasonable to expect him to provide adequate evidence of eligibility.

[colorcountry]

Your non-answer if evocative of Obama.

I think your U.S. citizenship status might affect your “take” on this issue of Obama’s citizenship. It could be instrumental for us in us seeing just how you might process Obama’s citizenship as a non-issue.

JMHO. It’s important to me - but it IS also interesting to see how you sidestepped the issue of your citizenship. Jeff Head was perfectly willing to post his birth information.

[xzins]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The italicized is the oath of office that is required by the US Constitution.

Ethics has to do with what is right and wrong, and not necessarily with what is legal.

Is it right to stand before the people and the highest judge in the land and swear that you will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", when you've intentionally NOT abided by the spirit of that Constitution in regards to your qualifications for the office you have entered?

I say it's wrong: unethical.

[Sloth]

I certainly agree that Obama is unethical; and he was lying when he took the oath because, far from "preserving and protecting," he is an aggressive domestic enemy of the Constitution. He has already taken numerous actions that are, IMO, sufficient grounds for impeachment. Having said that...

when you've intentionally NOT abided by the spirit of that Constitution in regards to your qualifications for the office you have entered?

I don't think that I could agree that Obama has not demonstrated his qualifications for the office. The short-form COLB seems adequate for that purpose to me.

[xzins]

Which do you think has more and more detailed information directly related to presidential qualifications, the long-form or the condensed version?

[Sloth]

Which do you think has more and more detailed information directly related to presidential qualifications, the long-form or the condensed version?

Since both state the time and place of birth, and since the citizenship status of his parents is not disputed by anyone AFAIK, I'd say they are equal in this respect. If you disagree, what additional information do you think the long form could hypothetically contain that would have a bearing on Constitutional qualifications?

[P-Marlowe]

One accuses me of flooding the thread with hundreds of posts

I apologize for that. I had mistaken hundreds of posts to you as being hundreds of posts from you.

[xzins]

I assume from your response that you’ve not seen generic copies of the long form and the short form certificates.

The question was “which has...more and more detailed info directly related to presidential qualifications...?

Would you like a link to the two so you can see the differences?

[Luke21]

You are quite right that this is no magic bullet, but it is still a bullet, and it’s got the other side screaming a lot. That’s never a bad thing.

[Sloth]

I assume from your response that you’ve not seen generic copies of the long form and the short form certificates... Would you like a link to the two so you can see the differences?

I don't think I have. So sure, a link would be handy.

The question was “which has...more and more detailed info directly related to presidential qualifications...?

Right. And the Constitutional qualifications from Article II, Section 1 are:

1.) Natural born citizen
2.) 35 years of age
3.) A resident of the US for >14 years

So, again, which of these does the long-form address that the short does not?

[xzins]

Authentication of all of the above.

Examples of long form: Link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

Attempt at image:

Short form: link: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

Attempt at image: Go to link. I can't seem to size it correctly.

[Sloth]

Actually, I have seen that. When you said “generic copies” I thought you meant blank forms. So anyway, what does that tell us?

[Edward Watson]

Mighty decent of you. Thanks!

[libravoter]

I’m surprised you frame Cambridge in such uncomplimentary terms. Libertarians are “librals”, afterall.

Yeccch!