Posted on 04/28/2011 8:40:53 PM PDT by Fractal Trader
IF ! ?? if he was born at the hospital that they say that he was born at, then ? there would be proof and evidence that he was born there as documented proof... Donald Trump should show what his investigators have found....
When you read and research enough, I DO know that it doesn't include your hero, Obama. He doeswn't meet the eligibility requirements under the 14th Amendment, BC notwithstanding.
My hero??? Good lord, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You claim you read and research. HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE ORAL ARGUMENTS WHERE SCOTUS ACTUALLY DISCUSSES THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR POTUS???
I read the issues related to the phrase “natural born citizen”. Natural born citizen stems from the English common law concept of “natural law” and it is there that the train seems to go off the track.
There are several interpretations of the concept of “natural born citizen” as it is described under “natural law”. Legal scholars have struggled for centuries trying to nail down the exact meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” as it applies to American law. The issue appeared to be settled in the 1800s, but modern legal theorists, primarily those on the left, keep pulling at various threads trying to make citizenship a prize they can offer to anyone who promises to elect Democrats ONLY!
The SCOTUS, in recent years, has become more of a political body than a legal one and I tend to dismiss much of what they do. What one court says is okay, another court strikes down as attitudes and mores change. I no longer put a whole bunch of faith or trust in the rulings of the SCOTUS, ESPECIALLY after they ducked the McCain Campaign Finance Reform Law that Bush II signed which he knew violated the first Amendment. It was only about political favoritism, not correcting the money in politics problem.
The issue with Obama, at present, is NOT about the qualifications for president, it is about whether or not he meets the requirements of a natural born citizen. If he does not meet those requirements, he cannot meet the qualifications of POTUS. If you notice, in EVERY case challenging Obama’s eligibility, the plaintiffs have ALL been struck down by various federal courts, INCLUDING the SCOTUS, as lacking the standing to bring such an action. If we believe that the Constitution is THE law of the land, then ANY citizen of the United States should have the standing to bring such a fundamental Constitutional issue into the court for interpretation. That NO citizen of this country has been found to have such standing suggests that this is more of a political issue than a legal one and that is precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.
So, if you want to follow the rulings and oral discussions of the SCOTUS on these issues, be my guest. IMO, until they get back to their original charter of INTERPRETING law on the basis of the Constitution, they are simply one more political body.
Thanks! And wow!
1. This BC is a fake for the simple reason it has no seal.
2. The obfuscation about the “represents” the record is a clear escape clause for someone.
3. Lousy job with the mechanics of the document. At the very least it should of been printed and rescanned to cover up the dither and layers.
4. Would pass muster in most counties to do legal things( but it might in some US States.)
Thanks very much for remembering to ping me!
Did you mean “would pass muster” or would not?
“4. Would pass muster in most counties to do legal things( but it might in some US States.)”
Interesting about the “escape clause” - could you be more specific?
No problem. Actually I did mean “would NOT”. Sorry can’t type anymore!!!
That’s all right. I don’t trust my eyesight either, and sometimes there’s a short cirtuit between point A and point B if you get my drift.
Could you elucidate about the escape clause for the simple minded among us? :-)
Seems that if you created the document and get hauled into court for it you can argue that it was not a forgery - it “represented” the facts as they were told to you. Very fine line but could keep a person out of jail.
Thanks again. I thought it meant some sort of CYA thing and that explains it. I assume that could exonerate the forger, but not the one who ordered the forgery.
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.