Skip to comments.OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGED IN NEW LAW SUIT (SIBLEY SEEKs HI EXAMINER)
Posted on 11/30/2012 6:23:08 PM PST by Seizethecarp
click here to read article
Can you think of just one Senator capable of actually standing up and defending the Constitution before his or her peers? (I cant).
I think Senator Rand Paul could do it.
How about challenging him on the fact that he is a lying pee brain.
Oh no Not this Crap again!
We can always go back to trying to defeat Obama at the ballot box...wait, that didn’t work either.
You would think that a candidate that has been unable to provide an original hardcopy of a valid LFBC, who allegedly is using a fraudulently obtained SSN since the mid-80’s and allegedly forged his Selective Service Registration application, would play fair during elections.
Birthers often say this. No one has yet to produce a single civics textbook defining Natural Born Citizen in this fashion. It would sure be a coup if someone could.
It's at least been entertaining. Some of these characters (Taitz, Smith, Donofrio) could be straight out of a Coen Brothers movie. Now we get four years of birther hilarity.
Personally I think what is needed is to check Dumbo’s DNA against his so-called African relatives and his “mentor” Frank Davis. There has got to be NUMEROUS relatives out there somewhere. How about starting with the realatives in Mass. (The drunken uncle and the aunt who is in subsidized housing). I would venture a guess, we could quickly find out who his real daddy was. My bet is Frank Davis and NOT the supposed father Obama.
Blackstone's definition of "Natural Born" in English Common Law (the source of our legal system), would make Obama eligible.
Vattel's definition is in dispute because there are multiple conflicting translations, and no one can accurately determine the translation referenced in the writings of the founders.
The Federalist Papers, as far as I know, do not go into any detail about the term while arguing in favor of the Constitution. Neither, as far as I know, do any arguments against the Constitution published at the time.
I don't consider myself a birther either. I did a lot of research on the subject during the primary campaign when Phil Berg brought it up. I understand the arguments on both sides neither of which have been definitely decided one way or the other in a court of law.
While there have been cases to point to and try to extrapolate from, there has not been one that exactly hits the nail on the head so to speak in my opinion. Nor is there likely to be one, which was my point.
The courts will continue to duck this issue if they can, because they do not want to be in the position of overturning an election.
My own theory is that it is likely that the founders were thinking that a natural born citizen would be one where the father was a citizen, and the child was born and raised in country, because Naturalization laws in the early days often hinged on the father's citizenship.
Congress only a decade or so later argued over whether a child born on foreign soil to American citizens should be considered natural born, with some pointing out they were more of a citizen than someone who was born in America to parents who were not citizens of America, so I really would not expect current day Americans to be on the same page either.
In some of the court cases, I find myself agreeing with the minority opinion particularly with respect to the 14th amendment. I wonder, when the Supreme Court decides cases, if they call each other pejorative names when they disagree or do they simply explain their opinion to each other?
At any rate, when I run across threads with birther and anti-birthers going at it, I usually skip them now. It's always the same old rehash and then the name calling. To me, it just looks like the pot calling the kettle black.
Well, that’s kinda what I thought. In your face for sure. Also hiding in plain sight. As well as a ready made rallying point - well we didn’t hide it, and everyone voted for him anyway - the people have spoken - the will of the voters should not be overturned. Yada Yada....
I recall they used his DNA to track his forebears through his MOM’s line and came up with that guy who was a slave (can’t remember the name just now)
They prolly could check the other side of the family that way also.
Maybe try the brother in Africa who hasn’t had any help from his famous relative.
They could unearth a super 8 film of him emerging from his mama’s vagina with the welcome to Canada sign behind her and he’d skate.
Why hasn’t CONGRESS DEMANDED that Hawaii furnish 0bama’s ORIGINAL birth records? Why hasn’t CONGRESS asked Nancy Pelosi to explain why she deleted required legal verbiage from her certification of 0bama’s eligibility to be President?
Republicans are meow meows. And somehow everyone on the airwaves has been threatened. There is no one with a pair, willing to risk everything to set us free.
I’d have so much respect for someone, a rush, Sean, or mark, if they would risk their lucrative careers and just say WE DON’T KNOW. LET US ASK THESE QUESTIONS. And logically and carefully explain the truth a la Butterdezillion to their listeners. Even if they get fired. The founders risked their very lives.
The spirit lives!
I am counting down to the next prez election day, not inauguration.
Previous suits have been dismissed for lack of standing. DC residents have standing.
The UinC (Usurper) will have to commit his next criminally lawless act to get out of this one.
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.