Posted on 11/14/2012 8:14:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
Gad, what an awful mistake. Should be, woman posing as a man.
You’re missing the fundamental point, once the election was certified, Obama became the President. You have no case, the court has no jurisdiction. Because .... Because ... wait for it .... here it comes ..... Article 2 Section 4.
Certification means, the governing body with the enumerated power to seat the President, did so. They seated him, it’s within their power to unseat him through .... guess what .... Article 2 Section 4. Anything else would be a coup in the complete pejorative definition.
I don’t see you quoting any articles or sections from the Constitution on how your fantasy plays out.
There is no miraculous way a President becomes an Un-President. The act of casting the collegiate votes, certifying the election validates him. If they determine later that they’ve been snookered, it is the job of the U.S congress to impeach him and remove him from office. Article 2, section 4. If the court decides that he was invalid, then the U.S congress if it so chooses can impeach and remove him.
Give me examples where the Court has even removed a congressman or Senator without the Congress or Senates consent?
Oh yes, now that you’ve overgeneralized my comment and talked down to me, I feel so much better.
The birther movement has been one embarrassing failure after another. Don’t pretend you were at any time offering a legitimate challenge to Obama sitting at your keyboard repeating idiotic conspiracy theories on the Internet.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that I'm no such thing. In either case. I can also tell (with equal certainty) that you're a delusional jerk.
If you’re not some kind of troll yourself, that is.
And you and little jeremiah are spreading discouragement, telling everybody who will listen that we're permanently screwed no matter what we do. So we might as well just pack it up and go home, because the liberals will always win no matter what we do.
And I'M the troll?
You can grieve as much as you want. But this is not the end of the world, and conservatism is not defeated.
My suggestion for both of you: Don't imagine that you're doing conservatism a service simply by posting birther nonsense on a forum. I suggest that you get off your butts and do some real work. Like... helping with the next campaign that comes along? How about that? Or if you believe fraud is widespread, then go and be a poll watcher in a heavily Democratic district next time around.
If you're not willing to actually lift a finger, then at least don't spread gloom and doom.
You are using logic. Logic does not matter with liberals.
"Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans." --Spock in 'I, Mudd'
I disagree with your fundamental point. An anulment is if there was no marriage to begin with. With a usurper, it would be as if he was never elected. No consumation. As though he snuck into the White House and pretended he was president when no one was looking. Something a delusional child would do. Doesn't deserve the blessings of Liberty or the operation of the Constitution. Just collar the guy after the nearest judge declared an anulment, making sure they didn't steal the silverware on the way out.
There's got to be a first. I see no problem. It would be a logical conclusion, therefor righteous.
Just treat him like you would any other illegal alien.
That's it. End of discussion.
Uh, yea that works, we ignore the constitution to get this done. Isn't that called a coup?
Ouch! You are striking right at the heart of the birther fantasy there.
A lot of birthers imagine that by sitting at their keyboards, repeating idiotic conspiracy theories, they are changing the world. The usurper is going to be driven from the White House, any day! All because they repeated that he was born in Kenya.
If they have a case, then they ought to be on the phone to their Congressman, or they ought to be pouring their time, effort and dollars into lawsuits.
If they want the matter before the public, then they ought to be on the phone with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. And every other conservative talk show host and reporter in the country.
If they can't win with their Congressman, and they can't win in the courts, and they can't get any coverage from any major conservative commentator, then that ought to be a clue to them (it isn't, because they're not capable of "getting" subtle hints like that) that everyone of any stature in the country thinks they simply don't have a case.
I want to comment particularly on Mark Levin. The guy is Mr. Constitution. It's practically all he talks about.
Birthers imagine they have a great case that it takes two citizen parents for anybody to be a natural born citizen. And yet the most Constitutionally-literate, most knowledgeable, most scholarly, most Constitution-committed conservative talk show host in the nation won't touch their argument with a 20-foot pole. Won't give them the time of day.
And somehow they don't find this odd. Well, it is odd. So let's find an excuse for it. Because it can't be that the two citizen parent stuff is BS. So Mark Levin must be deaf. Or he's not getting his mail. Or he's corrupt. Obama has bribed him.
Well, none of those work. So he must be either too concerned about his image, or Obama must have threatened his family. Yeah, that's it. He's afraid of Obama.
Every single day Levin goes on the air and rails against Obama, and makes all kinds of accusations against the President, but he's secretly so afraid of him that he won't touch the question of whether it takes citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. He'll call Obama a Socialist, but won't dare even entertain the question of whether he's a natural born citizen.
Yeah, right.
But it's so easy to sit at your keyboard and repeat conspiracy theories on the internet and tell yourself, "Hey, I'm actually doing something! Hey, I'm changing the country! Gosh, this is easy! Obama will surely be gone by Christmas!"
And if anyone tells you that you would do conservatism a far better service by getting up and going and campaigning for a conservative candidate of your choice, or going and raising funds for a conservative candidate, or convincing others of the value of conservatism and the fact that we're on the wrong course, that person is (of course) a secret liberal or a "troll."
By the way, how many birther courtroom failures are we up to now? I can't even keep count. Is it 100? 150? 200? Where are we?
Hell no. I’d call it taking out the garbage.
Good, I'm glad you followed my advice and took that stiff drink.
NO ONE needs YOU telling them what to do! You sound more and more like your leader, the POS anti-American commie! Get lost!
Tell us what is this legitimate challenge you speak of?
And then tell us when and who gave you 'standing' in this matter? Then we will see who the one is who SHOULD be embarrassed.
It doesn't matter that Britain was willing to extend him citizenship because of his father. Foreign countries have no legal power here.
You've completely missed the point. Just as a U.S. citizen father and a foreigner wife have a child in a foreign country, that child will be born a U.S. "Citizen" (but not an nBC)...so too is a child born here to a foreigner father inherits their foreign citizenship by birthright and the U.S. can't prevent that. Assuming Barry was born in the U.S., he was born a dual national. A "citizen" of the U.S. by virtue of statue law and the 14th Amendment and a British subject by virtue of the 1948 British Nationality Act that his father (& his father's children) were subject to.
His own campaign website even admited this:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html (This original URL has been changed, however, it's archived below)
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
The issue with being a dual national, is this for starters:
The State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
If that weren't the case, North Korea could destroy America by passing a law tomorrow making everyone born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Then nobody would be eligible to be President, and we would be stuck without a leader.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers never intended to give such power to foreign countries, and they didn't.
That's a ridiculous example. Such a move by a foreign country would not be internationally recognized. It would be 100% worthless. Since the U.S. and G.B. have 100's of years of treaties signed between each other, numerous agreements and are part on the international community, each recognizes the other's citizenship laws. As stated above, if a child is born in Britain to U.S. citizen parents, that child inherits their parents U.S. citizenship.
John Jay, the framers and the rest of the founders would be appalled.
No, they wouldn't. John Jay was born a British citizen himself. And so were virtually all of the rest of the Founders and Framers.
Stop and think about that for a moment. In fact, have another look at Article II, Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The framers were brilliant, but it didn't take brilliance to recognize the issue there. Obviously, they knew that they were not "natural Born Citizens" themselves...so...they inserted the grandfather clause to make themselves eligible. Without that, the first year that someone would have been eligible would have been 1811.
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
You see, the original requirement in their drafts was that the President had to be a "citizen." Then Jay writes to Washington and suggests they "provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners" into the office of the Commander in Chief.
In those days, if you were born with foreign citizenship, you were considered...a foreigner. In todays world, thanks to U.S. statue and the 14th Amendment, one can be a "dual" national, or 1/2 foreigner if you will. See above for the governments take on the "perils" of owing allegience to two countries.
Another fascinating piece of history, is the case of James McClure (around 1811), who was born in the country to a British national father, but wasn't even considered a citizen of the U.S. until after his father naturalized.
The framers would indeed be appalled that today's America is OK with someone who is born with foreign citizenship, and thus owes alligience to a foreign power, be considered Commander in Chief eligible. They never intended for someone like the current Dauphin of France, Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy to be eligible to be our President. The mere notion, post grandfather clause, would be offensive to them.
Citizen parents weren't required
=======================================================================
That's simply not true.
For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.
I haven't missed the point. And neither has anybody else.
North Korea could pass a law declaring tomorrow that every child henceforth born in the United States is born a North Korean citizen. If you want to tie it specifically to ethnicity or national origin, you could make it that anyone who has an ounce of Korean ancestry in them is born a citizen of North Korea.
Does that mean that all of a sudden every child born in America who has some Korean ancestry is disqualified from becoming President, because they were born DUAL CITIZENS of both the United States and North Korea? It's bullcrap. We and we alone decide who gets to be President. That some other country says you or I or Bobby Jindal or Barack Obama or Antonio DiGiorno or Suzi Suzuki was BORN a citizen of their country as well means bupkis.
So the question is: When the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution said a person needed to be a natural born citizen, did they mean he had to have citizen parents? Vattel nothwithstanding (who had nothing at all to do with the meaning of the term in our Constitution), there is not a SHRED of evidence they meant any such thing. If they had, there wouldn't be a single word of dissent against "natural born citizen" birthers here at FR, and Mr. Constitution Mark Levin would have been pounding this point every other day for the past 4 years. And we would have every other conservative Constitutional expert in the country up in arms about it as well. The Heritage Foundation and National Review would have jumped on the bandwagon. They didn't, because there is nothing of merit in the theory at all.
Those are the facts. You're free to deny them. And of course, you will deny them. You will continue to produce your BS arguments that most people here at FR simply ignore. I try to ignore them myself, for the most part. But when the OP addressed a thread to everyone who said we ought to toss birtherism in the trash (where it belongs) and go out and find the VOTES to remove Obama from the White House, since there is no future in birtherism, well, that was a direct INVITATION to respond.
Anyway, you and the other birthers here have been denying reality for the past 4 years. Nobody expects you to change now. Nor do I expect that arguing with you is likely to have any effect at all. Trying to reason with a birther is about like trying to dig a pond with your ear. It just isn't likely to get anybody anywhere.
So go on and believe your silly fantasies. You will no matter what anybody says, anyway.
For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.
Simply not true. The United States government sent a letter on McClure's behalf, declaring that he was a United States citizen. I've seen what they wrote. In that letter, they didn't say jack about his father's nationality, good or bad. Their basis for declaring that he was a US citizen was simply that McClure had been BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.
It's been fun, but at this point it gets tedious. If others want to debunk the rest of your spew of fallacies, they're welcome to it. I have better things to do.
Don’t fly into a snit; your posting history is there for all the world to see and it never lies.
:-)
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.