Posted on 11/28/2008 12:57:36 PM PST by jay1949
The question of Barack Obama’s citizenship, and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, has become the election-year issue that will not die. Quite a few Obama opponents are holding on to the eligibility issue as the last chance to keep him out of the White House. They have placed their faith in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, and particularly the Berg lawsuit; but it will turn out that such faith is misplaced.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericansentinel.com ...
While, obviously, the Signers and their allies intended to sever allegiance to the Crown, they did not intend to throw out all English law, or all definitions of terms based on English law. As far as I am aware, the original 13 states uniformly follow the doctrine that the common law of England continues to be the law of the state unless modified or repealed by a constitution or statute. Where our good forefathers intended a new meaning, they were not shy about saying so. The law of England as to citizenship was not derived simply from feudal doctrine, but had been established by laws passed by the English Parliament.
Up until 1971 any child under 1 year of age could get a Hawaiian birth certificate.
Bambi’s mom just had to lie to arrange it.
He was born in Kenya. His grandma spilled the beans twice before the Kenyan government hushed her up and kicked Corsi out of the country for trying to get to the bottom of it.
I was referring to the American Sentinel article, not your posting and linking of it. Sorry for not being clearer.
Thank you, SunkenCiv. I would have missed this article without your ping.
Pinging.
You're right---you ARE wrong. The law in effect when Obama was born was that in order for an infant not born on US soil to be a natural born citizen, ONE parent had to be an American citizen OVER AGE 18 (Obama's mother was not yet 18) if the other was a foreign national. This has since been changed (precisely how, I don't know), but is what would apply to the existence or non-existence of Obama's "natural born citizen" status.
“‘Fully hearing the case’ would take way more time than 8 days, when the electoral college meets, right?”
There would be 10 days between the 5th and the 15th when the Elecoral College is to meet. If the Justices decided to hear the case, it is my understanding that they may order an immediate stay in the Electoral process. That would mean that the Electoral College would not meet until a decision is made. I am sure the Justices would be hearing this case as quickly as they could....if they do hear it.
“And the U.S Supreme Court has no desire to risk another political firestorm by overturning an election on constitutional grounds.”
Do you realize the political chaos that will result if this isn’t resolved now, in the right way? Obama’s authority as president (and the credibility of the Democrat party) will be in serious doubt, across the nation and throughout the world.
The lawsuits will never stop.
Not true. The electors "pledged" to Obama would be free to vote for anybody they want, including Hillary. On another thread, it was already pointed out that a similar case has already occurred (I forget the details), and that the electors voted for a number of different people, depending on their own preference.
I understood your meaning.
There Will Be No Civil War.
What clear language is that?
Look, I am a convinced, passionate opponent of Bush v. Gore, on many levels. The Constitution vested the Florida Legislature with the power to appoint electors. I am convinced that they would have done so.
It was up to Congress, not SCOTUS, to resolve this dispute. Given that the Congress had Republican majorities, it is a certainty that Bush would have been (legitimately) elected some time prior to 1/20/01. It is possible (barely) that Lieberman would have been VP.
In any event, expanding further the already grotesquely expanded power of SCOTUS was then, and still is, a bad idea.
If he provides A, then C and D will not exist. And B, E, and F are irrelevant to the question of his eligibility to be president.
I believe you will be disappointed. Unless it's the five liberal justices who vote to take on the case.
Maybe, maybe not. Federal courts have in the past issued orders to prevent the clerks of court from accepting for filing lawsuits from persons filing repeated actions based on claims already rejected. If enough “versus Obama” lawsuits have been filed an rejected, that may happen again. Please note that I am not advocating that such lawsuits be banned; only pointing out that they can be.
No. The law recognizes two types of citizens - natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. There are no others.
Sure it will. Just ask Michael New.
I like your response. This whole election effort was fraud based from the campaign, to the candidate to the voter registrations. And they call our desire to challenge the BC under the constitutional eligibility requirements “garbage”. I see the liberal effort as nothing but destructive garbage, top to bottom, and I will never accept same.
But Obama as President - &*e$&^%&^%*(&%)&* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
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.