"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
this is actually pretty well thought out
This article is crap. This author thinks that conservatives are depending and hoping for a Clinton-esque parsing of the Constitution to keep Obama out of the White House.
He thinks that we are misguided and that the parsing of words like “eligible” is grabbing at straws.
Sorry. But for me, there should be no parsing necessary for a phrase like that or many others.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED LONG AGO BEFORE HE WAS ALLOWED TO EVEN DECLARE AS A CANDIDATE.
It is only a crisis NOW because it was not done so THEN. THIS is going to open up a can of worms for us as a country, because WE did not insist the Constitution be followed. That requirement was put there for a reason.
This is s waste of bandwidth article. This article ends by supporting his article by pointing to Obama’s birth certificate in HI - which no one has seen & may not exist. Maybe just a COLB about his borth in Kenya.
Also he uses birth announcements in HI papers that prove nothing. A child born in Kenya would get a COLB and a could have a birth announcement.
The fact that all of his records are sealed for his whole life, he provides a forged COLB and Sel Svc doc makes me think something is “rotten in Denmark.”
Interesting take. But just one man’s opinion. And he’s a Democrat.
Also, extremely naive or disingenuous on the subject of Obama’s COLB, which is a patent forgery. And the newspaper announcement means nothing. Newspapers generally print what the parents tell them and don’t fact-check every birth announcement.
Also, Stanley Ann Dunham got a COLB for Obama’s half-sister, even though she was admittedly born in Indonesia.
My take is that mistakes are made and the courts haven’t hesitated to correct them later, and it didn’t matter if half the population was pissed off. This should be no different. If a mistake was made, and someone missed it because Obama did not follow proper procedures, then screw him, screw the Democrat party, and screw the Obammunists. Let the law prevail.
Since the Constitution lays out qualifications for office how can the question of eligibility be a political question?
Since there are no qualifications for running for office, only taking the office, could it be that Obama is playing Constitutional Chicken?
It looks like he can't be disqualified until he is president-elect and he is hoping like hell that at that point no one will challenge him.
There are three: natural born, naturalized, and citizen by statute. John McCain is a citizen by statute, that bizarre, error-riddled Senate Resolution 511 notwithstanding. No one who knows what Obama is, is talking, or they're in Kenya and are being discounted. Isn't that racist?
saved
Who: the special Joint Session of Congress, which will convene for the purpose of counting the electoral votes.
When: January 5, 2009, at 10 AM.
Stopped reading at “here is the one case where conservatives want an activist type of judge to decide an issue,” this bonehead couldn’t be more wrong ,,, we want the law as written applied,,, activist judges need not apply..
But it hasn't happened yet: the electors declare their vote on Dec. 15.
Nowhere does the Consitution give any court a role in this process. Not all Constitutional questions can be decided by the Federal Courts. For example, the courts will not decide what constitutes a “republican form of government” under Article IV, Section 4. In general, the Federal courts do not decide “political questions,” and the issue of eligibility to be President seems to be a political question.
No, the Constitution doesn't give any court a role in this process (I assume he means the Electoral College vote), but, again, that hasn't happened yet. The popular vote (actually the vote for the state electors) is controlled, and the ballot certified, in each individual state, by the Secretary of State. Once the ballot has been approved by the SOS, there is room to bring suit in a state court, under each state's laws regarding certification of the candidates and the SOS oath to "uphold the Constitution of the United States." If the State suit fails, it can be referred to SCOTUS.
Berg didn't go that route, and therefore his suit will most likely fail. Donofrio did go that route, and though the chances are very slim that SCOTUS will take up the issue, he at least got his argument on the table there for consideration.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Supreme-Court-Justices-Consider-Obama-eligibility
Unfortunately, his case was an attempt to be preemptive before the election but, he was obstructed by a NJ Judge as well as a law clerk for the USSC who chose NOT to pass the submitted paperwork on to Justices BEFORE the election was held. It is a clear indication of the corruption that is present in our court systems.
I pray that Justice Clarence Thomas and the others come up with clear and HONEST reasons for their rulings, whether or not these cases are actually tried.
It looks like the Supreme will decide and when. I am glad that the Republicans picked all of our court justices except two.../sarc.
When he's finished with the White House.
(Send in more toilet paper.)
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
“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.”
AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!
There’s the rub!!!!!
That was written by a Democrat. The U.S. Supreme Court can take away Obama’s eligibility leaving the Electoral College to vote in McCain. If it goes to The House, they would only have McCain to vote for.... McCain could very well be the 44th President.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Do you have to be an “Obama opponent” to think it’s very strange that the new president won’t show his original birth certificate? And that he spends tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to avoid the issue?