Posted on 12/16/2008 2:30:55 AM PST by FocusNexus
Challenges to Obama's victory are stuck in the past. The Constitution's requirements should be updated.
If the Supreme Court could weigh in on Al Gore in 2000, maybe it could prevent Barack Obama from taking office as well. That seems to be the motivation behind one of the wackier political movements of 2008, an Internet-fueled attempt to prevent Obama from assuming the presidency based on the discredited notion that he isn't a natural-born American citizen, as the Constitution requires.
It's not hard to dismiss the factual or legal basis for this claim -- as the Supreme Court did Monday when it declined to hear a case from a Connecticut man named Cort Wrotnowski. A similar case was rejected last week, and there are at least two other appeals pending before the court, though they almost certainly will meet the same fate. That's because there is abundant evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.
But what if he weren't?... Should the fact that a candidate wasn't born in the United States and may have had parents who weren't U.S. citizens prevent him or her from running for this nation's highest office?
In a rapidly globalizing society, we can expect more candidates like Obama and McCain -- admirable leaders who may not have had a conventional American upbringing -- and the challenges to their qualifications might not be so easy for courts to dismiss. All the more reason to bring the Constitution into the 21st century, and make our democracy more democratic, by letting Americans vote for whomever they choose.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“All the more reason to bring the Constitution into the 21st century, and make our democracy more democratic, by letting Americans vote for whomever they choose.’
Why should we even bother to require citizenship — that might exclude “wonderful leaders” like Putin and Chavez... (/sarc)
Well, then, you liberal jerkoffs, UPDATE THE DAMNED CONSTITUTION THEN!
If you THINK it needs updating, THEN DO IT.
YOU LAZY, MARXIST PIECES OF CRAP. JUST USE ARTICLE V TO DO IT.
This makes my blood boil.
>"based on the discredited notion that he isn't a natural-born American citizen, as the Constitution requires.
Discredited??? By a BC? Not Yet!
there is abundant evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.
There hasn't been a Birth Certificate presented as evidence!
But until the Constitution is “updated”, it IS the law of the land, or should be. I guess we should only obey laws, with which we agree and ignore the ones we don’t like. That’s the message. Of course the exception only applies to “admirable leaders” like Obama.
I think this piece virtually says that they know Obama is not a natural born citizen, but we shouldn’t care, he is not subject to “outdated” US laws.
Oh how I love having my rights “updated” out of existence...
Wonder who really wrote this post?
I saw this day and this idea in a dream...it was a nightmare.
“there is abundant evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.
There hasn’t been a Birth Certificate presented as evidence!”
It’s the implementation of the BIG LIE. Just keep repeating it, until everyone believes it. And since the MSM is in Obama’s pocket, it’s easy.
It’s unfortunate that our SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution either.
The article said — “The Constitution’s requirements should be updated.”
No, it doesn’t need updating. No one has really *challenged* those requirements. All that has happened with the “Obama issue” (in this regard) is that no one is *sure* about his qualifications. That is a far cry from requiring the Constitution to be updated.
What *is needed* — is simply for the various states *themselves* to put into law (i.e., make a new law in the various states) that requires the Secretary of State to vet a candidate to make sure that they meet the qualifications of the office (i.e., require proof to be submitted to that effect) — or else they cannot be legally put on the ballot in that state.
If various states do that (and it doesn’t have to be *all* the states, just some will do...) — then we will have *affirmed* the Constitution in that manner.
This “Obama issue” is a “dead horse” that many people are beating..., if they are trying to get Obama disqualified. That’s not going to work. What *will work* is that we make sure this doesn’t happen again, by passing several state laws that affirm the Constitution...
It’s a Los Angeles Times editorial, unattributed, which means the LAT stands behind it. Since it’s full of leftist liberals, I am sure they all agreed with this, regardless of who actually wrote it.
Yeah, it makes me very sad that my uncle lost his life in WW2 to make freedom for me. And that my father went to Japan in the 1940’s as well to serve his country and my xhusband went to Vietnam......And then we get the likes of Bill Clinton and Obambi to lead our country : ( What a mess.
Now we really get it. Obama is not a natural born citizen.
So.........lets disregard the rules for the moron messiah.
It appears the Supremes are not going to hear this case, and we may as well accept that, unless four of them get some courage.
With every piece like this from the Obamamedia that I read, I become more and more convinced that their “messiah” was born in Kenya. Why else all this panic about needing to change the Constitution. He was born in Kenya and these morons know it.
“He was born in Kenya and these morons know it.”
Exactly.
It seems we are screwed no matter what. A thought just crossed my mind for a non violent protest that will be noticed. What if the vast majority just didn’t pay any bills for 1 month. Yes your credit rating would take a hit. but at this point does it matter?
Yet again, an editorial that uses a deception as a fact. Neither the author or the referenced St. Petersburg piece mention the long form certificate. On top of that, the author doesn’t mention the rationale behind Leo or Cort’s case.
>>>>>The framers of the Constitution required presidents and vice presidents to be natural-born citizens because they feared that foreign monarchs would otherwise be free to intrude in U.S. affairs. There’s not much reason to fear such shenanigans anymore, yet the anachronistic article remains and can only be removed through a constitutional amendment.<<<<<<
Is it me or does the above statement suggest that the author doesn’t really care if obama meets the constitutional requirements or not?...
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.