Posted on 07/28/2009 5:58:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Gibbs made some comment along the lines of “I could show you the president’s DNA, but it still wouldn’t convince these people.” Which is an indication that he doesn’t understand the issue at all, or is willfully mischaracterizing it.
hmm maybe he does understand the “real” issue and DNA is part of it?????
What is required is, in the language of Article II, that he be a “natural born citizen.” The birth certificate question concerns the proof which goes to that requirement. So far there is no proof that he meets the constitutional requirement and what fuels the suspicion is that he has consistently not only refused to produce it, although would seemingly be easy if what he claims is true, but he has engaged in and has continually had others engage in false and misleading representations that documents were such proof when they clearly are not.
Then, according to the Supreme Court, his status as a “natural born citizen” under Article II is in “doubt.” Isn’t that why there is the present controversy?
There is no doubt that the current Supreme Court would rule Barack Obama eligible to be President of the US, should they decide to hear such a case. If there were such doubts, they wouldnt have dismissed the suit attempting to raise such doubts last December.
The problem is that you have a different understanding of those Article II requirements from what the 9 members of the Supreme Court and what most other people have.
For most of us, and more importantly for the SCOTUS, his birth in the United States to an American citizen mother suffices for Article II ‘natural-born citizen’. You are asserting positions (ie the need to have an American citizen Dad) that have not and almost certainly will not hold up in court. Would Chief Justice Roberts have participated in the swearing-in ceremony if he felt about this matter as you do?
there are other kinds of proof besides an actual b.c. For example doctors who witnessed the birth or if someone from hawaiian dept of health saw the original b.c
The former would be much more convincing and introducible proof at this point than the latter, although the latter would be a good start. But the truth is that all attempts to compel any credible evidence have been resisted to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and now with Alinsky style tactics that consist largely of name calling by the anointed of all persuasions on an issue that ordinary people can so easily grasp that the attempts only enlarge the attention paid to the issue by those who realize that the attempt is to not allow us to decide for ourselves based on revealed facts.
You don’t seem to have read what the Supreme Court has actually said. In 1874, the only time that they went into the issue at great length, the Supreme Court said that when one parent is not an American the issue of the child’s being a natural born citizen under Article II is in doubt. The Supreme Court has never really explicated how that doubt is to be resolved. Do you disagree, and if so, based upon what?
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.