Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices turn aside another challenge over Obama's citizenship
CNN ^ | November 30, 2010 5:29 a.m. EST | By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:09 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.

The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.

Kerchner's attorney, Mario Apuzzo, had argued in a petition with the Supreme Court that Obama did not fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen" required for the nation's highest office, as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birther; certifigate; citizen; kenya; naturalborncitizen; obama; troll; trollpost; trollthread
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last
I realize that I'm about to get flamed but the birthers need to realize that Obama loves this controversy. It distracts from his real flaws (ie, socialist America-hater) and smears the conservative movement as a bunch of conspiracy theorists akin to the 911 truthers.

In fact, I'm convinced that Obama won't show us his "real" birth certificate precisely because it baits people and distracts some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits.

The birthers have lost case after case over this. Time to give it up and fight Obama on ideas, not speculation.

1 posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:15 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I disagree- I love the fight over this

even if he has a real BC (and I doubt it)


2 posted on 11/30/2010 2:27:59 PM PST by Mr. K ('profiling' would be much more offensive than grabbing your balls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

$12 ... but ... no ... he won’t do that


3 posted on 11/30/2010 2:29:01 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

All it takes is one.


4 posted on 11/30/2010 2:29:46 PM PST by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I am a birther. I never give up.

The Kenyan Impostor’s authenticity diminishes each day he does not produce a birth certificate.

Elitist Republicans who want the birther issue to just go away also wish Sarah would go away.


5 posted on 11/30/2010 2:31:35 PM PST by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I think the issue has slowly chipped away at Obama’s credibility. Awareness of the issue has continued to grow.

It still needs to be fixed by congress and the states. There needs to be a legislated process at the national and state levels to review credentials of presidential candidates.


6 posted on 11/30/2010 2:31:45 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

We’ve got an election coming up that could remove him as surely as any court case.

Besides, the Constitution gives no role to the courts in deciding whether a president was properly elected. For good or bad, that role was given to the Electoral College and the Congress. These are intentionally political questions, not legal ones.

I think any attempt to expand the role of the courts farther is by definition a BAD IDEA. They already have far more power than the Founders intended. Let’s not add to it for fleeting political advantage.


7 posted on 11/30/2010 2:34:38 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Wouldn't a lack of constitutional qualifications to be president serve as a proper basis for impeachment?

In January, won't Speaker Boehner have the power to create an impeachment committee, if only for the purpose of investigating Obama's qualifications for office by subpenaing relevant documents?

Can you hear me, Speaker Boehner?

8 posted on 11/30/2010 2:38:27 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I disagree with you and the writer.

Should Washington have given up?

Of course with our brave conservative media giving O such cover while allowing CNN to distort this issue sure doesn’t help.

I can understand why Sean and Beck’s numbers are in decline.

I have lost repect for the whole lot of conservative radio and TV talking assh*les.


9 posted on 11/30/2010 2:38:34 PM PST by stockpirate (David Horowitz Democratic Party has been "seized by a religious cult" of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
...Time to give it up...

u mean cop-out?
Constitution's TOO IMPORTANT TO WIMP-OUT NOW.

10 posted on 11/30/2010 2:39:42 PM PST by 1234 ("1984")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

nobody wants to touch this.

it is treated as if those who believe are like the ‘TRUTHERS’ of the Right....even though it is a reasonable debate.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck....none of them will touch this with a 10 meter cattle prod.


11 posted on 11/30/2010 2:42:06 PM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Obama is an enemy of the Republic. When fighting an enemy, never, never, never give up.

If you want to give up, you can do it just as effectively over in the corner by yourself.


12 posted on 11/30/2010 2:44:22 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
Pelousey vetted him and authorized him as the democrat candidate. Make a deal with her. She's too proud, spoiled, and pampered to pass up something special. A statue made of Botoxed Rock or something.

She can give him up if she needs or wants to.

13 posted on 11/30/2010 2:46:32 PM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

A troll has an opinion we are wasting our time..what a surprise. You guys are like bugs flying to a light. Obama is an illegal President and a fraud.


14 posted on 11/30/2010 2:46:37 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I won't flame you ... however, between 25% and 45% of the population now know that Obama is not a natural born citizen (or at least acknowledge that probability) because "birthers" like us won't shut up. Those who would trash the Constitution failed to sweep this under the rug because of people like us. Even if we fail, we go down always swinging, never stopping, because we love our country. We may end up in the gulag, but we'll be in good company.


15 posted on 11/30/2010 2:47:01 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

You are correct. The House will certainly have the power to investigate and subpoena all relevant documentation, which is what most of us would like to see, not necessarily impeachment.

The main problem with impeachment, of course, is that while impeachment requires a simple majority in the Republican House, conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Democratic Senate.

They couldn’t get a majority vote in the Senate against Clinton when it had 55 GOP Senators!


16 posted on 11/30/2010 2:47:50 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

The Oligarchy of the United States has spoken... “shut up you worthless peasants”


17 posted on 11/30/2010 2:49:02 PM PST by TV Dinners (Hope is not a Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

It doesn’t distract anyone from anything. It’s perfectly possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

There are numerous problems with Obama. Lying about his accomplishments, covering up all of his records, and refusing to produce a valid birth certificate are just part of the problem.

He’s a Communist, a Muslim, an illegal immigrant, and a malignant narccissist. All you have to do is listen to what he says in incautious moments to realize that that is the case.

But you can also take other actions, such as electing a Republican congress who will defund his insane programs.


18 posted on 11/30/2010 2:49:45 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

why is this in breaking news..no reason to be..this was yesterday.


19 posted on 11/30/2010 2:49:45 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
A troll...

I've been posting here a lot longer than you, my friend. Sure you don't want to call me a newbie and post some cat pictures while you're at it?

;)

20 posted on 11/30/2010 2:50:17 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
They got the law all wrong. They did, just as in Dred Scott.

The purpose of US courts is not the law, and certainly not the due process of law. In the US the courts inherit the simple common law purpose of settling disputes between people, rather than allow those disputes to go unresolved and thus provoke chaos and violence. Towards that purpose a Judge must take some cases under an extralegal basis if no other standing avails. To provide a hearing of facts and reach a judgment that settles a disturbance that is or could become a danger to the peace.

The Constitution recognizes that simple principle and need in the preamble with the following words: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility"

Is that too hard a task, too hard for vain men who take pride in marshaling complex chains of stare decisis into perfected shackles of legalistic logic. The result of such prideful vanity ends up bloody when it wholly supplants the real reason for courts.

That being to Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility. Legalistic "Due Process" is not JUSTICE. It wasn't in Dred Scott and it is not here. The legitimate compliant has been refused hearing! Again and again -- just like the wanderings of poor Dred Scott from court to court in seeking justice.

He was denied! The result was civil war.

Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
60 U.S. 393
Scott v. Sandford
Argued: --- Decided:

A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

... his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.

Dredd Scott didn't have standing either.
21 posted on 11/30/2010 2:51:11 PM PST by bvw (No TSA goon will touch MY stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Yes, an impeachment committee can be created for the purpose of investigating Obama's qualifications. Then, when the facts are discovered, a decision can be made as to whether impeachment is appropriate. Creating the committee and investigating Obama's qualifications can be done without ever voting on an impeachment.

Boehner may be afraid to find out the truth. I think that the American people deserve the truth, though.

22 posted on 11/30/2010 2:54:15 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Agreed. All indications are that he was born in Hawaii. Waste of time. This energy could be well spent on something else.


23 posted on 11/30/2010 2:54:28 PM PST by popdonnelly (Class warfare is Obama's thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1234

What else you going to do? From the Supreme Court to the Dog Catcher, every sonof a bitch that swore an oath to defend and protect theConstitution has joined obama in shitting on it and they are bound and determined to keep him in office.

And i haven’t got to the traitortus bastards that voted for him with the expections that he was going to support them for life. He isn’t,but, they are too stupid to realize that.

We vote for people who say that they will do this and that and when they are elected and get to DC they say hell with you and help the Democrats take what little freedoms we have left and cede our soverignty to the u.n.

I am game, but, what the hell is left to do?

They said vote, I voted what has changed?


24 posted on 11/30/2010 2:55:07 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bvw

There was no Civil War. Lincoln invaded the South. Loss of Southern money going up North was the reason. Dred scott had nothing to do with it.


25 posted on 11/30/2010 2:57:38 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

The problem I have with the anti-birthers is that they’re not giving us anything tangible to work with on their side. They tell us, “Just give up on the BC; it’s not worth it; he loves the controversy; focus on his Marxism/Socialism/Americaphobia.”

Well, my FRiend, the problem with this argument is that you’re asking us to give up our legal right, and I daresay OBLIGATION, to verify the birth and citizenship of an American President. This did not happen, and almost across the board it’s acknowledged that he did not provide a traditional long form birth certificate.

It’s long past the point now, but at the time, someone should’ve spoken up and said, “A COLB is NOT a valid proof of birth/citizenship.”

This is a $10 piece of paper we’re talking about here, BLL! $10! He’s spending millions to keep lawyers on retainer to fight this, while he just needs to produce a God damned birth certificate! It’s a standard document that every single one of us has (somewhere) or there are records of it in local or state archives. He’s gone to extreme lengths to seal his records from the public eye. WHY?!

The anti-birthers want us to give up a tangible and legally backed fight for intangible concepts that we all know are true but no one in DC is willing to call him out on.

The Old Boys club is alive and well in DC, and we’re being ruled by despots. This young FReeper’s rope is growing shorter by the day with news of more usurpation of our liberty and abject failure on the part of this Regime to do anything even remotely positive for this country.

We’re all screwed, Obama’s taking us with him, and all we want, all we ask, is to see his certified long-form birth certificate. That’s it. A form that any one of us are required to produce for myriad purposes, that he’s supposed to produce to become eligible for President, and that he’s ardently kept under wraps since his administration started.

We’re being controlled by a Jew-hating billionaire and his globalist minions through an incompetent and utterly worthless piece of human detritus.


26 posted on 11/30/2010 2:57:47 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Boehner’s top priority should be creating jobs, not spend time
on searching for the original BC of president Zero.


27 posted on 11/30/2010 2:59:09 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Obama&Pelosi are the killers in chief of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
wrong is still wrong. obamanation is not legally qualified to be president. lies and coverups .... I think that obamanation knows that eventually he will be caught as the lying muslim he is .. there are those who can prove this and someone will eventually come forward when it is politically expedient for them to do so.. (clintons,pelosi, kenyan people).. thieves among thieves... ... and until then, he is rubbing our noses in it.... I for one, find this untenable...
28 posted on 11/30/2010 3:00:09 PM PST by bareford101 (For me, there is no difference in a tolerant, open mind and a cess pool. Both are open to filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

In fact, I'm convinced that Obama won't show us his "real" birth certificate precisely because it baits people and distracts some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits.

Seeing as how he has never shown his real birth certificate, that's pretty thin at best. The same day he's inaugurated, he places most of his life history off limits, and folks think "he's distracting some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits". He refuses to show his real birth certificate and some folks think "he's distracting some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits".

Folks that think that way better wake up and realize that should those documents ever see the light of day, he is a ruined man.

His approval numbers are in the toilet and he could gain instant popularity should he prove all the "birthers" wrong. Yet he doesn't. To lay claim that he is enjoying all of that is hogwash. He flees from the White House every opportunity he gets.

He's distracting some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits? The man is refusing a life line to his presidency and no one wonders why. Once again, the Supreme Court has failed in their duty to put this matter to rest. Don't know about the rest of you, but to quote Hans Solo, "I have a bad feeling about this." Something that could be resolved in the simplest of ways is not resolved and we the great unwashed are not allowed to know why. The action of the Supreme Court today bodes evil days to come and soon.

29 posted on 11/30/2010 3:03:28 PM PST by garybob (More sweat in training, less blood in combat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Small as I am, I´m making this a campaign issue.


30 posted on 11/30/2010 3:07:54 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Obama could publicly admit he isn’t qualified and the system would still do nothing, on the premise that it would destabilize society.


31 posted on 11/30/2010 3:10:11 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

IT ain’t over until WE THE PEOPLE SAY IT’S OVER.


32 posted on 11/30/2010 3:10:11 PM PST by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Ever notice the media hardly ever reports when a eligibility case is filed, but only when one is dismissed?


33 posted on 11/30/2010 3:11:07 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undocumented_capitalist

Until you suggested it, I don’t think anyone else suggested that Speaker Boehner make investigating Obama’s qualifications for president his “top priority.” If you ever get a chance to look closely at how the House does business, it consists of numerous committees that investigate just about everything. One extra committee investigation won’t prevent anyone from “creating jobs.”


34 posted on 11/30/2010 3:15:48 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Besides, the Constitution gives no role to the courts in deciding whether a president was properly elected. For good or bad, that role was given to the Electoral College and the Congress. These are intentionally political questions, not legal ones.

Constitutionality is precisely a legal question as the court has defined itself. Eligibility is a constitutional requirement.

35 posted on 11/30/2010 3:18:32 PM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick
Wouldn't a lack of constitutional qualifications to be president serve as a proper basis for impeachment?

No, impeachment is for high crimes or misdeamenors. If not constitutionally eligible he would simply stop being president until such time as he is eligible. In the case of the natural born citizenship issue, that would be never.

36 posted on 11/30/2010 3:20:35 PM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727
OVER? NOTHING IS OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT'S OVER! WAS IT OVER WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?!
37 posted on 11/30/2010 3:22:37 PM PST by TCH (DON'T BE AN "O-HOLE"! ... DEMAND YOUR STATE ENACT ITS SOVEREIGNTY !When a majority of the American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; Non-Sequitur
There was no Civil War. Lincoln invaded the South. Loss of Southern money going up North was the reason. Dred scott had nothing to do with it.

Consider all the reasons that have been submitted as to why the Civil War occurred (oh, and for the record, I don't think it was the Union who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter).

If you take away slavery, then all those other reasons would not be sufficient for the Civil War to have occurred.

Take all other reasons EXCEPT slavery? You still have the Civil War.

That's how strong feelings were over the issue, as indicated in the letters and writings of the time in the North and South.

38 posted on 11/30/2010 3:23:59 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007 (To view the FR@Alabama ping list, click on my profile!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Ditto!

In addition, he's doing everything in his power to turn this country into another Haiti.

39 posted on 11/30/2010 3:24:41 PM PST by Realman30 ("I've already made a donation to Haiti. It's called taxes". . . . El Rushbo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

You are right it is better to interpret the constitution not follow it.


40 posted on 11/30/2010 3:25:02 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
The first shot of the Civil War was fired on November 21, 1855 in the Kansas Territory, the first killing a few weeks later, on a date that nearly a century later became known as the "Day of Infamy" -- December 6, 1855. John Brown and his militias were major participants in that phase of Civil War. While the outright violence of the conflict suspended for the most part after 1856, the war in other forms continued thereafter.

A positive decision -- a JUST decision in Dred Scott would have ended it. Instead the Courts abandoned Justice for teh pursuit of a vain, yet perfectly processed, legalism of a ruling.

John Brown took over the arsenal at Harper's Ferry in mid-October 1859. Lincoln wasn't elected until November 1860. On April 12th 1861 Confederate General Beauregard ordered the cannons of the newly formed Confederate States to fire on Fort Sumter. That began the "War between the States" -- which ended four years later.

The Civil War, however continued. Perhaps this is the ending of it, with the election of the fraud usurper Obama, the long-term harm of the Dred Scoot ruling is buried and dead.

41 posted on 11/30/2010 3:26:02 PM PST by bvw (No TSA goon will touch MY stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Undocumented_capitalist

Other than privately employing people how can ANY member of the Congress DIRECTLY increase employment?


42 posted on 11/30/2010 3:26:58 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Retired Intelligence Officer
"Ever notice the media hardly ever reports when a eligibility case is filed, but only when one is dismissed?"

Because each case scares them the truth will win out and it makes us look bad.

43 posted on 11/30/2010 3:27:23 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
My question was merely a rhetorical one. Of course, misrepresenting one's qualification for the presidency would qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor.

It all really depends on 1) whether Speaker Boehner believes the claim that Obama lacks qualifications, and 2) whether Speaker Boehner is afraid that he won't feel bold enough to actually impeach if a committee were to prove that Obama lacks qualifications.

44 posted on 11/30/2010 3:28:44 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Retired Intelligence Officer

45 posted on 11/30/2010 3:31:11 PM PST by Diogenesis ('Freedom is the light of all sentient beings.' - Optimus Prime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Just to be clear you HAVE to interpret the Constitution in order to follow it.
The problem is that the courts have been redefining-and-then-interpreting the Constitution.


46 posted on 11/30/2010 3:32:17 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

1. Reduce stupid regulations
2. Cut taxes on businesses who employ people. Most effective
would be 50% tax credit for every employee hired and retained for a year.
3. Work for reducing obstacles in other countries for imports from US.
4. Make capital gains tax adjusted for inflation.

And I have perhaps 50 more, but this is a good start to increase employment.


47 posted on 11/30/2010 3:46:14 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Obama&Pelosi are the killers in chief of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Re-read post #8 to which I was responding.


48 posted on 11/30/2010 3:48:08 PM PST by Undocumented_capitalist (Obama&Pelosi are the killers in chief of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
It distracts from his real flaws (ie, socialist America-hater)

IT DISTRACTS? LOL! It proves it!

and smears the conservative movement as a bunch of conspiracy theorists akin to the 911 truthers.

That's an old MSM talking point and 'your concern' for the conservative movement is equivalent to my caring about your bowel movement.

In fact, I'm convinced that Obama won't show us his "real" birth certificate precisely because it baits people and distracts some conservatives from more worthwhile pursuits.

In order to convince, one needs credibility.
And your reason is so laughable, I wouldn't be surprised if you need a diaper change right now yourself.

The birthers have lost case after case over this. Time to give it up and fight Obama on ideas, not speculation.

You fight your man with your empty ideas that go along w/his.
49 posted on 11/30/2010 3:51:18 PM PST by presently no screen name ("Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.." Mark 7:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Doesn’t the presence of the eligibility requirement in the Constitution make it a legal question? It’s not up to the states to change that without an amendment, as it is for a federal office.


50 posted on 11/30/2010 3:51:42 PM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson