Posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:09 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
In case you flunked English comprehension, every one of my items REDUCE the government intrusion in our lives.
Please do not jump to knee jerk reaction when suggestions are made to change government laws, because some changes actually give us more freedom, such as tax credits.
Did you even read and understand my post?
I stated we need to REDUCE regulation!
Of course gov’t does not create any jobs. I know better than any one else because I am totally self made financial success, and I did it with zero gov’t help.
Minor vs Happensett( U.S. Supreme Court)”Children of citizens are considered natural born.” The courts already know the Constitutional meaning of Natural Born, that is the reason they will not accept a case against obama. It would remove him from office if it ever got into court. And if the court and congress did not remove obama it could cause a Civil War.
Before obama can be declared ineligible to be President, it first has to get into court. No case so far that has been dismissed based on the merits of the case. Therefore you have no basis for your argument. The Indiana case was based on a bad interpretation of the Ark and the Minor cases. It is pure B.S. and has no affect on the Constitution.
The time to stop someone who is ineligible is BEFORE they assume the office. Either you don’t let an ineligible candidate on the ballot or you don’t certify the electoral college votes of an ineligible President-Elect. As a final recourse, you don’t administer the Oath of Office to a President-Elect who is ineligible.
The Indiana case was adjudicated as a dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. That IS a dismissal based on the merits of a case. The Appeals Court upheld the ruling of the trial court.
The basis of my argument is that there is one more adjudicated lawsuit with a holding that “a person born within the borders of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen’ for Article II, Section I purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents” than there has been a lawsuit holding that two American citizen parents ARE required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen for Article II, Section 1 purposes. The Ankeny decision adds to the body of case law on this topic. Each judge hearing future cases will decide for themselves whether this case has precedential merit.
Nice liberal talking points. We've heard that broken record for over two years now. It's old, and boring.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789
You are correct to a degree but the courts are there to uphold the law and the question is can Obamma serve as president if he is not a “natural born ctizen”? The law states he has to be the above! How he won the election means nothing was he qualified to run that means everything.
All the corrupt bastards are in collusion to keep the truth hidden that Obammy isnt eligible.
The blacks would take to the streets en masse if they even hinted at removing the sockpuppet b/c hes the first “black” president. It would turn the country upside down and blood would flow in the streets.
Not a happy thought.
Declare the Marxist impostor ineligible and overnight America would be a smouldering ruin. Imagine the Watts riots and amplify them X 1,000,000.
Even the leftist America-haters haven’t quite got the stomach for this possibility because they could not control it. Some may scoff but the risk is too great. We got ourselves into this mess because as a Nation we forsook God.
Then, there are those of us who carry it a little further. *ANYONE*, I repeat, anyone, who seeks to supplant the Constitution with anything else, be it "legal precedent", sharia 'law', 'executive order', or any other thing outside of the plain wording of that document is in effect, waging war upon the United States. The rationale is simply this, the entirety of the nation *is* that document, that unique contract between governing, and governed. And, by the strict definition of said document, waging war on the United States, by waging war on the Constitution, is TREASON...
the infowarrior
There is a Constitutional process to remove obama , Congress can void his election and any electoral college votes he received. They would then either call for a new election or certify the next person with the majority of legal votes as
President. I believe that the Democratic leadership knew that obama was ineligible to be President , but protected his campaign because McCain might have defeated Clinton. In my opinion Pelosi and Reid sold out America for their own personal gain. Ask yourself a simple question , If you found out that your doctor did not have a medical degree, would you keep him as your doctor? If he is already doing the “job” there would be no reason to stop using him, right?. We know that obama is not a Natural Born citizen or even if he was born in the U.S. , why would we want to keep him in office?
There is a Constitutional process to remove obama , Congress can void his election and any electoral college votes he received. They would then either call for a new election or certify the next person with the majority of legal votes as
President. I believe that the Democratic leadership knew that obama was ineligible to be President , but protected his campaign because McCain might have defeated Clinton. In my opinion Pelosi and Reid sold out America for their own personal gain. Ask yourself a simple question , If you found out that your doctor did not have a medical degree, would you keep him as your doctor? If he is already doing the “job” there would be no reason to stop using him, right?. We know that obama is not a Natural Born citizen or even if he was born in the U.S. , why would we want to keep him in office?
I will quote a US District Court Judge on this issue with specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama II: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE WHO HAS NOT ALREADY WON THE ELECTION AND TAKEN OFFICE. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accompanied through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through IMPEACHMENT or the succession process set forth in the TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” — US District Court Judge David O. Carter.
In addition, for more than a century now the Supreme Court has established the “de facto officer” doctrine which very very clearly states “The defacto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under color of official title (Obama was sworn in) EVEN THOUGH IT IS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THAT PERSON’S APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO OFFICE IS DEFICIENT. (Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S., 425,440) (1886).
“The defacto officer doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”
Finally, do you really expect a Harry Reid controlled Senate with two RINOs from Maine and other wishy-washy moderate Republicans in the Senate to agree to void Obama’s election?
His summation of the recent election says otherwise. Does 'shellacking' sound like a term of endearment to you??
The shellacking came from disgust with his policies, not from the public’s supposed belief in this conspiracy theory.
As with the willful and fully admitted blindness of the Senate re: conviction of the Impeached Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided to be willing to shitcan a relevant and valid provision of the Constitution in the interest of domestic stability.
The Ruling Class has decided. They were unwilling to convict an impeached psychopathic rapist, despite a room full of evidence, which most Senators willfully did not investigate.
No one is willing to risk incendiary racial violence in this country. Not Boehner, not SCOTUS, not anybody. The presidential qualifications provision in the Constitution has effectively been nullified.
So if he loves this controversy as you suggested, then you agree that it's counterproductive and counterintuitive for ol' Stitch Lips to care about.
The courts have been bought and sold...
The guy has no documented history. Surely you haven't bought into his "autobiography" account?
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.