Posted on 01/06/2011 2:41:15 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The scheduled reading of the Constitution in the House went off smoothly today, after a few of the usual procedural squabbles and legislative throat-clearing. Most representatives of both parties did a perfectly fine job of reading their assigned bit of the text. Speaker John Boehner got to read the really soaring words at the beginning, and gave an exceptionally powerful performance. At the other extreme, watching disgraced Democrat Charlie Rangel read from the Constitution was like watching atheist comedian Ricky Gervais read the Bible, but not as funny.
The only bump in an otherwise smooth process came when the requirements for presidential eligibility were read, by Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey. Article II, Section 1 states that only a natural-born citizen may be President. This prompted a woman who has been tentatively identified as Teresa Cao to upstage the unfortunate Pallone by screaming “Except Obama!” from the House galley.
Cao is a member of the “Birther” movement, which does not believe Barack Obama meets Article II, Section 1’s requirements. She’s an avid supporter of Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, who was court-martialed and imprisoned last month for refusing to report for duty when his unit was deployed to Afghanistan. Lakin says this is because he challenges Obama’s legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief. He had hoped to use the discovery process of his trial to force the President to unseal his long-form birth certificate. The military judge ruled against his request.
Cao knows her way around the inside of a sandwich board, having been photographed outside the Supreme Court with a “No Proof U.S. Citizenship” sign by the Associated Press, as far back as December 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
If you listened to the entire reading of the Constitution there is no provision for verifying a Presidential candidate’s credentials proving his is qualified to serve.
That needs to be addressed.
Same for Congress. Maybe with such verification procedures, we might not get people like Raul Grijalva (D-Mexico).
Maybe someone should have cried out when they read the multiple instances of the Constitution’s protection of the life of every innocent person, and the securing of the blessings of liberty to posterity.
“Cao is a member of the “Birther” movement”
Things have come to a sorry state when citizens calling a lie a lie get stuck with a special label.
A recent WorldNetDaily piece on the Lakin trial quotes her as saying, “I’ve been taking his message to the White House and Congress that Lakin was standing up for God, Constitution, and country. Puckett [his defense attorney] let Lakin down, and Lakin let all of us down.”The British Parliament self-heckles. They do fine. Let's not put paste-jewelry of decorum before the diamonds of duty. Our Congress would do well to abide a heckler or two. Especially in this matter. The dear citizen was right. and the whole Congress wrong, having failed to fully validate credentials the CONSTITUTION requires for this man, Obama.This whole story is a letdown. No action of Congress, from its wisest to its most foolish, is improved by hecklers shouting from the galley.
Coitus interruptus POTUS
bump
That was short. What happened to the libs NO LABELS mantra?
I think the whole “birther” controversy was created by the left to encourage Republicans to try to impeach 0bama. I hope they are smart enough to avoid the trap and go to work on the Healthcare repeal, cutting spending and creating jobs. Let the voters take care of 0bama in the next election.
This will be blacked out by the MSM.
Yes, it does need to be addressed.
The Constitution provides the federal judiciary to decide all cases and controversies arising from the Constitution, but the courts have been able to refuse to do their job.
At this point any law which doesn’t prescribe a penalty for somebody who refuses to obey it may as well not exist because it has no legal power.
Maybe that hypothetical person should have cried out that we need a Human Life Amendment to outlaw abortion, euthanasia, etc.
Getting rid of Obama, through whatever means, is not going to undo the crimes committed in the process of getting him illegal entrance into the White House with access to the nuclear football. Nor is it going to prevent this from happening again.
If Obama was the only problem I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, through personal experience because of the research I’ve done on this issue, I have found that government, media, law enforcement, and courts at all levels are all so corrupt and/or criminal that Obama is the least of our problems. To really tackle the biggest problem of lawlessness, though, we just about have to address the treatment of Obama’s eligibility situation, because this one issue has REVEALED the total corruption and lawlessness of all these entities.
I posted here the idea that the Constitution actually does have a ban on abortion.
In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.
How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?
-PJ
The founders neither wrote abortion into or out of the Constitution. It was an unfortunate mistake.
We do indeed need to secure the blessings of Liberty to our posterity, and we do NEED ALL of our posterity to ensure the continuity of our country and civilization. Therefore, a Human Life Amendment is the thing to do.
If Obama was the only problem I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, through personal experience because of the research I’ve done on this issue, I have found that government, media, law enforcement, and courts at all levels are all so corrupt and/or criminal that Obama is the least of our problems. To really tackle the biggest problem of lawlessness, though, we just about have to address the treatment of Obama’s eligibility situation, because this one issue has REVEALED the total corruption and lawlessness of all these entities.
Trust me, if the Republicans go after 0bama for this it will be "Monica Lewinsky" all over again. With der SlickMeister, everyone said "no one cares if he lied about sex". With the 'bamster, everyone would say, "shouldn't the Republicans work on creating jobs, etc...no one voted for them to impeach the president".
If there are obvious instances of corruption the Republicans should investigate them. But a situation like the birthplace of the president...after he's been serving for close to his first full term, is a definate loser. We have to recognize that the world is imperfect...we can't run around trying to resolve every imprefection. the best thing the Republicans can do is be re-elected as the majority in the House, win a majority in the Senate and win the White House. Then they can start starving the left-wing beast (something George W. Bush didn't have the guts to do.).
If so, then each state has a duty to certify that those candidates are Constitutionally qualified for the office they are running for.
The point of my posting on this subject is that, unlike the absurd Roe decision, I'm using actual words from the Constitution that address securing the liberty of our children's children instead of suggesting a shadow that emanates from a penumbra of other words.
I think that my citations for life have more standing in the Constitution than the Supreme Court's citations for abortion, even though my citations are in the preamble and the Supreme Court's don't exist at all.
-PJ
The only way you can believe that is to do two things: A) Ignore the dictionary meaning of the word "posterity," and B) Agree with Justice Blackmun that the fetus is not a person. Why? Because the Constitution explicitly protects the life of EVERY innocent person.
Even Blackmun, in the Roe vs. Wade written opinion, admitted that if the fetus is a person, they are "of course" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And so, he dehumanized the child, with the result being the brutal deaths of more than fifty million defenseless, innocent persons.
One other thing: Even if one accepted the false notion that the unborn aren't "in the Constitution," the portion of your post that I quoted at the top of this reply has you doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.