Posted on 09/18/2011 7:57:41 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
Care to name a candidate who IS attacking Obama as serving illegally?
Remember, not a single member of Congress questioned the election. And not a single state DA, state legislature or court has endorsed the ‘must have two citizen parents’ attack. No GOP candidate will, either.
You have proof Obama was born in Kenya? Produce it. Otherwise, attacking a GOP candidate for accepting Obama as President is just stupid and counterproductive to getting rid of Obama.
“Santorum also has no understanding of the Constitution and the natural born citizen prerequisite found in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 and the Supreme Court binding precedent of Minor and Happersett (1894), which requires a US citizen of two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth as eligibility for the presidency.”
Horse pucky!
And Minor was in 1875, and what it said in passing was:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Since the woman suing to get the right to vote had citizen parents, there was no need for the court to examine the question.
It WAS relevant in Wong Kim Ark, and decided in favor of Ark.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
100% on the mark....on all of it.
The question wasn’t ‘solved’ as Santorum said; it has been, disappointingly, ‘disposed of’ by the SCOTUS. IMO they should have taken up the very narrow question of the Framers’ intent in inserting ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution for the office of president, and that office only. They didn’t.
The ‘mountain of evidence’ has been disregarded by the federal courts in several jurisdictions and at every level. NO case regarding eligibility has proceeded as far as the discovery phase for there to have been any evidence presented in the courts. The Congress similarly has not touched it.
So, while semantically incorrect, at the bottom line, Santorum’s statement is, as a practical matter, correct.
“Yup. Dunno why birthers are now singling out Santorum, none of our candidates are going to even pay lip service to this eligibility stuff. “
because birthers are a bunch of kooks
Calling the United States Constitution a conspiracy makes you somewhat suspect when it comes to truth...
Those who twist the Constitution are far worse than "kooks."
It would have been a good opportunity for him to say obama should release the hard copy for examination so that there can be no doubt. So far all we’ve seen is a multi-layered internet version. Nothing kooky about that statement. IMO
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than 2 reasons:
1. It’s still early in the primaries, leadership could change.
2. Most only really see the writing on the wall after the first primaries. That’s when most drop out (if not a little before or after)
The rules concerning campaign funds make it very difficult to enrich oneself with such funds.
“It’s my pet issue, too, but the **truth** is that no Republican candidate knows whether or not Obama is eligible. No Republican candidate has access to the records that would prove whether or not Obama is eligible.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What does that mean? If we accept Obama’s version of his origins, born in Hawaii, sired by a father who was never an American citizen, then he is NOT constitutionally qualified, we are not required to determine whether he is telling the truth if his own words disqualify him. The problem is that very few Americans understand that his own words do disqualify him and a supreme court decision may indeed say that he IS qualified but according to the intent of the founders he is NOT qualified. It would not be the first supreme court decision to actually go against the intent of the authors of the constitution, not by a long shot. It is a shame that the constitution did not come with a set of footnotes referencing definitions for certain terms.
“The honest response should be, “ Why are you asking me? Ask Obama!””........I agree. Then ask why the certificate of live birth he released was in all those computer generated layers, and why did some of the layers show scrubbed out areas. Why didn’t the registration # jive with other births @ that time @ that hospital, and all the other education issues, and make a big deal about it. Make it a question you want answers for. I think it’s a breath of fresh air to have politicians address questions that millions are thinking about, and who ever does this will see a dramatic rise in popularity. It’ll take someone with gonads, and it probably won’t be a man.
“You have proof Obama was born in Kenya?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is not the only real issue and never was, otherwise I agree that there is no way to win by questioning his eligibility, the average voter is both ignorant and apathetic on the matter. A huge percentage think anyone born on American soil is a “natural born citizen”. There is even one story about a girl who thought it meant not to be delivered surgically.
Let’s all go to the FOX site where we can ask a question in the next debate. Let’s ask the candidates if they will demand that BO show his college records.
I am hoping and praying that during one of these debates somebody will ask Ron Paul to define article ll section lV of the constitution (natural born citizen clause). And then listen and watch the crowd go wild! Ron Paul would be forced to give an honest answer since he claims to be the one and only true and trusted Constitutionalist.
During every debate or interview or townhall, Ron Paul is always citing and describing the original intent of the founding fathers. Why has he been given a pass as to not explaining in public the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause? Forget going after Obama about his phoney B.C. because unless you can prove it in court, then you are labeled a kook. Sorta like put up or shut up. Nobody will ever get this heard in open court so why bother anymore. Pick your battles wisely! Obama loves it when his enemies fall into his trap and get devoured by mainstream hyienas. Proving Obamas fake B.C. is a loser issue BUTTTTTTT...........defining original intent is a winner and will blow open the conversation about his dual citizenship. That my friends is what you call a win-win!
won’t be much VP’ing going on after AttaaaaaaackkkkkWWaaaaaatch gets hold of him...
“A huge percentage think anyone born on American soil is a “natural born citizen””
Well, actually, that is pretty much what it means. The only question is if it includes someone born to a person here illegally. I’d say no, since they are not living under US law.
But if the courts were right in saying that natural born citizen is the American version of the English natural born subject, then yes, anyone born here is a NBC.
As the dissent protested against the WKA decision:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
I may agree with the sentiment, but that is the dissent.
If Ron Paul wants to say Obama is not a NBC, then he would also need to explain why he did not object to Obama taking office...
I have no problem with this as it reflects the current legal situation with all adjudicated case rulings “solved” in favor of Obama...so far.
Santorum is actually sticking his neck way out by in effect endorsing exactly what Corsi and Arpaio are doing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2779649/posts
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona has constituted a special law enforcement posse to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the birth certificate Barack Obama released to the public April 27 might be a forgery, WND has learned.
The posse, under the authority of Arpaio’s office, will consist of two former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys, headed by Michael Zullo, a retired police detective originally from Bergen County, N.J.
WND confirmed with Zullo and with Arpaio’s office that the investigation into the Obama birth certificate has been sanctioned fully by Arpaio’s office. The investigation, they said, will be conducted with “utmost diligence,” and the investigators will be authorized to utilize subpoena power.
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.