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

Skip to comments.

Obama’s Ineligibility: Our Last Chance to Save America
The Post & Email ^ | January 2, 2012 | Lawrence Sellin

Posted on 01/02/2012 3:58:38 PM PST by Ordinary_American

AN OPEN LETTER TO STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO BLOCK OBAMA FROM THE BALLOT

Sir, Ma’am,

Natural born citizenship was clearly defined in the Supreme Court holding Minor vs. Happersett (1875). It was a case about women’s suffrage, and in order to determine if Minor was allowed to vote, they had to define her citizenship. They said she was a natural born citizen because she was born in the US of citizen parents. It is a binding precedent that has never been superseded by any other Supreme Court holding or Constitutional Amendment and, therefore, supersedes all statutory law.

As you may know, the natural born term was well known during the time of the writing of the Constitution from Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758) stating “natural-born citizens are those born in a country of citizen parents” (Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212).

The issue at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was dual allegiance. The Founders were afraid that a British aristocrat might usurp the office of President (or Vice President) and steer the US back to the British Empire. The term natural born citizen only applies to those two offices and it is no accident that every post-Revolutionary Era President was a natural born citizen except Obama and Chester A. Arthur, who also lied about his background.

British law made Barack Obama a British subject by birth because his father was a British subject and then a Kenyan citizen after independence. Obama chose to let his Kenyan citizenship lapse on or about his 23rd birthday (Kenyan law).

The definition of natural born citizenship provided by many media outlets is wrong. Natural born citizenship is a combination of jus soli (born within the territory of the state or commonwealth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status) not either/or.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; congress; constitution; corruptgovernment; naturalborncitizen; nbc; nwo; obama; onepartysystem; smith; wethepeople

1 posted on 01/02/2012 3:58:41 PM PST by Ordinary_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American

“The issue at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was dual allegiance. The Founders were afraid that a British aristocrat might usurp the office of President (or Vice President) and steer the US back to the British Empire.”

Absolute BS.


2 posted on 01/02/2012 4:07:00 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“The issue at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was dual allegiance. The Founders were afraid that a British aristocrat might usurp the office of President (or Vice President) and steer the US back to the British Empire.”

Absolute BS.

Really? Please tell us all why that isn’t a truthful comment. Inquiring minds want to know.


3 posted on 01/02/2012 4:35:03 PM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American

We have no certainty as to whom the real parents of Barack Hussein Obama are. There is reason to suspect that the adolescent Stanley Anne Dunham never actually consummated her marriage with Barack Hussein Obama, and that in fact, she was possibly pregnant with another man’s child (some have suggested Frank Marshall Davis). Another possibility is that the individual designated as “Barack Hussein Obama II” or alternatively as “Barry Soetero” is not Stanley Anne Dunham’s child at all, but that Stanley Anne had faked the entire pregnancy, to cover up the origin of a child fathered by her own father, Stanley Dunham, and an unknown mother. Thus Stanley Anne and Barack would be half-siblings, not mother and son. That might be an explanation for some of the mysterious movements between Hawaii and Seattle, Washington shortly after the time of the presumed birth.

I want to see some DNA evidence.


4 posted on 01/02/2012 4:42:49 PM PST by alloysteel (Are Democrats truly "better angels"? They are lousy stewards for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Sounds like an episode on Maury Povich. A simple unredacted paper copy to each state, each party.


5 posted on 01/02/2012 4:52:26 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 4 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American
Speaking of...were Mitt Romney's parents American citizens when he was born? And since his name comes up fairly often as VP or President, what about Marco Rubio's parents when he was born.
6 posted on 01/02/2012 4:55:21 PM PST by GBA (Natural Born American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
DNA fatherhood is not the same a legal fatherhood. Ask any man who has been cuckolded with another man's child.
7 posted on 01/02/2012 5:01:19 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
"Absolute BS."

Most Obots are more eloquent, but Jacquerie’s rebuttel is typical.

Too bad the representatives for Colonel Lakin were not so concise as is Colonel Sellin, but the JAG Corp clearly had its orders to deflect questions about Obama’s eligibility at all costs. Lawyers and pundits will protect what they have. They have families too. We have seen the truth that adherance to the Constitution is a political choice, and we are paying the price for permitting the dismissal of enumerated rights which would have constrained a government with access to our pockets, our labor, and our health.

Colonel Sellin has presented what is sufficient. That is the discipline of a leader. That he didn't embellish his clear statement with more of the history is probably the right tactic. For those of us for whom finding the truth, given the thoroughness of Soros’ minions, Center For American Progress associates who re-wrote Supreme Court case decisions to hide citations to Minor v. Happersett, law schools like Cornell which published abridged Supreme Court cases such as Ex Parte Lockwood, legal “scholars” like Larry Tribe who talk about natural born citizenship without mentioning the two Chief Justices who clarified the common-law and made the positive law - precedence - Marshall and Waite.

We won't forget the truth. Let's see how many continue to perpetuate the big lie, including all the complicit Republicans who were outmaneuvered by the Democrats. Republicans didn't dare vet Obama because eliminating Obama meant Dems would point to U of Arizona Professor Gabriel Chin's excellent essay, almost a brief, explaining McCain's ineligibility. That would have left the Republican facing Hillary, with no strong candidate ready to oppose her. Very clever! Leo Donofrio was also probably correct that, while he found and published the evidence of Chester Arthur's ineligibility, Arthur, like Obama, having been born to a natural born citizen and a British subject, Democrats may already have had the information. That they thoroughly purged the Internet if published Supreme Court cases, at least twenty six of them, which indicated that Minor was established and recognized precedence, is clear evidence that they knew and understood the truth, and exactly what they needed to conceal from those not on board to delay the discovery that there has long been precedence. It explains why Wong Kim Ark's Justice Gray's first citation is to Minor v. Happersett, and whey Wong Kim was a "Native born" and not a "natural born" citizen.

Thanks Colonel Sellin.

8 posted on 01/02/2012 5:03:58 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American

This is legal and historic hogwash.

Aomg many other problems with it, Minor defines one person as a NBC. It is moot on who is not.


9 posted on 01/02/2012 5:04:13 PM PST by MindBender26 (Don't bother me with the small stuff. I'm too busy trying to save the Republic from Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American
Way too late for this.

There are a lot of politicians who needed to be defeated on the basis of their birthright (all of the Kennedys come to mind).

Politics is the theatre of ideas, ideologies and policies. Obama's are contradictory to those under which this nation was founded. He has no opposition within his own party. There is no viable 3rd party.

I realize that my choices to oppose Obama have been winnowed down to a couple of career politicians, a RINO or four, a theocrat or two and an old guy whose concept of liberty scares almost everybody, but those are the choices.

The birthers need to give up on the notion that anything is ever going to come of that question and pick the goofball of their choice to oppose the sitting POTUS.

10 posted on 01/02/2012 5:15:22 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
but the JAG Corp clearly had its orders to deflect questions about Obama’s eligibility at all costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If for some unlikely reason I am in the company of our very highest military leaders I will turn my back. I will shun them.

Is this how these glittering and beribboned weenies watch the back of the amazingly courageous and honorable troops serving under them? Is ignoring fraud, identity theft, failure to e-verify, multiple social security numbers, FORGERIES of birth documents, and usurpation of the office of Commander in Chief now the standard for the military code of honor. Is **this** what they now teach in our military academies? Is this how they uphold their oath before God to defend the Constitution?

How many men have been killed or severely wounded because of a usurper Commander in Chief's rules of engagement and political posturing in withdrawing troops for maximum election leverage? Why doesn't God strike they with lightning when they salute our brave and honorable troops? Why don't their wither into a pile of dust when facing the love one of those killed under the command of a usurper?

Sorry! I am convinced given the failure these glittering and beribboned weenies to ask congress and/or the courts for certifiable evidence the Obama is a natural born citizen and is who he says he is, is a disgrace. These men treat the Constitution like a balled up wad of used Kleenex.

Our nation and **especially** our brave, highly trained, dedicated, and honorable troops deserve better, so does the Constitution and the American people.

11 posted on 01/02/2012 5:16:24 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GBA

While Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico, he was born to two American citizens and thus was an American citizen at birth - jus sanguinis. Thus Mitt Romney was born in the US to two American citizens, and thus would presumably qualify as a natural-born citizen.


12 posted on 01/02/2012 5:27:25 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American

Political correctness enables a black skin to trump the constitution, the law, legal precedent, common sense and informed judgement.


13 posted on 01/02/2012 5:43:19 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

“Another possibility is that the individual designated as “Barack Hussein Obama II” or alternatively as “Barry Soetero” is not Stanley Anne Dunham’s child at all, but that Stanley Anne had faked the entire pregnancy, to cover up the origin of a child fathered by her own father, Stanley Dunham, and an unknown mother. Thus Stanley Anne and Barack would be half-siblings, not mother and son. That might be an explanation for some of the mysterious movements between Hawaii and Seattle, Washington shortly after the time of the presumed birth.”

And in 1961 there was a man named Jimi Hendrix who also lived is Seattle. And it is quite possible that Jimi Hendrix is the actual father of Obama.


14 posted on 01/02/2012 6:11:09 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vette6387; Spaulding

You boys have it backwards. You show me (it doesn’t exist) where the Framers in Philadelphia expressed fear of the return of a British monarch.


15 posted on 01/02/2012 6:20:26 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Obot?

Hey Knucklehead, check my posting history.

16 posted on 01/02/2012 6:24:31 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


17 posted on 01/02/2012 6:39:46 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mvpel
The reason I brought it up is there has been some questions regarding the elder George Romney's citizenship due to stories about his parents leaving/fleeing the country and his being born in Mexico and how that relates to Mitt.

Just seems odd in a country mostly made up of originalist definition Natural Born Citizens, that the last few Presidential candidates, McCain, obama and possibly Romney, haven't been.

I understand it's just the Constitution, so it's not like it's important or anything, but I can't help but wonder why we can't at least try to follow it after a couple hundred years of swearing oaths to defend it instead of undermining it for political convenience.

18 posted on 01/02/2012 6:50:09 PM PST by GBA (Natural Born American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; Irish Eyes; CatherineofAragon; wintertime; Iron Munro; alloysteel; Ordinary_American; ...
Consider this scenario: Donald Trump runs in a third party and aggressively raises the eligibility issue, and then as he is running pursues it in court. He would clearly have standing. He would clearly attract attention. Would any Republican have the integrity and cajones to raise the issue? What about the pistol packing guy from Texas?
19 posted on 01/02/2012 7:04:15 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

I’ll see your scenario and raise you one.

Trump succeeds in having non-NBC candidates removed from the ballots.

Who’s left on the ballot?


20 posted on 01/02/2012 7:18:01 PM PST by null and void (Day 1077 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Good question. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann. Roemer, Huntsman, Paul,I would think. I don’t know about Romney in light of the discussion. He was born here; that much is certain.


21 posted on 01/02/2012 7:27:52 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
I'm presupposing that the primaries are over and Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Roemer, Huntsman and Paul didn't make the cut.

I don’t know about Romney in light of the discussion

Me neither, for the sake of discussion, his father was a Mexican national and he's non-NBC for the same reason as Obama.

We're left with a handful of 3rd party candidates (probably including Paul as a Libertarian) Trump, Biden, and whoever Mitt tapped to be his Veep.

It would make a good novel, and sell a LOT of popcorn...

22 posted on 01/02/2012 7:39:24 PM PST by null and void (Day 1077 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I’m assuming religious refugees would not file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad with the US consulate...


23 posted on 01/02/2012 7:43:56 PM PST by null and void (Day 1077 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory; Spaulding; Irish Eyes; CatherineofAragon; wintertime; Iron Munro; alloysteel; ...
The entire issue has been de-legitimized and inextricably attached to the "Birther" scenario.

It belongs in the courts. The Judges have all run from it.

The polite bar-room brawls (and not so polite) the endless references to the worthy von Puffendorf .... the iconic Vattel .... ain't worth a hill'o'beans until a court takes the case on the merits.

Our last chance is a state election board, a governor, an attorney general, someone somewhere who merely takes The Mombasa MF or whoever he is off the ballot, as is that official's Constitutional right and duty under the laws of his state.

That will put it in court where it belongs and we'll get to know if we are right ... or if we are all crazy.

24 posted on 01/02/2012 7:49:05 PM PST by Kenny Bunk ((So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

From my research, so while it may be true that the rationale is not in the Constitution itself, it appears quite like that the reasons for the requirement were driven more or less by the concern about foreign intervention. And with FUBO in the White Hut, it looks as though their concerns were valid.

“Why, then, did the generally pro-immigrant founders include a provision in the Constitution that would exclude immigrants from the presidency? The rule seems anti-egalitarian if one imagines a poor boy coming to America and rising through the political system by dint of his own sweat and virtue only to find himself barred at the top. But in 1787, the more plausible scenario was that a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue and use his European riches to buy friends and power on a scale that virtually no American could match. No such grandees had yet come to our shores, but it made sense to anticipate all the ways that European aristocracy might one day try to pervert American democracy.

Several months before the Constitution was drafted, one prominent American politician, Confederation Congress president Nathaniel Gorham, had apparently written to Prince Henry of Prussia, a brother of Frederick the Great, to inquire whether the prince might consider coming to the New World to serve as a constitutional monarch. Though few in 1787 knew about this feeler, the summer-long secret constitutional drafting sessions in Philadelphia did fuel widespread speculation that the delegates were working to fasten a monarchy upon America. One leading rumor was that the bishop of Osnaburgh, the second son of George III, would be invited to become America’s king. “


25 posted on 01/02/2012 8:04:28 PM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
we'll get to know if we are right ... or if we are all crazy.

it is possible to be both...

26 posted on 01/02/2012 8:05:54 PM PST by null and void (Day 1077 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

WHOA! Never anticipated a projected turn like this. Interesting for sure.


27 posted on 01/02/2012 8:17:54 PM PST by mcshot (Neither handsome nor handy but took an oath and will vote to save our Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"Aomg (sic) many other problems with it, Minor defines one person as a NBC. It is moot on who is not."

Ah yes MindBender26. We are back to "It depends up what is is." Justice Waite did not say that Mrs. Minor is included in the class of natural born citizens. He used the verb to be: is, were. Supreme Court justices were careful with their use of language. "Words must be presumed to have meaning." In mathematics "is" implies a definition. A definition means "the same as." Spoken and written language is not so concise as mathematics, and great jurists seem to take special care to insure that logical constructions are well-formed.

No amendments passed (many amendments were attempted, nine between 2000 and 2007 attempted, and twenty six attempts since 1789) have addressed natural born citizenship, and while no federal laws have been passed either, separation of powers prevents a law from reinterpreting the Constitution, as Clare McCaskill and Barack undoubtedly knew when they submitted the "Bill to Insure That Foreign Born Children of Citizens in the Military have Presidential Eligibility", SB2678, in February of 2008. They wanted to establish talking points for the Obama Media, and to discourage any Republican from raising the ineligibility flag. Citizenship laws - article 1 section 8, "To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization," make naturalized citizens. The president must be a Natural born citizen, the only class defined by the Constitution, all of which definitions come from, as Justice Waite so clearly explained in Minor v. Happerwsett: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar..." There is but one redefinition, the clarification of "Treason against the U.S." in the Constitution, and no other definitions - by design. The intention was to explicitly use the common-language and common-law at the time of the framers so that citizens would understand our foundations. Our framers did not want law dispensed by legal Mandarins from private libraries filled with thousands of dusty leather-bound volumes of often contradictory decisions designed to protect the prerogatives of the monarchy (Justice James Wilson wrote scathing chapters about the lunacy of building US Law upon Blackstone - British Common Law.)

"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."

Language and prepositional logic make any definition other than "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" a definition of a class other than that of natural born citizens. "Citizens are either natural born or naturalized." If there are two classes, and every element of the first is also in the second, and every element of the second is also in the first, the classes are equal. That is the nature of a definition. Any citizen other than one born to citizen parents on our soil is a naturalized citizen, which, by-the-way, is exactly the legal definition Obama applied to his own status on his web site, fightthesmears-dot-com. He defined himself using the 14th Amendment terminology used to define naturalized citizens, as a "native-born citizen of the U.S.", the same status given by Justice Gray to Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese Nationals, but on our soil. There is no mention of natural born citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and its author, John Bingham, confirmed the Vattel definition made "stare decisis" - decided law - by Minor. Wong Kim would not have been eligible to be president (though no law would prevent him from running, just as Calero, McCain and Obama ran, leaving open whether accepting presidential campaign contributions constituted fraud).

It is good to raise the issues so that more will understand. Just as there is no question that Rubio understand, and Jindal understands, that neither is currently eligible. Each of them can try to get someone, as Senator John Conyers tried for Obama and Hatch tried for Schwarzenegger, to initiate an amendment to Article II Section 1. The British still don't even allow naturalized citizens to be MPs whereas our naturalized citizens can hold any office but the presidency.

We now have an example of what can happen when we allow the power of the presidency, eligible or not, to be wielded by someone whose dreams were influenced by a father who hated capitalism. Do our soldiers believe their commander in chief is committing them to risks in the interests of the nation they volunteered to fight for, where their wives and children live, and which government was created to protect them? Or can they see, as in "Fast and Furious", that their commander believes that sacrificing a few soldiers might help with his stated political ambition for a global defense force controlled by the UN or some new consortium perhaps alled with those behind the "Arab Spring."

If we don't insist that the doctrines in our republic's foundation be adhered to, even if an exception seems worthy, such as McCain's service and his sacrifice as a war prisoner exemplify, respect for our laws becomes a political expedient. If we want to change the precedent in Minor to allow someone born to one dual citizen (Stanley Ann became a British subject by marrying Obama Sr.) and an alien, born on our soil, to be a reputed natural born citizen, or to two aliens if they never belonged to a community that threatened to blow up Israel or the US, or their parents subsequently became naturalized citizens like Chester Arthur, or to two illegal aliens if they got a college degree paid for by our tax money... we have a constitutional mechanism, Article V, for changing the Constitution. Assuming legislators can be bought after having spent a year or two in Congress, would three fourths of the states accept the risks associated with mucking with "born on the soil of citizen parents?"

28 posted on 01/02/2012 9:33:10 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
We now have an example of what can happen when we allow the power of the presidency, eligible or not, to be wielded by someone whose dreams were influenced by a father who hated capitalism. Do our soldiers believe their commander in chief is committing them to risks in the interests of the nation they volunteered to fight for, where their wives and children live, and which government was created to protect them? Or can they see, as in "Fast and Furious", that their commander believes that sacrificing a few soldiers might help with his stated political ambition for a global defense force controlled by the UN or some new consortium perhaps alled with those behind the "Arab Spring."

So?....What are the very highest military silent? Where are the requests to congress and the courts for certifiable documentation that Obama is a natural born citizen and is who he says he is. Where were the press conferences and highly public resignations? Is **this** how our highest military defend the Constitution and watches to the backs of our honorable, brave, and highly trained troops? Is fraud, identity theft, forgeries, usurpation of the position of Commander in Chief, multiple social security numbers, and failure to e-verify not part of the military code of honor? I this how they defend the Constitution.?

How many soldiers have died or been grossly wounded because Obama uses the military to promote his election chances? Personally, I think the very highest military treats the Constitution like a snotty piece of Kleenex. I don't know why lightning doesn't strike when our brave troops salute them. Why don't they wither into a little pile of dust when they look into the faces of the love ones of our dead and wounded soldiers?

29 posted on 01/02/2012 10:20:37 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
You are 100 wrong that Marco Rubio “understands” that he is 100% ineligible to run for president.
30 posted on 01/03/2012 5:37:31 AM PST by MindBender26 (Don't bother me with the small stuff. I'm too busy trying to save the Republic from Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Consider this scenario: Donald Trump runs in a third party and aggressively raises the eligibility issue, and then as he is running pursues it in court. He would clearly have standing. He would clearly attract attention. Would any Republican have the integrity and cajones to raise the issue? What about the pistol packing guy from Texas?

I don't believe anyone in the Republican party will raise the issue. It is considered gauche. (And yes I do believe that most Republicans are more concerned about social awkwardness than constitutional requirements.)

31 posted on 01/03/2012 7:20:21 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

And to follow up, I spend almost as much time arguing with wrong headed Republicans/conservatives as I do with Obots. As hard as it is to believe, there are conservatives that simply do not want to believe the truth.


32 posted on 01/03/2012 7:22:22 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I could see one or more Republicans who are NOT running for reelection raising the issue in either the House, Senate or both and calling for an investigation. Would that work?


33 posted on 01/03/2012 7:30:13 AM PST by IM2MAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

Trump has already raised the issue and dropped it. He does not need to run third party to raise it again. No, I don’t think that is his motivation.


34 posted on 01/03/2012 7:52:20 AM PST by World'sGoneInsane (We Can Take OUR Country Back--Perry 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GBA

I believe there are questions about both Romney and Rubio, hence a perfect ticket for Obama to run against. some more “I won’t ask you if you don’t ask me” and the American people lose again. We need to be praying A LOT.


35 posted on 01/03/2012 8:34:10 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void

What a coup that would be! It would at least be legitimate, unlike the one Obama has perpetrated. I don’ trust Trump but capitalism has been very good to him and I doubt he is a Communist, like the thugs we have now.


36 posted on 01/03/2012 8:40:28 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IM2MAD
I could see one or more Republicans who are NOT running for reelection raising the issue in either the House, Senate or both and calling for an investigation. Would that work?

I don't think you could get any to do so. The Republican movers and shakers are absolutely afraid the media will "Willy Horton" them with any accusations of ineligibility, and it would certainly get repeated as fact throughout the black community. (95% Democrat voters.)

That and McCain's own perceived eligibility issues is what kept much of the Republican rank and file off this topic in the first place. Now they have bought their dogma by acquiescence and are now compelled to defend it.

37 posted on 01/03/2012 10:42:33 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]





I May Be a Birdbrain
But Smart FReepers Donate Monthly
To Abolish FReepathons



38 posted on 01/03/2012 12:08:44 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"You are 100 wrong that Marco Rubio “understands” that he is 100% ineligible to run for president."

I can't read minds, or bend them MindBender26, but his failure, like every other Republican, to directly address the clear definition in Minor v. Happersett, the clear statement in Perkins v. Elg, the statement by John Bingham, or the dictum in John Marshall's Venus decision, etc. etc. sounds like evasion. I think Rubio wants to ride it out, hoping that the evasion which allowed McCain to run and Obama to run and assume the office will continue.

Remember, Obama’s constitutional law professor Larry Tribe, writing in the bogus hearing, one of six, to confuse the public about McCain's ineligibility, SR511, based the support he and Ted Olson gave upon McCain havign satisfied jus sanguinis - having been born to citizen parents. Every Democrat and every Republican knew Obama was not born to citizen parents. He was born to a dual citizen and an alien.

These are not dense or ignorant people. They have developed the discipline to hide their beliefs essential to most politicians - and poker players. So I could certainly be wrong, but, like the hidden Obama history, it seems very unlikely that we will learn Rubio’s beliefs as long as there is a chance he could be a presidential candidate. If Rubio talks honestly he puts hundreds of Republican legislators in the embarrassing position of having to argue with Rubio, or having to explain why they failed to respect The Constitution.

Having read Rubio’s aides make claims about Rubio’s eligibility means that Rubio retains plausible deniability should truth prevail and Rubio be offered Sec. of State. or Attorney General position. What remains a fact is that no legislator has been willing to engage in a discussion. They are using the politics of power to avoid a legal discussion for which they now know there is clear precedence. I do believe that many legislators could have been deceived by the remarkable scrubbing of Supreme Court case documents of citations to Minor executed by minions of Soros’ Center for American Progress. Few lawyers with whom I've discussed this point knew anything about Article II Section 1, Minor v. Happersett, The Venus, Perkins, Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ attempt to ignore Article II, etc. etc. The topic is hardly a topic at most law schools, and Constitutional law has little to do with activities of working attorneys.

There is nothing incomprehensible about the law. Our framers consciously created a document which every literate citizen could read, debate, and understand. Rubio is playing politics of a sort which should warn against his ambitions for higher office. He saw what happened to congressman, and now Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, who had the courage to question Obama’s eligibility, unleashing the thugs of Holder's justice department.

But if you think he “understands” that he is eligible, and I am not at all a follower of Rubio’s public statements, I'd appreciate a reference to some clear statement by Rubio confirming that. That would follow him through his career, and I doubt that he is foolish enough to do that given all the legal confirmation by our greatest justices and judges, including 14th Amendment author John Bingham.

39 posted on 01/03/2012 4:35:00 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: World'sGoneInsane

IMHO Trump was used (bought?) to bring the issue of BC so the Kenyan cab show the fake and put the question to rest.
Now if Trump runs as independent case closed, Kenyan reelected, trump has done the job and few more casinos are added.


40 posted on 01/05/2012 8:57:05 PM PST by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian

cab = can


41 posted on 01/05/2012 8:59:37 PM PST by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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