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

Skip to comments.

America cannot be saved on a technicality, by birthers or otherwise
SaintGeorgeNews.com ^ | Feb. 13, 2012 | Bryan Hyde

Posted on 02/14/2012 12:51:08 PM PST by Kukai

OPINION –Opponents of Barack Obama have long questioned the legitimacy of his citizenship. They claim that Obama’s birth may have taken place outside of the United States. If Obama were born in Kenya, as some claim, he would be in violation of the Constitution’s requirement in Article 2 Section I that a candidate for president must be “natural born citizen” of the U.S.

To this end, the so-called “birther” movement has spent much of the last four years demanding that Obama provide his original birth certificate as definitive proof that he was actually born in the U.S. After inexcusable foot-dragging, the Obama administration last April released a copy of the president’s certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii.

Not surprisingly, birthers are dismissing the Hawaiian birth certificate as a fraud and have redoubled their demands for clear proof of the president’s eligibility to hold office.

Now a judge in the state of Georgia has given the controversy a new twist by agreeing to hear a case challenging Obama’s ability to appear on the ballot in several states unless he proves his eligibility. Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had earlier labeled the hearing as “baseless, costly and unproductive.” During the packed hearing in a Georgia courtroom on Jan. 27, 2012, the defense table was conspicuously empty as neither the president nor his attorneys were present.

The case is noteworthy for a couple of reasons:

First, the birth citizenship question is not as remarkable as the allegation that the president initially exerted considerable pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State to drop the matter, then openly ignored the subpoena summoning him or his legal counsel to the Georgia courtroom. The question this raises is whether the president is still subject to the laws of the land or whether he can simply ignore the legal process at his whim.

Secondly, the mass media has shown a clear reluctance to lend any degree of legitimacy to the issue, by refusing to cover it at all. This may be one of the strongest indicators yet of how the press increasingly exists to sell the agenda of the political class rather than informing the public. The questions around Obama’s birth citizenship could be examined thoroughly and objectively without creating a bully pulpit for the president’s detractors. But the silent treatment on the part of the press serves to raise more questions than it puts to rest.

There is far more important question that deserves serious consideration; what if both the president and the birthers are wrong?

From the standpoint of proper government, the president should be subject to the very same laws and legal protections as any American citizen. He is not a unitary executive who is permitted to act above or outside the law when he pleases. If a president’s policies include engaging in unjust wars, torturing or killing without due process or infringing upon liberty, those policies don’t become more or less legitimate based upon where he was born.

The birther movement appears to be straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The president’s birth citizenship issue is a classic example of technicalitarian thinking. This is the belief that the problem with government is that someone in a high position isn’t following a technicality of the written law. Where are the concerns about the real abuses of executive power listed above? These are actual policies and powers being claimed by the current administration, not just some magic loophole by which Obama got elected.

Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.

The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: naturalborncitizen; obottalkingpoint

1 posted on 02/14/2012 12:51:13 PM PST by Kukai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kukai

The author has chosen to ignore that the real question is whether the “natural born citizen” requirements were met.


2 posted on 02/14/2012 12:54:22 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

No, the real question is why did a free people willfully elect a communist, muslim, homosexual fascist tyrant upon itself?

Until that question can be answered, no other question even matters.


3 posted on 02/14/2012 12:57:22 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kukai

If the “natural born citizen” requirement is considered just a technicality, does that mean the U.S. Constitution just a compendium of technicalities?


4 posted on 02/14/2012 12:57:31 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
demanding that Obama provide his original birth certificate as definitive proof that he was actually born in the U.S. After inexcusable foot-dragging, the Obama administration last April released a copy of the president’s certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii.

The 2 are NOT the same.

5 posted on 02/14/2012 12:58:17 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Yes, yes it does...


6 posted on 02/14/2012 12:58:30 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay.

Blame everyone except the Dem Party Liars. (ie Pelosi et al) The article is saying that societal decay did this. It was Fraud that brought this on. Yes society is decaying, but that did not elect this Quisling.

7 posted on 02/14/2012 1:03:20 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
No, the real question is why did a free people willfully elect a communist, muslim, homosexual fascist tyrant upon itself?

Public schools have been brainwashing children for decades. This is the end result. Astonishingly, from what I've seen, public schools seem to be doubling down....at least the ones that are still open.

8 posted on 02/14/2012 1:03:59 PM PST by ILS21R (Never give up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Cutting, concise, truthful.

You win and thank you for your post.

9 posted on 02/14/2012 1:04:47 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846454/posts

The first “Birther” was a Hillary Clinton activist.

The entire Birther argument requires Judicial Supremacy, in order to win.

Judicial Supremacy is a LIBERAL idea!

10 posted on 02/14/2012 1:28:59 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kukai

Violating the constitution is a ‘technical problem’?
The dummies still don’t see that this ‘technical problem’ is the cause of an anti-American, anti-constitution, Muslim with dual allegiance attacking USA from within!
This proves the keen insight of our founding fathers when they require ‘natural born citizen’ who has sole allegiance to USA to be our president/VP, to avoid invasion by foreigners (including people with ALLEGIANCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES)!

This is the most basic of the constitutional provision. When such a basic provision is violated, how can we uphold all the other provisions?
All those ills the author refers to come from violating the constitution - gov usurping power from the states and the people, legislating from the bench, taxation without representation, budget not balanced as required by the constitution......

It is true the constitution has been slowly dismantled. Letting a usurper thump his nose at article 2 nbc presidential requirement is the last straw!


11 posted on 02/14/2012 1:38:43 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Do you know what you are talking about?

There certainly is ‘judicial supremacy’ going on now on the issue of obama elig - The courts/judges are the ‘supreme’ powers qaushing every legitimate challenge for 4 years!

This manifest ‘judicial supremacy’ surely is a liberal idea!


12 posted on 02/14/2012 1:46:47 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
Barack Obama is the poster child for exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent with the Natural Born Citizen clause.

He has divided loyalties to this country (if any loyalty at all). He bows to foreign leaders, some are our enemies. He thinks the U.S. is a MUSLIM nation. He has absolute contempt for Christians, who by the way founded this country. This IS a CHRISTIAN nation.

He has loyalties to Fascists, Communists, and Islamists. He fills his administration with them and supports them around the world at the expense of our traditional allies, like the UK & Israel.

I will oppose Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as fervently as I have Obama, if they run for president or vice president.

THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS.

13 posted on 02/14/2012 1:54:30 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay.

Can't really contradict that; can only add that it has accelerated the decay.

14 posted on 02/14/2012 2:25:12 PM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj; All
Actually, NO!

The Courts, in the birther cases, are NOT willing to over rule Congress (for a change!)

Congress had full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of John McCain.

Congress has full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of Obama.

Congress determined that BOTH were eligible!

Bithers are asking the Courts to interfere -— Birthers are therefore supporting the idea of Judicial Supremacy, which is a very liberal idea. Do not forget that the first “Birthers” were PUMA Clinton activists!

BTW, Congress HAS restricted the authority of the Courts, in the past:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html

15 posted on 02/14/2012 2:42:15 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chris37
No, the real question is why did a free people willfully elect a communist, muslim, homosexual fascist tyrant upon itself?

Because a significant fraction of the population is morally corrupt, miseducated, and either unable or unwilling to bear the strain of original, independent thought.

It's really quite as simple as that.

Even if 0bama had been proven in 2008 to be a native Kenyan, removing him from the election would simply have cleared the decks for Her Royal Thighness, President Hildebeeste I.

And you better believe she would have been just as bad as Zero has proven to be.

16 posted on 02/14/2012 2:49:51 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror establishing a new country!
17 posted on 02/14/2012 2:52:41 PM PST by varon (Allegiance to the Constitution, always. Allegiance to a party, never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

That and the overwhelming fact tha some 53% of us voted to fundamentally transform America. Obama wasn’t shy about telling us what he wanted to do and a good portion of the dissatisfaction with him is that he hasn’t gone far enough.

Sobering at the least.


18 posted on 02/14/2012 2:54:49 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Congress has NOT openly, bindingly ‘determined’ on constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate!

Congress has the authority to clarify what exactly natural born citizen is as intended by the founding fathers, but they have not done a thing about it!

Congress has tried many times to change the definition of nbc but failed every time!

A few senators, including obama and hillary, passed a non-binding resolution 511 in April 2007 to ‘resolve’ that McCain is a nbc elig to be president, because he was born overseas to 2 USA citizen parentS! But that does not overrule the original definition of nbc as intended by the founders.

Congress has NOT addressed the obama elig question at all, much less ‘determined’ that obama is elig!! Get the facts!

On the contrary, the Dems passed resolution 511 for McCain to compromise him and the Republicans so they are not at liberty to challenge obama’s elig!

The supreme court is taking a pass (Clarence Thomas hinted so) on this issue, not because they are not willing to overrule congress (there is nothing to overrule!) , but because they would rather not be responsible for ousting obama!

GET THE FACTS!


19 posted on 02/14/2012 3:24:04 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kukai

The article’s author brings forth a false premise presuming that the court case in GA would result in removing Obama from office. The case was/is about his eligibility to appear on the 2012 GA election ballot. The states and not the federal government are the final arbiters of who may be included on their ballots. (He could, in theory, be removed from office, but that’s not likely to happen, even if he were found to not be an NBC.)

As for the “where would that leave us” question, I submit that a free-market approach to energy, education and many other areas, as espoused by many here on FR, would go a long way toward eliminating debt and lifting us out of our economic malaise.


20 posted on 02/14/2012 3:52:06 PM PST by RightSight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37; All

Via Orly Taitz:

Yesterday I addressed Gingrich and demanded answers, why a person, who is not eligible to pick tomatoes and clean toilets, is still sitting in the WH?

Posted on | February 14, 2012 | 11 Comments
Redd

Yesterday I was invited by some TeaPac leaders to attend a meeting with Newt Gingrich. I actually missed picture taking and the beginning of the speech, as I was busy making sure the Superior court in GA has all the documents for the appeal and I actually had to work with my patients prior to the event.

I heard most of his speech, which was pretty much like all the other speeches. After the speech I introduced myself and stated that I am a Republican candidate for the U.S. senate and I am also an attorney, who is leading all the legal challenges to Obama.

I stated that I had Obama recently cornered in Georgia, where I issued a subpoena for Obama to show up and produce all of his records. The judge upheld the subpoena and Obama was in contempt of court, as he never showed up and never produced any documents, as he has nothing to show. I put a senior deportation officer on the stand, who stated, that Obama is committing fraud and using a forged Social Security number from CT, issued to someone born in 1890, and is using a forged birth certificate. I asked Gingrich, why a person, whose papers wouldn’t qualify him to pick tomatoes and clean toilets, is sitting in the White House? (at that point a lot of people started applauding and cheering)

Nice thing about this event, a real icing on the cake, is that it preceded Obama’s big fundriser which is scheduled for today in the morning, right here in Southern California, in Newport Beach. All the networks were there. Cameras were rolling. Channel 5, Channel7 Los Angeles and others were there. Obama could watch it unfolding on TV.

Bien venitte to Los Angeles senior Obama!!!

Submitted on 2012/02/14 at 6:16am

Orly tells Newt…dunham not qualified to pick tomatoes!…
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/gingrich-im-not-going-anywhere/


21 posted on 02/14/2012 4:13:31 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"If the “natural born citizen” requirement is considered just a technicality, does that mean the U.S. Constitution just a compendium of technicalities?"

Yes, according to both the republican and democrat parties, as well as the media (FOX News and the so-called 'Conservative radio' included).

22 posted on 02/14/2012 4:14:03 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"If the “natural born citizen” requirement is considered just a technicality, does that mean the U.S. Constitution just a compendium of technicalities?"

Yes, according to both the republican and democrat parties, as well as the media (FOX News and the so-called 'Conservative radio' included).

23 posted on 02/14/2012 4:14:11 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; LucyT
"Congress had full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of John McCain. "Congress has full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of Obama. "Congress determined that BOTH were eligible!" Congress has the power to determine statutory citizenship by naturalization either at birth or later.

But Congress can NEVER modify the NBC eligibility requirement without resort to the amendment process. John McCain was not a citizen when he was born in Panama, but was made a citizen retroactively by statute. He was not NBC at birth or retroactively. Therefore he is ineligible to be POTUS, IMO, but SCOTUS has never ruled on an on-point case.

The fact that the Senate passed a non-binding resolution waiving a wand and declaring McCain to be eligible was NOT a determination by "Congress" that McCain was eligible.

The resolution was sponsored by Leahy, Obama and Hillary...so it was probably a clever trap. The ACLU wouldn't be bound by such a resolution of eligibility and could have challenged McCain if he had won the election.

As to Congress certifying the election, the NBC issue was clearly given a pass (nullification, IMO) and the birth documentation never allowed to undergo legal discovery.

A "determination" by Congress based on sloppy legal research and blatant suppression of evidence gathering is shameful. I am hoping that Sheriff Arpaio has found something "shocking" as he claims.

24 posted on 02/14/2012 4:15:17 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
You are wrong.

The fact that no elected official agrees with you, proves that you are wrong.

You are wrong.

The fact that your crusade finds no venue of support, anywhere in this country, proves that you are wrong.

Congress had EVERY right to certify the eligibility of Obama.

Congress had EVERY right to certify the eligibility of McCain.

Congress did so, in both cases.

No Court will challenge Congress on those decisions.

This case is closed!

25 posted on 02/14/2012 7:27:03 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Clearly, you are WRONG!

Please name a Conservative legal foundation that agrees with you?

Please name an elected official who agrees with you?

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and NOTHING ELSE!

Congress does not have to define Natural Born Citizen, specifically, as there are only two forms of citizenship, in this country:

1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Naturalized Citizen

Congress has defined the rules for obtaining birthright citizenship.

Nothing else is required.


26 posted on 02/14/2012 7:30:42 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
This writer seems to be a little confused. He seems to acknowledge that the skepticism over Obama has been vindicated by Obama's behavior and the way the LMSM carries water for him. What he fails on is when he says this:
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.

The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror.

No one I know of assumes that removing Obama from the presidency will correct all the problems with the government. Presumed futility is not an excuse for inaction. Removing this man from the office upholds the Constitution. It sets an example for others to follow. It puts other politicians on notice. And it's a small step, but it might help hinder the so-called societal decay. There's no point in having our Constitution if all the people simply decide to ignore it.

27 posted on 02/14/2012 7:41:10 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and NOTHING ELSE!

Congress does not have to define Natural Born Citizen, specifically, as there are only two forms of citizenship, in this country:

1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Naturalized Citizen


“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/


28 posted on 02/14/2012 11:16:06 PM PST by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
The first “Birther” was a Hillary Clinton activist.

The entire Birther argument requires Judicial Supremacy, in order to win.

Judicial Supremacy is a LIBERAL idea!

Yep.

He's just as natural born as his neighbors Billy and Bernardine, and just as anti-American. It's the Sheeple's fault, not that of the Founding Fathers.

29 posted on 02/14/2012 11:32:39 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.

Removing him would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate (ignorant, drooling birfers somehow think it's a judicial magic bullet or something).

If we had (an unattainable) two thirds of the Senate (and an attained majority of the House), our problems would be largely over. Repeal all the crap, downsize the government, and start over.

But we don't. So, there's no sense in pursuing the birther cause, because it's insane. We need to put all our efforts toward the 2012 election.

Technicalities are a diversion!

30 posted on 02/14/2012 11:45:29 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kukai

Re: “America cannot be saved on a technicality . . .”

Since when has the U. S. Constitution been considered a “technicality.”

The writer is a ditz!


31 posted on 02/15/2012 5:23:16 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

So any tom dick and harry who was born in USA when his parents came over, then taken back to his parents’ country (Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Mexico..), then comes to USA again, lives 14 years, be 35 or older, and he can be the president?

Even people with no brain know the president must have sole allegiance to USA.

Natural born citizen is defined by 4 supreme court precedents and by historical documents.

The constitution clearly states the unique qualification for pres/VP - natural born citizen, one whose citizenship is acquired by nature, i.e. by birth place AND by parentage, a birth status that cannot be altered by law or anything else.
Congress tried 8 times to change it but failed every time!

Most legal foundation, elected officials are silent or randomly define nbc the way they want, not according to the original intent of the founders!

Why did the Resolution 511 senators have to ‘resolve’ McCain a nbc? According to your defintion, McCain was not born in USA so he is not a birthright citizen and not nbc!
Yet they have to ‘resolve’ that he is nbc because he was born to 2 USA citizen parentS!
So the Resolution 511 senators don’t agree with you - they decide a nbc must be born to 2 USA citizen parentS! Yet they conveniently ignore that obama was not born to 2 USA citizen parentS!

THINK!


32 posted on 02/15/2012 5:28:07 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

He/she can if he is a Democrat and the ruling establishment want him to be. In fact, he does not even have to be 35 years of age. He/she can be 5. The operative phrase is, “If the ruling establishment want...” The media and Republican Party will follow orders and not rock the boat.


33 posted on 02/15/2012 5:35:29 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
America can be saved on a technicality. If Obama is the usurper many believe he is, him, his appointments, his laws and his policies stop dead in their tracks. All the corruptocrats who failed to honor their oath of office - gone. The housecleaning would be swift and enormous and would go a long way in correcting our course.
34 posted on 02/15/2012 5:40:06 AM PST by liberalh8ter (Obama - The United Nation's first U.S. Presidential Candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

Please name an elected official who agrees with you?


What?

Atty Mark Hatfield is a GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE who has previously introduced legislation in the GA legislature to make the election laws een stricter.

How about a number of NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVES which signed onto the ballot challenge against the usurper in NH?

There are a number of elected officials around the country who have AT MINIMUM requested Obama to release all his birth related records. You just don’t hear of them because Media Matters and the Obama Truth Squaders rule the mainstream media airwaves.


35 posted on 02/15/2012 6:26:09 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

He’s just as natural born as his neighbors Billy and Bernardine, and just as anti-American. It’s the Sheeple’s fault, not that of the Founding Fathers.


You mean the interloper is as natural born as Al-Awaki, you know the muzzie that was assassinated by president zero.


36 posted on 02/15/2012 6:28:21 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter; All

Impeach Them All

...”I have no solution to this problem other than to Impeach Them All. That is the correct solution, but not a practical one.

Thus we are left waiting for the collapse. Perhaps in rebuilding from the ashes a Constitutional Republic that worked and we wasted, can be re-instituted. But a collapse of the economy, the government and much of society is very dangerous and opens the door for a demagogue to assume power. That was the recipe used by Hitler.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/impeach_them_all.html


37 posted on 02/15/2012 6:32:48 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Please name a Conservative legal foundation that agrees with you?


Van Irion / Liberty Legal Foundation

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/

Larry Klayman / Freedom Watch

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/cases


38 posted on 02/15/2012 6:39:46 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

McCain was a US Citizen at the moment of birth, according to the laws on the books at the time McCain was born:http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&EXPANDED_TOPIC_TREE_NODES=&ARTICLE_IN_NEW_WINDOW_FLAG=&ARTICLE_ID=9694&CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000


39 posted on 02/15/2012 7:58:58 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kukai
In response to the author, I would say:

I can respect the considered legal opinion that Obama meets the eligibility requirements - I didn't say i agreed, but if a person has come to that conclusion that's one thing.

And if it is far easier to get Obama out of office by discussing his record than educating the public on the Constitution, then I can understand that argument as well. Again, I can understand, if not necessarily agree on the merits.

But to call the qualifications for the highest office in the land a technicality goes way too far. If this is a technicality, what would not be? How about a 25 year old president? Why not a foreigner? Times have changed since 1787, and it's a slippery slope.

Obama’s status is one of many issues. We need to start educating the people about the Constitution, and fast. I doubt even half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights would pass if a referendum were held on them today. We had a sitting governor (in North Carolina) actually bring up the subject of canceling the elections! And when was the last time you heard anyone express the sentiment that “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it”?

The article seems to say to me that, to paraphrase a Vietnam soldier, “we need to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.” Shameful.

40 posted on 02/16/2012 9:52:35 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All

I don’t want to split hairs, or start yet another fight on this forum, but I think the hypothetical issue still stands - what if Congress makes a demonstrably wrong determination? Is there a remedy?

Let’s take an easier case: What if somehow a candidate is only 34 years old, or not a resident for 14 years, or not even a citizen at birth, but the congress certifies the election anyway? What would the remedy be? Who could claim injury? And what if there were a more reasonable scenario - an undisputed ineligibility were not discovered until after the inauguration, and the Congress did nothing about it. What would the remedy be? And would resort to the courts to deal with this cause more damage to our system of government than would the Congress’s refusal to act?

I guess what I am saying is that I can respect the argument that Congress looked at this issue and has resolved it. But I would have trouble with an argument that Congress’s decision on this is always final, regardless of the facts. Which is probably not what you said at all!

I think my examples could rightly be called ridiculous. But some of the things that are actually happening in this country right now would, just 15 or 20 years ago, have been deemed an impossible nightmare scenario that we would never have to face. So I ask, what’s next? Yesterday’s product of an overactive imagination is today’s headline. I shudder to think.

Most of all, I wish just a tenth of the energy and intellect spent by people to respond to each other on this issue on FR could be turned loose to help conservatives win against Obama. I suppose we can do both at once, though.

Again, no offense meant. Thanks to any and all for any flames or repsonses in advance.


41 posted on 02/16/2012 10:25:55 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

If I had $10,000 like Mitt Romney does, I would bet anyone that the Republicans will nominate one of these men for vice president in 2012, because they seem to want the issue to go away as badly as Obama does.

Sad, but true.


42 posted on 02/16/2012 10:27:40 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

When I said “one of these men” I meant of course, Rubio or Jindal.


43 posted on 02/16/2012 10:28:30 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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