I am not asking you because I think your personal opinion is important. It is just as important as mine, no more, no less.
I am asking you because we have a difference of opinion, and I think you are wrong.
As a citizen of this country, I DO have a stake in what is happening. This isn’t some murder trial in California for some kind of Bozo celebutard.
I wrote this earlier, and, and it is just as relevant here. You and some others feel this is not an issue at all and should be disregarded. You have chosen to categorize as lunatic fringe, sour grapes or irrational, those people who think the question of Obama’s citizenship is an important issue.
I disagree, and here is why:
It has been suggested that a citizens, we are “obliged” to honor the majority choice as President elect.
We are not “obliged” to honor their choice. If Barack Obama is not a citizen as outlined in the US Constitution, then he should not be allowed to assume office.
That requirement is found in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The founders put that stipulation in there for a REASON. A specific reason. A GOOD reason, one that is just as relevant today as it was back in 1787.
If the population of this nation decides there is a valid reason to allow foreigners to run for the office of the Presidency, then the founders, in their wisdom, included a mechanism within the Constitution to change the document.
The mechanism sets a bar of difficulty that is high, but there is a reason for that as well. We WANT the document to be difficult to change, so that if a change is proposed, there will be debate to ensure it is appropriate.
It was designed specifically this way to prevent any tin pot dictator or politician from proposing and enacting changes due to a hue and cry of the moment to a document which was very well thought out.
If anyone thinks that we, as a country, can disregard both the Constitution, and the mechanism included in it to make changes to the document, then the entire document may be disregarded as the situation dictates. If that is true, we are finished as a Republic.
I may be wrong, but unfortunately for you, all of the courts that have touched this case agree with my position.
I don't think you are the lunatic fringe and have never implied so. I do think that many here are deeply disappointed in the Obama election and are grasping at straws in the hopes of undoing the election.
Our Forefather’s in their wisdom established our government in three parts to check and balance each other. They specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president. Each is asked to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately the founding fathers did not establish who would vet each candidate for president to determine eligibility.
Nor did they establish “standing” if such a case were ever to be presented.. Standing , a arbitrary term established for the smooth working of the judiciary system, is not a condition established by the Constitution.
This case is of a magnitude seldom if ever seen in the country. This will NOT go away precisely because, our constitution is being challenged by a lawyer who claims he is trained in constitutional law. The Judicial branch of government is being attacked by the Executive branch. Said lawyer is also a student of Saul Alinsky who taught methods of anarchism.....To destroy or deminish the third branch of government that checks his office IS to create chaos......
The Justices have no choice but to meet the challenge. They MUST act decisively and with great power! No one should be excused for attacking our government from within. They should be executed. It is treason!