Posted on 03/28/2010 10:09:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m a very conservative Republican
Oh really?
You seem to be a newbie. Let me attempt to explain.
There are perhaps three main groups following this. One believes he is not eligible to be president and they can undo all the damage done if only they could prove to some court that he is ineligible. These folks are delusional because they ignore the fact that no court will overturn an election.
The second group are those who think all of this is nuts and that Obama is definitely a citizen and that anytime spent on this issue not only distracts from the prime issues of blocking his progress on votes, it makes conservatives look bad.
The third, probably smallest group, are those of us who think there is something not quite right about Obama’s extraordinary efforts to block all access to primary records which indicate he is hiding something. What they may be could be anything from something embarrassing about his family to some major flaw in his origins. For me at least this issue is interesting to follow because there is a mystery here.
White collar resumed a few weeks ago, it’s been good. You should catch up.
I didn't question anyone's 'conservative street cred.' I asked a very specific question regarding Obama being found out as a fraud in response to Raycpa saying the BC issue was a waste of time in hoping his policies could be overturned. Why on Earth would you assume it was about so-called street cred and feel compelled to make an irrelevant comparison on what I think about other issues??
What part of this statement means his policies should stick?? "I would not support virtually everything he signed or stands for."
At the time of the election, when the House counts the votes it is implicitly approving the eligibility.
This argument can't hold under the Constitution. IF the person elected president were, in fact, ineligible *under the Constitutional standard* (which no one seems to know what that is, exactly), nothing the House -- or anyone else -- did or could do would make him eligible. This is not a procedural defect that can somehow be overcome. Like if it were later determined that the president was only 22 years old when he was elected, there's no way he could be deemed to have met the age requirement.
If the SC got involved on this part they would be extending their power over an issue that is not given them by the constitution.
I don't see how this holds water either. The eligibility standard is set out in the Constitution. The SCOTUS always has authority to determine if an act of government violates the Constitution. All the usual rules, of course, would apply -- there would have to be a case or controversy, jurisdictional requirements must be met, and the party bringing the case must have standing to do so. The latter seems to be one of the major procedural snags. Who has standing? I'm not familiar with how whatever complaints have been filed were disposed of by the Court.
Wrong. I asked a question. Go back and read it again.
You are illiterate as well as delusional.
You alleged that that my position is dependent on fraud. It is not. Fraud is not relevant to my position on Obama’s policies. He could be a full fledged bare but natural born citizen with 99% approval and I would still be opposed to his policies. Fraud has nothing to do with it.
However, there is nothing fraudulent here except maybe his BC. He is the president, he has signed laws. The laws are valid as it relates to being signed and not dependent on his age, citizenship, illegal voting etc.
There’s a fourth group of us who know exactly what the truth is, but we’re scared of the Trilateral Commission so we keep quiet.
The question I asked was dependent on that factor. You replied directly to the question. Why aren't you standing behind your own words??
A lot to digest indeed.
However:
THe fact will bear out in time. Not soon enough for me, but in time.
And those of us who were tolling the alarm bell and called “nut job” will eventually be vindicated.
/<off soap box....
I have never heard of 1H.
My read is the constitution distinguishes between a president elect and a president.
It gives instructions regarding a president elects eligibility and it gives separate instructions for a president that is not able to serve. For a president, it no longer gives eligibility requirements. In fact, it is possible that the succession rules provides us with a president who would not be eligible to be a president elect.
My read is that once the president is elected, there is no longer an eligibility issue because he is already the president.
The House appears to be given control over a president elect and a president. First, by counting and approving the electorate votes and then by impeachment. It also provides a solution if the president elect is ineligible but is silent when a president is ineligible. It also specifically limits impeachment to the House. If the SC began to determine the president did not have power then it would be effectively impeaching the president, a power specifically limited to the House.
You read the whole thing? I could only get as far as speculation that Michael Rockefeller fathered Obama before my head started spinning. You're a stronger man than I.
“Why are people afraid to challenge him?”
It just doesn’t seem to be answerable with either logic or empirical inquiry.
But whether he’s the ac is way above my pay grade.
It's lunacy.
I didn’t know some people were still going on about this!
Welcome to FR. If you hang out on Birther threads, you'll see the same few dozen players espousing the same conspiracies and unique interpretations of the Constitution over and over again and calling anyone who disagrees with them a troll.
Was this a variation of the "are you still beating your wife?" question?
I have to tell you that those who happen upon this thread are not going to be impressed by this argument of yours.
Please enlighten us and explain just how the idea that the SC is going to overrule a law passed by a duly elected sitting president and its congress because Obama is not a natural citizen? You think some claim to fraud is going to work?
Class 1-H: Registrant Not Subject to Processing for Induction.
WTF?
I hear you, but this still focuses only on the effect of an ineligible president having served. And on the House’s role in counting votes, etc.
In effect, you seem to be saying if the House gets it wrong — if in fact, it allows an ineligible person to be seated as president — there is no remedy. Again, I’m not focusing on the effect of the ineligiblity on that president’s acts (treaties, etc.) But surely there must be some way to remove an ineligible person from office based solely on his ineligibility. Or are you arguing that, by virtue of being seated as president, there could never be a challenge that the president is ineligible?
Also I have yet to see what process the parties take in nominating, and the House takes in seating, to ensure a person is eligible. If no one can even produce a Supreme Court precedent on what, exactly, constitutes “natural born citizenship” (as opposed to citizenship), how in the world do the parties or Congress even know what to look for?
As I said, I haven’t followed the legal briefs, but it seems to me that if there are questions that are legally cognizable, they need to be sorted out now and evaluated before the next presidential election.
Everyone who registers these days is 1H. It's defined as "Registrant not subject for processing for induction". Since there is no draft then nobody is subject for induction.
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.