The author has chosen to ignore that the real question is whether the “natural born citizen” requirements were met.
If the “natural born citizen” requirement is considered just a technicality, does that mean the U.S. Constitution just a compendium of technicalities?
The 2 are NOT the same.
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.
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!
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!
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.
Can't really contradict that; can only add that it has accelerated the decay.
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.
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? Wed 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 Obamas presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting Americas 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.
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!
Re: “America cannot be saved on a technicality . . .”
Since when has the U. S. Constitution been considered a “technicality.”
The writer is a ditz!
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.