Back to the thread; check out # 50 , # 81 , # 92 , # 96.
(SP Alert.)
Thanks, Smokeyblue.
Posted on 04/22/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by Daffynition
Let me tell you a little story.
A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!
On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.
It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.
Within a week or 10 days, Obama did just that.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I do not have faith in Congress ever addressing this issue as their negligence to uphold their oath to the Constitution is as traitorous as the usurpation itself. The States need to pass one simple law and this would never happen again.
I call it the "Usurpation Protection Law". It would require documentation from Congress and the President proving that the Twentieth Amendment, section three was complied with and that eligibility was no longer an issue BEFORE the State would recognize the legality of the president. Any failure to prove compliance would then automatically trigger an investigation request from that State's representatives in Congress. This would certainly pass Constitutional muster in that it supports the enforcement of a portion of the Constitution itself. This law could be passed tomorrow and have immediate effect. There is no time limit on enforcement of the Twentieth Amendment, section three.
Who could reasonably oppose such a law? Certainly not a "legal" President.
Looks like the Indonesians know WHO he is. Or at least who he THINKS he is.
Back to the thread; check out # 50 , # 81 , # 92 , # 96.
(SP Alert.)
Thanks, Smokeyblue.
No weakening of federalism required.
But even all 3 would not be a weakening of federalism. I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law. That law would just be enforcing the eligibility requirements of the Constitution as per the last of the powers delegated to Congress in Art.I section 8.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Well said and I agree with your tagline, too.
If the last few years were written as a novel, it would be ridiculed as too contrived to be realistic.
““who actually believes this crap screams about the Birther stuff”
So you believe the birth certificate is real?
So you believe the selective service record is real?
Are you calling Sheriff Joe a liar?”
You just proved that BCrago66 is a useful idiot! Don’t be too concerned, not all posters on FR have the semblance of a brain!
“something else too.....world class talent world wide are helpin the investigation...”
That makes me feel a lot better, honestly, especially since the feds are trying to jerk Sheriff Arpaio around.
It’s going to come from somewhere else too, from people Obama and his minions can’t easily influence.
I don’t know anyone in Missouri.
OMG, you people get so upset every time a gay Indonesian from Kenya wins election as POTUS!
This I believe is where the confusion about the content of the hearing in NJ got started. Counsel for "Obama" didn't come right out and admit that the online image is a patent forgery (it is). They simply stated that it's irrelevant. Kinda like the rule of law.
You are correct to say that the states are legally free to require proof. They will not do on their own volition in the present political environment, however. As long as Obama's political fate might be in the balance, we've seen cold feet everywhere, even among Republicans, when the issue comes up in the state legislatures. Nah, no one wants to be branded a "birther", because the next things you'll be called are "racist," "demented," "paranoid," or any combination thereof. Some Republicans might also be thinking that such legislation might negatively impact Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal at some point in the future.
I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law.
It could be argued either way as to whether the "necessary and proper" clause is applicable to enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency and vice-presidency. For all their wisdom, the Founding Fathers laid out no specific means of enforcement of those requirements, perhaps relying solely on the good faith of prospective candidates to abide by such requirements. They did not explicitly delegate such an enforcement power to Congress.
Since it's forged, it's clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.
Next case.
Happens in EVERY election. Any state AG can throw Obama off the ballot and order him to show how he is constitutionally qualified. BTW, same is true for any candidate.
No guts. And no AG apparently wants the glory.
Same here. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and all that.
it’s actually more like not gettin shot
From one Arizonan to another, let's stay safe out there!
“Since it’s forged, it’s clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.”
Why do I keep picturing Groucho Marx routine?
As you correctly point out, that is what SHOULD happen.
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.