THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY - PART 2 - OF IGNORANCE & ARROGANCE

http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/only-natural-born-citizens-qualify/?referer=sphere_related ^ | 12/29/2008

[sportsone234]

[...] In less than a month, Barack Hussein Obama, a man many define as a fraud and a charlatan, will place his hand on the Lincoln Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is a statement bristling with irony.

Sadly, the following excerpt typifies the prevailing attitude of large numbers of people in this country. These are shocking words from a blogger, one who clearly is educated, articulate, and has command of the English language.

[...]

"If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Of course, any American with a brain knows that we no longer live under rule of the Constitution, hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit."

[the invisib1e hand]

oh, crap, an entire blog named "kerfuffle?" Help.

These are shocking words from a blogger, one who clearly is educated, articulate, and has command of the English language.

Conspiracy of Narcissism?

[clamper1797]

The election of this marxist fraud is an insult to all our founders stood for

[johnny7]

[Star Traveler]

The article said — “”If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.”

And therein *lies the solution*...

It’s what I’ve been saying all along, these past few weeks — get the various states to enact laws that require the Secretary of State (of the respective states) to require proof of qualification per the Constitution or else the Candidate cannot be placed on the ballot and the Electoral College votes (for that particular state) cannot be cast for such a candidate (by *law* of that state).

That will *firm up the ground* under the Constitution...

[cripplecreek]

hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit."

Gonna matter a lot when a foreign nation uses it against us but Zero's pride is apparently more important than the security and safety of the nation.

[cripplecreek]

It’s what I’ve been saying all along, these past few weeks — get the various states to enact laws that require the Secretary of State (of the respective states) to require proof of qualification per the Constitution or else the Candidate cannot be placed on the ballot and the Electoral College votes (for that particular state) cannot be cast for such a candidate (by *law* of that state).

Got no argument from me on that. The fact that Roger Calero (a known non citizen) made it on the ballot as a presidential candidate in some states and not in others seems to indicate a lack of standards.

[silverleaf]

the liberal radical left allied with ACORN is busily laying the groundwork to complete the process of choosing the secretary of state in each state- the SecState of Ohio (Jennifer Brunner, a cold-eyed bitter partisan and former judge who overlooked policing the detection of over 200,00 fraudulent ACORN registrations) is an example

with dedicated partisan loyalists as secretary of state, there will be no enforcement of state election laws,
the people will be voiceless, the liberals of course think this destruction of checks and balances and the election of liberals by any means possible including massive fraud, is for the common good

[cripplecreek]

Have no fear, they’re working on fixing that pesky individual states problem and working an end run around the constitution.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Not the typical popular vote game. This one allows the states to take their popular vote and combines it with the popular votes in other “member states” and the popular vote winner of the combined states gets ALL the electors from the member states.

In other words if your state votes 100% republican but two or 3 other member states vote democrat, your electors are bound to vote democrat. Sweet scam huh?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2008-hIB-6610.pdf

It’s already been made into law in 4 states, passed both houses in 4 more, and passed one house in 6 more states. They’re coming after the constitution from all angles this time and the GOP should be raising holy hell about it but they sit silently and watch it happen.

[ANGGAPO]

Unfortunately that suggestion will get as much traction as the Berg try with the SC. No one wants to turn that rock over.

[bronxboy]

Just what we need-more stupid laws that will be used as political clubs. Here an idea,if you are born in this country, you are a citizen-natural born! Voila, no courts, no problem. One needs to win elections,not overturn them because you don’t like the results;now that’s a threat to the constitution and our country.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Just what we need-more stupid laws that will be used as political clubs. Here an idea,if you are born in this country, you are a citizen-natural born! Voila, no courts, no problem. One needs to win elections,not overturn them because you don’t like the results;now that’s a threat to the constitution and our country.”

Even *the Constitution* needed improvements... LOL.. (hence the Amendments...)... And we’ve improved it many times since it was first made.

This is not even a change to the Constitution. It’s only requiring that a Secretary of State (for a particular state) do what is *not even required* at the present time.

You see, there *is no enforcement* mechanism — and so we’ve discovered a *hole* big enough to drive a Mack Truck through (that truck being called “Obama”).

—

So, what you are saying is *proven* — as of right now — that it does not work. If it worked, we wouldn’t be talking about it, would we... LOL..

[bronxboy]

The states will never be allowed to do this. It would cause havoc and should not be done anyway. I don’t want a European system where a court determines your citizenship status. I am very cautious about changing the constitution. The election of Obama is not a sufficient reason to change our system. We lost. Let’s try to win next time.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “The states will never be allowed to do this.”

I think they would have to be allowed to do this, because of States Rights issues. And it is the sole right of the individual states to determine how they are to run their elections.

Face it — the states *right now* are allowed to “change the Constitution* (even) in changing what the Constitution did with the Electoral College in giving smaller states a bigger voice in the election process. States are changing that now, to wipe that procedure out completely by apportioning the Electoral College votes according to the popular vote. That’s *already* been done.

And so, if that has been done, then certainly a law requiring a “vetting process” that meets the requirements of the Constitution would *in no way* be overturned by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds.

—

You said — “It would cause havoc and should not be done anyway.”

That’s a big laugh. There is *already havoc* being caused right now by the lack of a vetting process and Obama getting into office (or else you haven’t been following these threads on Free Republic...) LOL...

—

And finally — “I don’t want a European system where a court determines your citizenship status. I am very cautious about changing the constitution. The election of Obama is not a sufficient reason to change our system. We lost. Let’s try to win next time.”

Well, you see, this is not changing the Constitution — at all. All this is doing is *confined* within the state itself and *how* the State allocates its “Electoral College Vote” for that particular state — only. No other state. Now, if another state wants to do that for its own requirements, then they are free, also, to do it. It has nothing to do with changing the Constitution.

AND — far from getting a court to *define* what being a “natural-born citizen” is — no..., it *clears up* this *very situation that we’re in now*....

Furthermore, isn’t *this* exactly what is being tried to be done — right now — by going to the Supreme Court, to *define* this very issue??

You’re a “laugh a minute”.... LOL...

[bronxboy]

There is no way the court will allow the states to have different standard...it will never happen.

[Star Traveler]

We’ll see....

—

Oh.., by default..., the Supreme Court has allowed a “different standard” already... :-) And that’s precisely what a lot of FReepers are complaining about (in case you’ve missed those threads...)...

[Star Traveler]

One more thing..., when you said that it would never be allowed — it already has been allowed. There are already instances where individual states did not have a Presidential Candidate on the ballot because of their laws, whereas that Candidate *was on* on other states. Again..., the Candidate was not present on the ballot. It’s been allowed already...

This is simply putting a Constitutional standard in place, on a state level — no more and no less...

[Eastbound]

"We lost. Let’s try to win next time."

Who is this "We" you're talking about? With an attitude like that you don't deserve to win.

[bronxboy]

The two major candidates Obama and McCain were on every ballot in this country. You will never see a day when a candidate is disallowed in some states but not others. It would create chaos. I can’t even imagine you would want such a thing.