Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
No, he then had Democratic majorities. Other things you listed are things he could attempt unilaterally. But things that since have required Republican votes he's not done as well. Again, the "everyone is intimated by thugs" bit is rather fanciful. It's a concocted bit of nonsense Birthers come up with to rationalize why no one is buying their arguments.
You could just save a lot of time by saying election officials in all 50 states are ignorant and stupid.
As for the "Federal Law", yes there is. It is called "Article II" and it does not need to stipulate the means to accomplish this, it only needed to stipulate that it be done. People in 1787 weren't F***ing Idiots like they are today, and didn't need things spelled out for them.
Unfortunately, Public education and Media propaganda have lobotomized otherwise intelligent people into believe crap and shirking their responsibility.
And believe me, you are someone who knows all about this technique. If you didn't have an ad nauseum, you wouldn't have anything to work with.
So what's the problem? Daft and incomprehensible is your stock in trade.
Anyone who advocates for Anchor babies and Birth tourists is some sort of idiot anyways.
I say briefly, because Stanley Ann went to Seattle a few weeks later.
Also so stupid as to believe a two week old infant would be allowed on a Plane.
You are free to speculate . . . But speculation without evidence it is.
Or she kept Stanley Ann within reach, but out of sight, in Hawaii. One can speculate both scenarios.
Madelyn Dunham was so ashamed of the fact that her grandson was half Black, that she didn't tell her coworkers she even had a grandson.
She just had a birth announcement listed in the Hawaii papers. Well, perhaps she would be ashamed of that, too. In which case it must have come from the Hawaii D.o.H.
This is incorrect. Obama is not a lawyer. He voluntarily gave up his Law License to prevent a disbarment hearing for Lying on his bar application.
Obama is NOT a Lawyer.
Obama is a Half Black Ventriloquist dummy that the Media used to get Liberal crap enacted by appealing to the desire of Americans to show how non-racist they were by voting for a "black" guy.
In real life he's a hate filled imbecile, and the reason you can't see his Harvard grades is because they will demonstrate, despite the efforts of the entire Harvard faculty falling over backwards to make this idiot look competent, that he is an ignorant fool who only got into Harvard on the basis of affirmative Action policies.
Crap Crap Crap ad nauseum.
And it was done. The voters had their say on that question and the Congress had its say. That you don't like how they did it or the conclusion is your problem. Again, no one has appointed you the arbiter here.
People in 1787 weren't F***ing Idiots like they are today
People in 1787 didn't have birth certificates either. What's your point?
More Garbage, not worth reading.
Right. You'll just skip past it and later try to BS to some other person here that I'm the one ignoring your points.
Why you keep up this pretense, I don't know. I call you on it every time.
Which they adamantly refuse to show anyone. Not good enough. Constitutional requirements trumps any and all state laws.
Unfortunately our Election officials are ignorant, cowardly and intent on looking the other way.
You must be hearing that wind blowing through your head again . . .
Presidential candidates can and have documented their eligibility under Article II, Section 1 by using their passports and their driver’s licenses.
Some states require a candidate to personally sign a notarized statement attesting to their qualification under Article II, Section 1. That statement can then be challenged in court.
That same 1787 document says in Article IV, Section 1 (The Full Faith and Credit Clause) that the states are the final arbitor on what is a legitimate public record of each state and that record will be accepted in every other state.
The secret to good debating is talking at the level of your audience. "Stupid tricks" is exactly your level of comprehension.
and Lolo submitted a school application stating Obama was born in Honolulu, HI, on Aug 4, 1961.
Hey, dumbass! How is "Lolo" supposed to know where and when Obama was born? Was "Lolo" somehow involved in it? Like as not, he just parroted what he had been told.
I'm sorry, I should have phrased that answer in the form of a "stupid trick" so that you would have a better chance of comprehending it.
If anybody wants to inspect the original, they can get a court order from a judge, in accordance with Hawaii law.
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution says that the states have control over their public records and those records will be accepted in every other state.
Absolutely right. The Focuse of the Hawaiian birth certificate mill of that time was generating very valuable citizenship for people around the Pacific rim in the aftermath of World War II.
Obama just got lucky that his bogus documents could be created during such an opportune moment. Amidst the thousands of other foreigners fabricating US Citizenship, who would notice one little Canadian Bastard sneaking in?
As to the first two, I'm not. But neither am I a supporter like you of revisionist history to imagine there was some original "citizen parent" rule to Article II or the 14th Amendment when there is scant evidence upon which to base that view and much contrary evidence to refute it.
As to Obama, get it in your head: this is a question of history, law and evidence. I haven't ever tried to defend one policy of Obama. Your opening post to me in 2013 accused me of sophistry on a subject I simply know more than you. You don't get a pass on this one. You're incompetent in matters of history and law. I simply point that out.
Your opinion really is not worth the trouble to read.
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.