See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Published: Oct 29, 2008
Author: Edwin Vieira
Post Date: 2008-10-29 13:46:02 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 4573
Comments: 201
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.” Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not? Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence. In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-77) not displayed.
.
.
.
#78. To: scrapper2 (#72)
My point was more a viewpoint of the extreme cynic. I don't think it matters whether Obama was born here or not. The truth is simply irrelevant as to whether these things become a "big deal" or not. The lyrics of a familiar song comes to mind; "When they own the information, the can bend it all they want."
Something tells me this would be a violation of Obama's civil rights and his affirmative action rights. The DNC may cover for Obama, saying ya know, lots of black "chillun" ain't never heard uh no dam birf certificate" plus what you sposed to do ifn you ain't entirely sho who does da daddy really be ???
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Herr Schwarznegger, will you place your hand on the bible, please? Perhaps. But I think it's more likely that the GOP does not want to be tar and feathered by MSM and Obamaphiles that they are "swift boating a nice black college professor candidate" thingie.
It's a funny paradox, contradiction, sad, really that as we have been inundated with the Internet Paradigm, Information yearns to be free, it may yearn and we may have access but we(editors, viewers, readers) shut out more and more of it. Unless you have an internet connection and a desire to be informed, you would end up with no more than say, 50 years ago, "news" channels notwithstanding.
i guess we can conclude that you think that Edwin Vieira (constitutional lawyer) is making a fool of himself too? i'm surprised at your attitude on this, robby.
You would probably have more material, but less substantial content, unless you watched the comedy channels too.
The producer of Colbert or Stewart attributed one reason for their success to the abysmal job the newsnets have done.
"Comedians are the only people who are allowed to tell the truth"
I am not surprised, not after he called me a freeper earlier (or said something to the effect that that is where I should be posting).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You should know me by now I don't follow the herd or Edwin I respect him but yes I think he is causing a lot of folks to gets their panties in knot over a none issue I've looked at the documents if they fake they are very good ones....Edwin has time on his side to prove his point.....from now till Jan 20th ..... PS , the phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
If in US, A-OK. If not, Ineligible. Technically, according to the laws of that time, that's not strictly true, the birth mother has residency requirements to fulfill if the father was not a citizen, but why quibble. No one's questioning his citizenship. It's whether he's entitled to run based on the criteria of the constitution. Bears repeating over and over again. It's not whether Obama is a US citizen. It's whether or not he is NATURAL BORN in order to be eligible to run for the Oval Office - naturalized citizens cannot run for President - natural born has very specific requirements - either Obama was born in the USA ( in Hawaii ??? and can produce his original birth certificate showing this to be true ) OR if Obama was born outside the USA/US military base was his mother eligible to pass on US citizenship to him at the time - the answer being no because she needed to reside in the USA for 5 years after age 16 and since she gave birth to Obama at age 18 she did not meet the requirement.
Do you suppose it could be defined as a bastard mulatto from Kenya ???
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
The elevation of Mandela to Sainthood was a global media sensation, not that it was true. Most I know didn't buy the propagenda, nevertheless today he's adored everywhere, save cyberspace, where we know better. The parallels bet. him and Obongo are similar as are their politics.
Is that original or stolen????
No question about that chalk it up to white guilt I've said this before America deserves Obama
Doesn't need to be defined. Physically born in the USA. Second, if father not a citizen, then mother has to reside in the US 5 years after birth as noted above. The citizenship laws took this possiblity into account. Technically, legally, he's not eligible. It's the only elective office he's not eligible for. But as I say, why quibble.
You have a point, and I think if Obama is chosen, it will have a long term, positive effect. The quislings have been identified and fled, and those who remain on the side of freedom, will fight if there is no alternative. Now for some leadership.
Bottom line Philip Berg filed suit for documented proof that Obama was qualified to obtain office of President if elected. The case was dismissed based on Berg did not have standing ergo he now has a appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knows how long that will take I guess it will be well after Jan 20th 2009 ....so my question why is everyone getting so bent out of shape it's a worthless exercise
Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted. What are some of those consequences? First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation. Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it. Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that: [w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.” Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.” Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law. Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.” Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people. Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking. The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever. Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so. Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.
It's some catch, that catch22, since the Secy of State of WA was denied the info. So who has the right. You are correct, it's irrelevant to most people out there, and since there is no TV scrutiny, no reality to it.
Been waiting for that for the last 20 years.
It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
Unfortunately, there are Obama supporters on this very thread whose attitude seems to be "Screw the Constitution!" I wasn't aware that they were such big fans of George W. Bush, but they have joined him in declaring the Constitution is nothing more than a "goddam*ed piece of paper". 4um Posters turning into NeoCons before our very eyes. Who would have thought such a thing possible??
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Please name the OBama supporters?
Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008). In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method[16] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.
I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate too..
Vieira addresses "standing' here: The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility: regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election. This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash. First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention. True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so- called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below). Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
There's an answer to the above: the judges tend to be anti-US American and, therefore, their views don't matter. Berg matters because he is pro-US Americans and he's an honest Hillarist.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Judges have used this "crutch" which has no basis in fact, to avoid making a decision.
Edwin needs to push a movement to repel the 14th Amendment then...problem solved The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has been the basis of much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues. The other two Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). In The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), dissenting Supreme Court Justice Swayne wrote, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta
Or as a device to achieve pre-determined ends, which is really the same thing.
The word "standing" years ago in law replaced the word "who". Standing was attached as a person of note in the community etc etc. It was merely a word to differentiate between those of note and all others. It was a one size fits all method by lawyers/judges to avoid applying law in the justice system.
I don't recall ever seeing it before or hearing anyone else say it. I would not claim it as original because I doubt I am the first one that ever thought it or said it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. NeoCon-Coms. Same thing, but with kicked up fascism and luciferian designs. Despite Obama's anti-constitutional positions recorded by his votes, his comments about race, his affiliations, associations, involvements, and secrecy of who he is, where he's from, what he really is, (if he knows), there are people convinced he is better than any alternative. And I wonder, what would be worse, what we know, or what we don't. It's apparent that people are willing to gamble all of our lives for political payback. Whereas, the positions McCain and Obama have held, until recently, are nearly identical. That said, the PTB have made their choice, and it's rather interesting, that the left having fully recieved a Congressional majority when Republicans repudiated the failures and send some packing, the NeoCon-Commies took full advantage of rolling out more and worse of the same. They must truly hate the soul of people. It's witnessed by the vicious attacks on Palin and her children. The hipocracy alone should be intolerable by any honest person, but we are not dealing with honest people. They can't take it when given to them on a silver platter, rather they feast upon the trust of their sheep, planning bigger fences to hold them should they ever wake.
The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has been the basis of much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues. The other two Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). In The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), dissenting Supreme Court Justice Swayne wrote, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta None of that has a thing to do with the requirement that people be born in this country, or to American citizens no matter where they might be born, to be eligible to run for President.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well then, we will consider it original and issue a patent on it.
Flint, leadership wasn't possible before. Just look to the people who we
recently considered comrades, only to learn they lean left. The current self
exile is difficult in the short term, but necessary in the long term.
One of the more ignorant statments I've seen from a presumed smart fellow. Okay, here's the thing. We have been lied to, and as such being victims of a fraud does not entitle someone to wish for our death, which is what you imply knowing Obama is going to be payback. Niiiiiiice. I should say, anyone as ignorant as this, deserves ebola, the clap and leperacy... starting with his d*ck, but I won't. I guess to boil down your statement futher, a victim of child abuse or domestic violence, deserves it. You married them, you didn't know what they were capable of, too bad. Is this how to save the soul of a nation? The sins of the 'evildoers' are all of ours to bear, and will be all of ours to bear. Let's make it worse shall we? Pefect slogan.
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Please put me on the "I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate" list.
Don't take this as "gospel:" From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Edited: There are three constitutional standing requirements: Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. I don't know what exactly the meaning of "injury," but if the election of a non-"natural citizen" is not an injury to the Constitutional rights of all, then what is it?
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Comments (118 - 201) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJust because we'd like Obama to show his original US birth certificate to the FEC to prove his eligibility to run for the Oval Office, we are foolish??? Who is the foolish one? Who is the dupe?
#79. To: scrapper2 (#70)
And by filling out and signing a Statement of Candidacy, FEC form 2, with incomplete false erroneous information Obama would also be subject to penalties under 2USsection437g.
#80. To: swarthyguy (#74)
Think I understand why the GOP is softpedaling this.
#81. To: duckhunter (#78)
#82. To: robnoel (#65)
#83. To: swarthyguy (#81)
Unless you have an internet connection and a desire to be informed, you would end up with no more than say, 50 years ago
#84. To: duckhunter (#83)
#85. To: swarthyguy (#84)
The producer of Colbert or Stewart attributed one reason for their success to the abysmal job the newsnets have done.
#86. To: christine, robnoel (#82)
i guess we can conclude that you think that Edwin Vieira (constitutional lawyer) is making a fool of himself too? i'm surprised at your attitude on this, robby.
Lord Acton
#87. To: christine (#82)
(Edited)
#88. To: swarthyguy, All (#76)
t's not quite that, is it? It's not being naturalized, which automatically disqualifies one, but the fact of his natural born status.
#89. To: robnoel (#87)
PS , the phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
#90. To: robnoel (#57)
if this was a big deal it would be all over the media
#91. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
The idiotlogical twins,
#92. To: Jethro Tull (#90)
#93. To: robnoel (#87)
natural born Citizen
#94. To: robnoel (#92)
America deserves Obama
#95. To: swarthyguy (#93)
#96. To: robnoel, All (#87)
More from Vieira~
#97. To: robnoel (#95)
#98. To: Jethro Tull (#94)
Now for some leadership.
#99. To: swarthyguy (#76)
No one's questioning his citizenship. It's whether he's entitled to run based on the criteria of the constitution.
#100. To: mirage (#99)
#101. To: christine (#96)
#102. To: James Deffenbach (#64)
another guy who is probably a Manchurian Candidate
#103. To: robnoel (#95)
#104. To: robnoel (#101)
#105. To: christine (#103)
Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
#106. To: christine (#103)
#107. To: Cynicom (#105)
Judges have used this "crutch" which has no basis in fact, to avoid making a decision.
#108. To: duckhunter (#107)
#109. To: Cynicom (#91)
Is that original or stolen????
Lord Acton
#110. To: mirage (#99)
4um Posters turning into NeoCons before our very eyes. Who would have thought such a thing possible??
#111. To: robnoel (#106)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1]
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#109)
I don't recall ever seeing it before or hearing anyone else say it.
#113. To: Flintlock (#98)
Been waiting for that for the last 20 years.
#114. To: robnoel (#92)
No question about that chalk it up to white guilt I've said this before America deserves Obama
#115. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
#116. To: Lady X, James Deffenbach, (#102)
#117. To: christine (#103)
(Edited)
.
.
.