Posted on 04/23/2010 7:11:30 AM PDT by opentalk
With the initial passage of an Arizona House bill which would require Barack Obama to produce an original birth certificate and other legal papers proving he is a natural born Citizen of these United States, the glove has been slapped across the face of every patrician and Obama apologist in America.
The Arizona bill is much bigger than what even the Obama supporters have ridiculed it as, including Dana Perino, another Obama voter from the Bush administration. This bill is not a laughing stock, but an exposure of all the patricians fools who were taken in by the biggest fraud in history.
There is no bigger fraud in history than Barack Hussein Obama. He changed his name's pronunciation from Bearick, he said his British subjection expired, he is a faux black experience chameleon and as the old saying goes, "You know when Obama is lying, because his lips are moving".
The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.
Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President. That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.
There is no court nor Supreme Court which can undo this. Thee only way this could be reversed is by Congress in majority or the states in majority undoing by Amendment the Arizona check and balance, but in that is the Catch 22 in no Amendment can undo the Articles in making a non natural born person a President of these United States. The majority could undo the Arizona check, but the majority can not negate the prime directive of the Constitution concerning Citizenship.
If they did, it would be like Obama being given power to appoint all of Congress instead of elections by the People. That just could not take place in the Constitutional framework.
...The experts will try to state that the Arizona clause can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, but they are Obama enablers, as that is exactly what the Constitution has always stated. A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide native born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in it's minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.
This is the eye of the Obama storm and this is the Arizona filibuster of Barack Hussein Obama. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and the Obamite apologists are about to learn that their progressive breathing document just exhaled something hidden in it they never dreamed in all their fools wisdom.
If that’s true, we’ll get to the bottom of this.
At some point, it starts to look very silly for a
candidate not to be forthright and instead spend
a fortune avoiding being forthright.
thanks for posting.
Dana Perino an Obama voter? Source?
This I have not seen before - interesting
Logic can tell you how these treacherous legal minds have worked in their mocking of the Birther movement and their shading the line with John McCain's birth on a military reservation to bring about the "expired British subjection" of Obama ruling America illegally.
See it is all about covenant which is the ancient rights. Look on any law books to this day and if you simply start mowing your neighbor's lawn, or gardening on parts of their property, or farming, grazing or planting a hedge which you maintain on an adjacent property, that the law states in 7 years that land is your land.
It is called precedent.
Understand my children, that once Barack Hussein Obama completes one legal term in office, there is legal standing for any crime which he has completed. Illegal then becomes legal in the eyes of Obama lawyers who will make the courts enforce a new mandate which supersedes the Constitution in a foreign born British subject, allied to Europe,
the temporary usurper...he and his, everything must be done now, soon, quickly....as his sad @$$ is on the way out—one way or t’other—but unfortunately, not now, quickly nor soon enough for good men and women...
It seems that the talking heads don’t want to confront the issue because if they find out it’s true, they know there will be riots.
All Arizona’s law would require is that a candidate show evidence of eligibility. If the Secretary of State (I think) rejects it, then you would have a court case for the Supreme Court. Until then, everything would go as normal.
If Obama presented a birth certificate from Hawaii, odds are VERY good he would be certified for the ballot by Arizona.
To put teeth into this law, Arizona would have to pass a law stating that no one could run for President unless both parents were US citizens. THAT would be a rejection of Obama, and require one hell of a legal fight...but don’t hold your breath.
That is an interesting passage....
oBambi is in squatter mode right now
Squatter in Chief
Once the precedence term is set it would no longer be deemed illegal trespass of the office.
Can you take back a covenant precedence in the law as written?
Interesting....
The MSM all released strong talking points at the same time ridiculing AZ, --
Rush Limbaugh has said--they will let you know where their weaknesses are. (Big reaction to tea party, sarah Palin, AZ, and Rush)
“I’ve always been of the mindset that it would require 2 US citizens.”
I don’t believe that, but it IS a plausible interpretation. There are two views, both with arguments for and against. It would have been strongly preferable for the Supreme Court to accept the case in Dec 2008 and issue a formal ruling.
If they thought Obama qualified, it would only take a few hours to write a one page summary of that view, and then no one would be debating it now...
It appears precedent has already been established regarding removing unqualified candidates from the ballot: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=90256
They really should have done that. I read that Clarence Thomas made a statement to the fact that if Congress wasn’t going to address this, why should they.
I’m not sure exactly how it was stated - I wish I had saved the article. It really should have been in Congresses hands at least from what I’ve heard. I guess legally they are the only ones that could make an issue of this. We have no standing. I don’t like that at all!
There have been and are a number of court cases, but I don’t think any of them will go anywhere. If a conservative state (Utah?) passed a law stating future candidates are required to have both parents US citizens, then that law would become a court case that would settle the issue (I think).
If no one can get support for a law like that in a state like Utah (which is more conservative than Arizona), then no court is going to touch the case. They may be ‘ducking’ the issue, but they will continue to duck until they have a case that leaves no option.
Cases like LTC Lakin have other options for a decision, and they will take those outs.
All just IMHO. I’m not a lawyer, and the one time I was on a court martial board, the defendant plead guilty - all we did was determine sentence.
Other states are doing this too. Why all the focus on AZ?
--The Arizona House of Representatives voted by a margin of 31 to 22 on Monday to add the measure to a larger bill. The bill will have to be voted on again, separately, in the House, and will have to get Senate assent before it can be sent to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.
--"Attempts have been made in other states, such as Florida and Oklahoma, to introduce similar legislation," the New York Post reports. "None of them have ever become law."
Quote the text from the constitution, with proper indexing please.
Without that this is spam.
This must have been before Jan Brewer vetooed the bill, hmmm???
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.