Posted on 12/28/2012 5:13:22 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
Everyone keeps saying.. oh Obama won't go over the fiscal cliff because he'll be too worried about his legacy.
"People will attach bad economic times to his legacy"
Obama has already stole 1.. maybe 2 elections. He has successfully stolen the vote.
He has NO plans on leaving office. There will be a "crisis" .. either economically.. or otherwise.. which he will use to stay in power.
Obama will simply sign an executive order. Do you really think Congress would stop him? By this point he'll have picked 2 more judges.
The Courts won't stop him either.
Yep!
Michelle ain’t about to have to go without ever again.. she’s got the public to pay for her every need.
The dems said the same thing about Bush. At that, it is a typical fear that every out of power group has. I think O is too lazy to keep it going forever. He will try to fundamentally change everything in four years then play golf the rest of his life on our dime.
Dictators are lazy. They don’t have to keep something going. They simply take power.. and then leech off the people’s fears to remain in power.
Obama has nothing to fear from the current supreme court, and the Constitution has already been suspended since 2008.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
bump!
His name will become a punchline.
As a result The One will suffer a stroke and spend the next election convalescing in George Washington University hospital.
There plenty of others who also want power. Although it is fictionalized history the phrase “Et tu, Brute?” still has meaning today. The Democrats will make sure he leaves even if you think nobody else will.
Every election (and every four years), I hear the exact same thing coming from either side (depending on who is in office). I have never yet seen an election or a time - since being on this board - that it hasn’t been said (by either “side”) that the current president was not going to leave office ... LOL ...
The people did not want him this last time around either.. but he’s STILL here!
Actually, he did lose one race in Chicago - then he learned how to win/er, cheat.
Dictators aren’t lazy. At that, one seemingly consistent profile of Dictators is some form or another of OCD. They are obsessed with controlling everything in order to hold on to the power they have. They may not have to do the mundane like cook food or iron their clothes but they spend every waking minute obsessing over keeping power and control. Think about Saddam, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin. They could almost be described as psychotic bureaucrats in how they kept maticulus records and had to control every line item.
Lazy, nope. I don’t see this in O. He is an idealist, but he is also an establishment liberal which means he has the mentality nurtured in him to let others work while he reaps the benefits. He is a welfare president and he will be happy to continue to live off the fruits of others while he doesn’t have to work, retiring with a multi-million dollar pension in the prime of his life.
However, since you’ve been on this board have you seen such massive voter fraud as was seen this past election?
And what was done about it? Diddly.
How is this a “News Flash?” We’ve been saying this since he was immaculated the first time
Obama is simply a puppet anyway..
I keep seeing people on Fox saying Obama is worried about his legacy..
We had Federal elections during wars in this nation as well as during recessions/depressions. Unless the Constitution is amended, Obama is moving out in 2017 (Dang that seems like a long time).
“Has Slow-Joe admonished us to gird our loins yet?”
He’d probably ask us to “Grill our loins.” The guy is brain dead.
I already notice a change in the attitude of those other than his die hard fans. Especially as the bastard s no longer making an attempt to hide his pompous, arrogant demeanor.
Yes but Obama is going to make sure we’re in a crisis.. and he’ll use it to latch onto power.
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.