Posted on 07/23/2008 12:40:56 PM PDT by Polarik
Not at all. That's what most people are programed to think. Too bad.
Everyone has the choice of a write-in candidate.
This is a good reason we should get away from the virtual 2 party captive audience system.
If the GOP does not like Obama get in, then they better put forth another worthy candidate other than McRino, or suffer the consequence. If anything, people are mad enough about Bush to vote against McRino.
Hi, a quick question for you, or anyone who knows.
What was the age limit for Statutory Rape in Hawaii back in 1960? under 18? under 16? under 14?
If it was under 18, then Obama Sr would have been quilty and Obama Jr would be a product of Statutory Rape, not exactly to good thing to fling around and enough reason to hide the truth about his birth.
I'll cut him some slack there.
BTW, a better question might be if she was under age how did she get married without parental permission?
Simplest way would be to assert that she had reached majority. All she'd need to show the justice of the peace would be her drinkin' ID, not exactly an unknown item for a college student to carry then or now.
Her Kenyan in-laws called her Anna Toot. Speculation has it that Stanley Ann used the name of one of he much admired g-g-g-grandmothers - Anna Toot - as an alias.
If Stanley Ann and Barrack, Sr. split the blanket before he was born, she might be forced to use the same ID she used to get married when she whelped "Barrak, Jr."
Now, keep in mind that her baby daddy split and left her in the lurch, under those circumstances would she name the kid after him?
I think not.
The kid was named Barry Toot.
Ain't that a hoot?
However, if you or others are alleging falsifying documents either by his mother, his grandmother, or his father, that is another matter altogether. That is, of course, criminal activity.
One of my children was born overseas and both traveled with us abroad as children. Other than telling them they were travelling again, I told my children very little about why they were having their photographs and fingerprints taken again, or getting shots, and I made especially sure that they never had physical custody of any critical paperwork for any longer than absolutely necessary for fear it would be lost. And no one, including me, ever explained the nuances of citizenship law to them. It wasn't necessary: they had been told they were US citizens, end of discussion.
Consequently, assuming these supposed illegal acts occurred, I'm not sure how much blame I'd attach to him personally for them up to the point of majority.
Subsequent to that, of course, he owns the acts and any falsehoods told to cover them up.
I read through the opinion you provided at the link and have no problems with it except this part:
The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.
I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
In the Cornell University Annotated Constitution, there is this note in the discussion of Marbury v Madison:
"Finally, the Chief Justice noticed the supremacy clause, which gave the Constitution precedence over laws and treaties and provided that only laws “which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution” are to be the supreme laws of the land."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag29_user.html)
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on citizenship and naturalization.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on the operation of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court is not going to say the 1790 Congress, one consisting of many of the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution, somehow had forgotten their original intentions when the language in Section II,Article I, Clause 5 of the Constitution was drafted.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that, in the naturalization law passed by the Congress in 1790, the one ascribing "natural-born" citizen status to children of US citizens born overseas, that the Congress had somehow forgotten what it meant by "natural-born" just three years earlier.
And finally, the Supreme Court is not going to effectively bar forever, in defiance of the 14th Amendment, millions of present and future otherwise "natural-born" United States citizens from election the highest office in the land just because of where their United States citizen parent(s) were when the labor contractions came.
Seriously, and it really is a serious question: Do you have a job?
I don’t care what kind of job, I’d just like to know if you draw a paycheck (or write them)
I’m going somewhere with this, somewhere actually on point and with laser sharp focus on the key relevant issue.
And FWIW, at this point, I don’t have a job.
Let’s just say I’m an optimist.
Thank you for your response.
Your theory makes a good case for sure.
Certainly Ann had no use putting daddy Obama on the BC if he had already split.
I think all this hiding the info would come soon to haunt Barack Jr. Reminds me of “where the tapes?” “what tapes? there is nothing on those tapes”
*shrug* I’m reduced to creative writing exercises.
The real truth is probably weirder than I can imagine, or dishwater dull.
Yeah, and a lot of us would have backed Alan Keyes if he had started an internet campaign early enough. Heck, Keyes could have crushed McCain if he had gotten in a year sooner. Is some nut job saying you’re voting based on race or something?
The post-FDR batch of lawyers really sickens me [with some shining exceptions of course]. I'm glad you have a handle on this mess. For crying out loud— the Senate refused to validate that the child of a US soldier/marine is not a natural born citizen? That should INCREASE one's status of ‘natural birth’ if anything— born naturally from a US citizen.
Thank you.
No argument here!
I’m beginning to think Heinlein was right.
The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.
I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
Your opinion is wonderful. But here is the real world--I am a federal tax lawyer--I have argued Supreme Court cases but that isn't what I do. But I deal with DC lawyers a great deal and this issue, and the related issue with respect to McCain is a hot gossip issue among professionals who make a living arguing cases to the Supreme Court.
The overwhelming view is that if the issue ever gets to the Supreme Court, assuming Obama was in fact born in Kenya, neither McCain nor Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4.
I have tried as best I can to lay out in layman's language why it is likely that is how the Court comes down--lots of people here can't get over the view that McCain ought not lose a Constitutional privilege because his father was serving his country outside the US when he was born (it would be more difficult if it was his mother--she could have returned to the US to preserve his position). The Court's usual response to those kinds of arguments is that is why the Amendment process is in the Constitution--if you think it is unfair, amend the Constitution.
Like all arguments, there are two sides; and there is a political context. Although at the moment, it looks to me as though the political context probably also cuts in favor of the usually accepted Constitutional lawyer's view.
But knowing that you don't want to hear it from me, the real bottom line is that (if Obama was born in Kenya) neither McCain nor Obama pass the test. And if it gets to the Supreme Court, expect that result.
Thank you for showing me the exception, you are one of the few who speak up.
I had something I was going to post to ALL on this thread, I hope you won't mind that I include it in my post to you.
Salon.com
After Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in New Hampshire's primary, which seemed to contradict polls taken just days earlier, many pundits and pollsters reached for race as an explanation. They referred to the "Bradley Effect," the possibility that polls -- even those restricted to Democratic voters in a Northeastern state -- could be skewed simply by the presence of an African-American candidate in the race and whites' reluctance to appear racist by telling pollsters they would not vote for him.
The Bradley Effect;
The Bradley effect is named for Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles. In 1982, Bradley, an African-American, ran for governor of California; pre-election polls gave him a clear lead, but when it came to Election Day, Bradley lost a close race. A similar phenomenon was observed the next year in Chicago, where Harold Washington, also an African-American, eked out a victory in a mayoral election despite pre-election polling that had Washington walking away with the race. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, five other biracial elections featured similar disparities between polls and the actual vote.
Social scientists and pollsters theorized that this might have to do with something called "social desirability bias." When called by pollsters, especially African-American pollsters, this hypothesis goes, whites who do not want to vote for an African-American candidate will feel embarrassed about being perceived as racist if they express that sentiment, and they will lie. Then, when they head to the voting booth, their real preferences are exposed.
In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, wrote, "Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here's the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews."
Poor people were supporting Obama, and Hillary less, at much higher rates in the pre-election poll than in the exit poll. That's where the big gap is."
Total African American population
39,151,870
13.1% of the total U.S. population
Cheating and dead voters = 'unknown numbers'
Hillary supporters - many say they will not vote for Obama
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.