Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You have to remember they are here 24/7 and very little has been discussed about Congressman Deal’s letter.
Barack Hussein Obama
Hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm
Yeah, he has been a forgotten man on his thread. Congressman Deal may very well be the very first person to ask Obama directly about showing his real birth certificate. No one in the press has balls to ask Obama to his face. He can expect crickets.
As a side, I dont believe in posting false articles, or ones with little credibility.
No, that is not.
I believe that exactly the opposite is true. Nothing in the Constitution or the law supports your two citizen parent requirement. Nothing in past Supreme Court decisions save your twisting of Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett. Comments that were made in dicta to begin with.
From reply 566: "Labeling and ridiculing the opposition is a tactic of the communist union organizer Saul Alinsky which he detailed in his book, “Rules for Radicals”".
What other Alinsky advice do you follow, danamco?
Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion.
Laws cannot define any Constitutional term, for that would allow them to change the Constitution.
Agreed. Show me where the Constitution defines natural-born citizen.
If you mean "case law", there is no case law directly on the subject, for the only time the distinction matters is for eligibility to the office of President.
I wouldn't agree with that. I think there are several cases which clarify the question.
I have a feeling a couple of Governors are going to file papers just as this, their motives may be unclear but never the less I have a strong feeling that this issue will bear fruits if asked by certain people.
An example could be a cash strapped state that has suggested it will opt out of health care reforms, and the federal government is reticent to come to their aid, all that state needs is a certain action by a state representative asking for clarification of current eligibility status concerning the POTUS and the stroke of his pen.
In essence a state won’t broker a deal above or below board until it knows for sure the signing into laws by POTUS is in fact legal.
If Obama declares himself dictator for life then the birth certificate issue will be the least of our worries. He'll have given us a whole different set of reasons for removing him.
That too.
Defending the principles upon which our legal system is based in not the same thing as defending the man.
I wonder if his BC number is 666.
I agree, and I don’t do it either!!!
No, that is not.
Well, would it then be fair to say that mojitojoe is lying when he claims that you are a "customer" on DU and that you are frequently posting there???
Let's just say that mojitojoe is mistaken when he says I post on DU, frequently or otherwise. I do not post there at all, and never have.
Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?
I'm merely pointing out that in one post you quote Alinsky's advise on belittling one's opponents and in another post you go and do it. So what political stripe does that make you?
No, what he is defending is an absurdity. He's defending a person who refuses to show his birth certificate to a court. How many people do you know who are afraid of their birth certificate? Are you afraid of yours? I hear some birth certificates can bite. That's the issue here not some haughty magnanimous cause like I'm 'defending the principles of our legal system' Which goes to your agenda and the other silly posters here defending an absurdity an utter nonsense.
Try to clean it up. That's just distasteful, and I'm sure the demographics of a board like this include any number of elderly or religious people who don't appreciate that type of “humor.”
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.