Replies

I agree with you that this was a wrong decision. In fact when you read the dissenting opinion they actually point out the fact that the decision makes it possible for someone born from two parents who are not citizens to become president.

It appears from some of the things I read that one or more of the justices in the majority opinion had been supporters of Chester Arthur who's father was british. They knew this and that's why they made the decision they did.

The problem is that this case has been used as precedent in many other cases. I think there is a snowball's chance in hell of the US Supreme court reversing it after all this years. I think the only way to correct this is a constitutional amendment specifically stating that a natural born citizen is someone born of two parents on American Soil.

I took an oath of allegiance to the constitution. One of the parts of the constitution is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the law. If I do not like their interpretation then I need to get my legislatures to pass a new law or an amendment. Your suggestion of armed revolt, I believe, is premature. Currently under the laws of this country Obama is legally president (as long as he was born in Hawaii).

armordog99 said:

Your suggestion of armed revolt, I believe, is premature. Currently under the laws of this country Obama is legally president (as long as he was born in Hawaii).

I never suggest armed revolt, nor encourage it. I am merely referencing historical precedence. We already witnessed this issue in the 1850's and 1960's when the Supreme Court and federal government made controversial decisions that did not bode well for the southern states. If the states do not feel they have 10th Amendment protections or feel the federal government is failing to honor their responsibilities towards the states, they or its citizens will revolt.

States are bankrupt. They feel this to be the fault of the federal government. That is why many states have filed suits with regards to the new health care bill. Many states have already passed bills or resolutions reaffirming their 10th amendment rights. We are witnessing the precursors to "Civil War 2.0".

Adding more "straws", the federal government has:

Blocked Arizona from enforcing immigration laws at the state level
Blocked Montana from exercising intrastate commerce
Blocked decisions to allow states to drill along their shores
Blocked the states in other issues that are at the state level

This is an all-out-battle, and it is states vs. federal government in every case. This is never a good sign, and it is clear the states have had enough of the federal government's abuse of power.

You are correct in that the Indianna Supreme court Case of Ankeny vs. the governer of Indiana wrongly stated that Obama met the requirements of Article II of the Constitution in the main body of the Decision, however it corrected itself in footnote 13 of this decision.

It behooves us to remember that this case was about the duties and responsibilities of the Indianna state Governor in elections, and the meeting of Article II qualifications was neither an issue in the case nor was evidence presented to the court so that it could indeed rule on the matter in regards to Barack Obama.

In the aftermath of the Civil War the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing slavery. In part, the subsequent 14th Amendment clarified the issue of the citizenship statis of the former, now freed, slaves by stating that all born in the US to parents subject to the juristriction of the US were citizens.

Essentially the 14th Amendment, and the USSC Decision “Kim Wong Arc” answered the question of whether or not there are “born citizens” OTHER than Natural Born Citizens (i.e. born in the US to two citizen parents...... jus solis AND jus sanquine). Taken together the 14th and Kim Wong Arc they expand the definition of mere “born citizenship” to include those that meet only the jus solis portion of the requirement necessary for Natural Born Citizenship. Keep in mind that while all Natural Born Citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

I once had a pedigreed Cocker Spaniel named “Lady” who fell in love with a local mixed breed mongrel named “Tramp,” and bore him a litter of healthy/handsome pups.

Funny thing though.....the American Kennel Club, while agreeing that the pups were indeed “canines” wouldn’t admit them as Cocker Spaniel contestants in any of their Shows.....Were they dogs?.......Yes. Were they Cocker Spaniels?......nope...... Ineligible because of mixed parentage.

Obama, because of his Natural Born US Citizen (pedigreed) mother Stanley Ann (Lady), and his Mongrel (Kenyan/British)father Barack Obama Sr. (Tramp) is ineligible to compete in the Show Arena of the US Presidency.....he just does not have the pedigree.......

Sooner or later, we’ll all have to admit....Obama is a mutt!