[BP2]

> In the USA, Obama gets the same legal rights and protections that Charles Manson got.

No, Obama as the de facto Chief Executive has FAR MORE “legal rights and protections”.

Obama has the Justice Department and the US Attorneys Office at his disposal to “protect the office of the President,” regardless of how guilty he may be. And after observing Obama in action for nearly 16 months, it's safe to assume that he would undoubtedly have Holder and Napolitano invoke National Security to save Obama’s own sorry ass from his own lies if it came down to it. Charles Manson has no such executive power to abuse.

At the center of the Framer’s desire to place the unique “natural-born citizen” requirement for the President was Loyalty. There are 535 members of Congress and 9 Justices to disperse the Legitimate Power they wield for their branches of government. But there is only ONE President in the Executive Branch ... there damn well better not be ANY conflict (actual or implied) as to whom that one Executive owes his Loyalty!

The Framers all too well understood that even though they were all American citizens and severed themselves from the King on July 4, 1776, EVEN THEY had unbreakable ties as British Subjects, succinctly expressed in this excerpt from the “The Pamphleteer, Volume 2”:

This concept of nemo potest exuere patrium ("No man can renounce his own country") endured in the US even AFTER the Constitution was ratified, which is the reason the Framers inserted “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” as part of the Constitutional requirement for the POTUS in Art II, § 1, Clause 5.

The British used nemo potest exuere patrium to dragoon on the high seas as many as 10,000 Americans — deemed British deserters by the British Admiralty — and force these American sailors into British military service (more often jailed) before the War of 1812.

Indeed, even the United States government did not expressly claim that naturalization released a citizen from his or her former allegiance until 1848. A Declaration of the Prince Regent in 1813 rejected the idea that American naturalization laws had any force on the high seas. To recognize those statutes outside American territory "would nullify the jurisdiction of the British crown over its natural-born subjects."

Even the slightest judicial erosion of nemo potest exuere patrium did not occur until 1824 with Doe d. Thomas v. Acklam. However, nemo potest exuere patriam (or Indelibility) was established law in Great Britain until 1870, and in the United States until the Expatriation Act (1868) that declared "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's important to note however that the Expatriation Act is a Congressional Act, and obviously does not trump the US Constitution.

Additionally, in terms of how the Framers would have recognized Loyalty to the British Crown from a British Subject, Obama's loyalty to the Crown — whether or not Obama recognizes this loyalty — ENDURES THIS VERY MOMENT and for as long as Obama shall live.

[little jeremiah]

I wonder if that which you describe above had any bearing on the offensive behavior towards Queen Elizabeth when 0bama and his missus visited her.

I would assume that 0bama might have wanted to “show” that he wasn’t a “loyal” British citizen, if/when this becomes mainstream.

Just wondering.

[lentulusgracchus]

Obama's loyalty to the Crown — whether or not Obama recognizes this loyalty — ENDURES THIS VERY MOMENT and for as long as Obama shall live.

Even allowing that Obama, arguendo, was born in Mombasa, Stanley and Barack Sr. were married in Hawaii; and since Senior was still married to a village Luo girl back home, then therefore his marriage to Stanley was a bigamous sham, null and void under U.S. law.

So Obama Sr. and Stanley were never married, and Obama was the child of one parent only.

[bgill]

There are 535 members of Congress and 9 Justices to disperse the Legitimate Power they wield for their branches of government. But there is only ONE President in the Executive Branch ... there damn well better not be ANY conflict (actual or implied) as to whom that one Executive owes his Loyalty!

Hear, hear!

[danamco]

I wonder if it all makes any sense at all here to have a sensible discussion with bag stabbers who pulls down our F.R. to be a laughing stock with much of mud thrown around???

Defectors in the military is nothing new. In more modern days we had John sKerry who sold out his former comrades including this guy's father. Where I come from we had a guy with the name Fritz Clausen and our neighbor country they had a more well know name Vidkun during WWII. I see close similarities of some "posters"(?) here to keep their dear leader in power at any costs by ridicules!!!

[Cicero]

I think you are right to suggest that Obama will use the powers of his office ruthlessly to protect himself. As a malignant narcissist, there is nothing in the universe more important to him than himself and how he is perceived by others. And Eric Holder will bend and break the law for him.

This is certainly suggested by the way he got elected to office several times in the past, using his Chicago crime connections to eliminate all of his opponents in several races for state and federal office.

He doesn’t have a body trail nearly as long as clinton’s, but there are certainly a few coincidental corpses out there, most notably the guy he paid to clean up his files in the State Department, who was about to testify.

[Mr Rogers]

“Additionally, in terms of how the Framers would have recognized Loyalty to the British Crown from a British Subject, Obama’s loyalty to the Crown — whether or not Obama recognizes this loyalty — ENDURES THIS VERY MOMENT and for as long as Obama shall live.”

We fought a war in 1812 in part to reject the idea that once a British subject, always a British subject - yet you claim that Obama was ruled by that principle in 2008?

You’re a nut!

I suggest taking a poll: “Is Obama disqualified for office due to his being a subject of Queen ELizabeth 2? Answers: Yes, No, Laughing too hard to respond”.

THAT is why birthers lose every time - because y’all believe things like that, or believe that Rush & Coulter are part of the liberal fix! (”Are you aware how much Rush Limbaugh is paid???/ And “presstitute” Coulter would never be able to promote her books” post 606)

And that is why it harms conservatives to tolerate you - because tolerating drivel such as that makes us all look like nuts. That isn’t being PC, but reasonable - a person who tolerates the views of a crazy is tainted by the craziness.

I will make an exception for El Gato, who argues the birther case with both reason and passion. His posts are worth reading and thinking about. But the rest of you are nuts!