Replies

It most certainly IS a problem for anyone who thinks that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible...

I think we're heading toward a mis-communication here. I don't think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.

Yes, "it's a problem" for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer's intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.

I think we’re heading toward a mis-communication here. I don’t think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.

Yes, “it’s a problem” for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer’s intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.

That’s why we have a Supreme Court, to determine the Framer’s intent in the instances where their intent is not crystal clear. The framers also established the constitutional amendment process to revise their own work in future eras. It will be for the current or for future Supreme Courts to decide whether the 14th Amendment revises Article Two/Section One. Is a Citizen at birth identical to a Natural Born Citizen? Obviously, in the case of Barack Obama, that is the interpretation that prevails.

You are in effect saying that Chief Justice John Roberts is not a patriot because he swore in Barack Obama as president.

This is a weird little thing I ran across.

San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com
SFGate Politics Blog: A Polish Perspective
Posted By: Matthew B. Stannard | August 06 2009 at 07:30 PM
Listed Under: Global Spin

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=45071

Check out paragraph 11, the interviewee's response to question 3.

Little Freudian slip there, from an international perspective?