Posted on 01/18/2009 7:55:32 AM PST by seekthetruth
"Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible For POTUS"
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus.html
Are you trying to get anyone riled up, by any chance?
I don’t agree. The race baiters are trying their best to get people riled up, and have been for years. But there are many people “of color” who will not get violent or agree with violence. Most people who might get violent are those who are lawless anyway.
But if the Constitutional contract at this most fundamental level is abrogated by the courts then you and I no longer have a valid Constitutional contract ...
***What a mess. I don’t know what can be done to correct it. We seemed to have done all we could. And now even Schwarzenegger is trying to drive his truck through this gaping loophole.
I believe that was proven to be a hoax. One of the little nettle posters has tried to push the notion that Jindal would be eliminated from Prez running if a ‘two American citizen parents’ standard is upheld. As if conservatives would set the Constitutiona aside for a conservative! The absurdity of the obamnoid din is getting so disgusting ... and now we have n00bs trying to play the race war card! I sometimes wonder if Jim has hired DU posters to work as his mods now.
No, lj, I’m not a baiter at all. I wish people wouldn’t get riled up, actually.
Just think of the Rodney King riots, plus what was “threatened”, had OJ been convicted way back in the day.
Human nature can be a fickle thing, with peer pressure being what it is. Imagine what would happen if America’s “people of color” were to get their “1st Black President”, only to have him removed by a technicality. Then try explaining to them that it’s NOT because he’s black...GOOD LUCK!!!
Why did Obama's father decide to go to school in Hawaii and later in MA at Harvard? Why did cousin Odinga go to Communist East Germany for his education?
Just because Wikipedia says Obama's father and tribe mostly lived in western Kenya doesn't mean that none of them ever spent time anywhere else for any number of reasons.
My children were born in different hospitals that were hundreds of miles away from where I and my spouse came from.
I have no idea what took the Obamas to Mombasa. If you want to know why they were there, you should look up Grandma Sarah Obama and ask her as she is the one who said they were there. Oh wait. You can't ask her because she is being kept quiet.
Well, the more people drum this up the better chances it has.
I’d rather appeal to peoples’ reason and desire not to commit and suffer violence or have their or others’ neighborhoods damaged.
I noticed you signed up a day or two ago and have hardly posted any comments yet, and several are about this. If I were you, I’d re-think drumming up or anticipating racial violene. I think trying to learn the truth and expressing a desire for truth and justice is a more admirable usage of FR.
I can certainly see your points. It of course remains to be seen what happens, if anything from SCOTUS. I do continue to just hope that our Constitution is upheld.
As for impeachment of a President, why would impeachment be necessary if the person was not a legal President to begin with? Do we impeach a usurper?
“Natural Born Citizen” = Born on US soil. And born of TWO parents who are US citizens. (The parents do not need to be “natural born” citizens themselves, but must be citizens prior to the birth of their child in order for their child to be eligible to be President/Vice President.)
“And this definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is to be found where?”
There are several things mentioned in case law at the link below that goes into great detail as to the intent of our Founding Fathers in using the words “natural born” citizen. This was to pertain ONLY to the office of President/Vice President. Please read below. It is long but contains several examples and is very detailed as to the meaning of “natural born” citizen. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Put yourself in his shoes Hawaii? Or Hanover? Where would you rather spend the winter?
Just because Wikipedia says Obama's father and tribe mostly lived in western Kenya doesn't mean that none of them ever spent time anywhere else for any number of reasons.
But then there would be some evidence to support that, would there not? Some sort of paper trail? Especially if, as the stories go, Obama's grandmother was there for his birth.
I have no idea what took the Obamas to Mombasa.
You have no idea if he was there at all.
If you want to know why they were there, you should look up Grandma Sarah Obama and ask her as she is the one who said they were there. Oh wait. You can't ask her because she is being kept quiet.
Then surely there's a transcript somewhere supporting your claim? You had to get your information from something.
So you're from Kenya too?
Supreme court can’t enforce laws. The only thing they could have done was to refuse to swear him in and its too late for that.
No, the Supreme Court is going to have fun with this. They are going wait until he is sworn in and then annouce their findings and let the Adminstrative Branch deal with it because that branch is the one in charge of enforcing laws.
Problem is it will be after the swearing in and I doubt if anything can be done.
Best mode of attack is to have about 5 million march on DC every day untill he leaves the office.
We have to take back the government before its too late.
John
But where is it defined? In the Consitution? The Constitution mentions two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. There is no reference to a third form of citizenship. In federal law? Again, only two forms are mentioned - citizen at birth and naturalized. Case law? The decision in the Ark case that your site references states, "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that, "...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." So if there are only two forms of citizenship then obviously 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' are one and the same.
And I should point out that other court decisions use the terms interchangebly. The Ark and Elg cases use 'citizen at birth' to describe a person born in the U.S. who's parents are not U.S. citizens. In the 1844 case Lynch v. Clarke, the judge wrote: "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situations of his parents, is a natural born citizen." U.S. v Rhodes is an 1866 case which also clearly states only two forms of citizenship, "'Citizens' under our Constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since before the Revolution." Elk v. Wilkins tied the two together in 1884. "The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born U.S. citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...'"
Case law supports the idea that "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous. Under those circumstances, the idea that there are three classes of citizen cannot be supported.
You said — I do know that if the Constitution is not upheld “the very fabric of this country WILL be torn apart”!
—
That’s just rhetoric and hyperbole on this thread. And we’re not talking about if we think the Constitution should be upheld (I think that everyone here is in agreement with that one..., it’s just that no one has been able to get a court to act upon it).
The reason what you say is simple rhetoric and hyperbole is because we’ve already had a prior President who was not qualified under the Constitution (Leo Donofrio already documented it, the 21st President of the United States).
And when that happened — “the very fabric of this country WAS NOT torn apart...”
That’s from *history* and we still have the very same Constitution right now, and here we are arguing about that same requirement of the Constitution. If the country’s fabric was torn apart from the 21st President of the United States not being qualified, then we wouldn’t be talking about this requirement any longer...
You asked — “As for impeachment of a President, why would impeachment be necessary if the person was not a legal President to begin with? Do we impeach a usurper?”
Well, very simply because an accusation is not proven until it’s been adjudicated in a court of law. In the President’s case, there has not been a court of law that has made that judgement. So, when he gets sworn in he *is* President.
And after that time of taking office, there is only *one venue* for “adjudicating” any violation of the law (in order to remove a President) — which is by Impeachment from the House — and — Conviction by the Senate.
Until such a time as a court of law adjudicates the matter — or — the Senate convicts him — he is the President, regardless of any allegations.
Great reply, MHG. I lol’d. I thought I saw that name NS before but it was a long time ago. Thanks for the reminder. ;)
You were asking — “Arthur was unqualified why? I do not know about that.”
Leo Donofrio (and others, too...) show that he was not a natural born citizen, just like people are saying about Obama. It’s on Donofrio’s website (at least two different articles, if not more...). But, there is plenty information elsewhere, too.
The point is — the 21st President of the United States was never qualified to be President — and yet he was. That’s the point.
The question is (according to what you’re saying) — did we have riots from that, like you’re saying would happen? Mind you, there were people, then, who were complaining about him not being qualified (at the very time he was President), just like there is now. So, “from history” what happened in similar circumstances?
—
Lastly, you were saying — “What I do know is this, if the Supreme Court rules that Barry is not illegible to be president and moves to remove him, the riots in the past will be a kindergarten scrap to what will happen in this country. That’s what I meant by tearing the fabric. I guess I should have been more clear.”
Well, if the Supreme Court documents any information and make it part of their ruling, which shows in a court of law, that Obama is not qualified — then they would turn it over to Congress, because of the requirement in the Constitution that a President be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Now, when that happened with Clinton, use that for a “gauge” as to the amount of rioting that you would see in the streets (also Clinton was the first “black President”, if I remember correctly... LOL...). I think people were looking at Clinton’s trial like they were at O.J.’s trial. They were highly interested — but once it was over, everyone went back to their lives, as normal...
“Jindal has already said he has no interest in running for president so he has counted himself out. “
Yeah but that was AFTER the big stink about the Obama NBC issue. As late as November, Jindal was holding pre-campaign dinners and collecting money already.
Then the RNC said, “Maybe we better not try to pull this once again The dems already double-crossed us once into falling for it in 2008 and the public internet will crucify you.”
You said — “And you sir are naive if you think but once it was over, everyone went back to their lives, as normal...”
In terms of massive rioting in the streets... (like was said...)...
Of course, political fighting went on “as normal”, too. The Republicans fighting for their beliefs and values and the Democrats doing the same on their side. But, then again — that’s “normal” too...
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.