Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OBAMA KNEW HE WASN’T ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS
Give Me Liberty ^ | 8/12/09 | Lynn Dartez

Posted on 08/12/2009 5:27:31 PM PDT by pissant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-249 last
To: El Gato

“If Frank Davis is his father can he be removed for fraud if it comes out?”

“Only by impeachment. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ‘Rat Congress to do that.”

*************************

Talk about desperation time. I’m sure you’ll have no difficulty in establishing the relevance of whether or not Davis was his father to his eligibility, and from there to a question of fraud. Whew! It’s really getting thick!


241 posted on 08/13/2009 8:05:42 PM PDT by Redwood Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Any constitutional originalist will look to the intent of the framers of the constitution as the primary determinative for the validity of any statute adopted subsequent to the original document or additional amendments. I believe that the determinatives, in order of ascendency, are:
1. Original text of the constitution

2. Dicta writings of the framers as relates to the constitutional issue, (i.e. the 1787 debates)

3. black letter law expressed by statute

4. Common law

5. judicial precedent and stare decisis

There may be some overlap as to precedence, but I don’t think that a statute that conflicts with the framer’s intent should be allowed to subvert that intention. In that event, that law should yield as unconstitutional. I think the framers accepted the vision of Vattel, even though they did not place that definition in the constitution. I hope this matter goes to SCOTUS for adjudication. We need a ruling for future precedent.


242 posted on 08/13/2009 8:29:25 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: shield
Wonder if he knows? He was abandon by his mother and his dad...his commie gramps and grandmother were actually the only people he could ever consider his parents.

I do wonder about the possibility that the "father" listed on his BC is someone other than Obama Sr. and if that explains his reluctance to settle the BC issue. What I don't get is why he avoided revealing the truth long ago, if that is the case, because it immediately garners him sympathy from just about everyone - "Oh, the poor child grew up not even knowing who his real Dad was..." There's really not much of a stigma attached to having bad parents; in fact, bad parenting seems to be the norm, now days.

Even if he admitted it now, after the book about his dad's "Dreams" and stuff, we'd still likely forgive and forget if he simply explained that he did not 'discover the truth' until recently (or at least made-up some plausible explanation for keeping it a secret.) We have certainly pieced together enough of his childhood to accept a story from him about his 'turbulent family life' or some such notion.

At this point, I'd be happy to discover that his father actually was a US citizen. Then, I could concentrate on him just being a bad President, not a bad AND illegitimate one...

243 posted on 08/13/2009 8:51:28 PM PDT by GizmosAndGadgets (If at first you don't succeed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: GizmosAndGadgets

He was born in Kenya. There are 3 certified BC’s from Kenya of Jr here in the states. Michelle has also stated he was born in Kenya...he is a Kenyan.


244 posted on 08/13/2009 9:03:47 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: shield
There are 3 certified BC’s from Kenya of Jr here in the states.

I'm hoping that at least one of those is what Orly Taitz is using to wedge the door open on the BC issue. Regardless, his Kenyan parentage (assuming that is the truth) automatically disqualifies him as POTUS.

What a mess. I really worry that our average population has sunk beneath the level of intelligent and rational thought required to maintain our republic...

245 posted on 08/13/2009 9:14:36 PM PDT by GizmosAndGadgets (If at first you don't succeed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Sorry I wasn’t able to get back to you yesterday evening, I was out late with friends.

Haven’t been able to dig into it yet, but the letter of the law in the Constitution actually would seem to preclude individuals from territories or districts from eligibility, and as I mentioned, there was controversy over Goldwater’s eligibility for this reason.

As far as Vice Presidents, looking to the specific language, what I’m seeing refers to President, and I do not see the line of succession there. Logic says that the line of succession must be eligible under the Constitution as well, in order to assume the Office, should there be that necessity.

DC was established from the outset, but is not a state, as demonstrated by various limitations that have been cause for statehood movements. There’s another area to delve into, as far as provisions for national office for its residents.

Thanks for the well reasoned and reasonable reply, though, even if we’re in disagreement. It seems in rather short supply of late, lol. It seems the distinction between Constiutional law and statutory law, and the primacy of the Constitution at times of apparent conflict between the two, is not just misunderstood at times, but is entirely lost to some.


246 posted on 08/14/2009 3:48:00 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
There may be some overlap as to precedence, but I don’t think that a statute that conflicts with the framer’s intent should be allowed to subvert that intention. In that event, that law should yield as unconstitutional.

Or, dealing specifically with the eligibility issue at hand, seeing as how there literally is no statutory law dealing with the matter outside of the Constitution, it can be reasonably determined that such statutes are within the power enumerated to the Legislature, and therefore concern naturalization only.

247 posted on 08/14/2009 3:55:01 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
This case is about citizenship of someone whose parents were not citizens, but who was born on our soil. Therefore someone whose parents were not citizen, though born on US soil, is not a natural born citizen.

And yet nowhere in the decision does it say that. Nowhere does it define natural born vs. citizen at birth vs. citizen by birth. No law does that, the Constitution doesn't define it, and no Supreme Court case as issued a ruling on it. What the Ark decision does is affirm the 14th Amdendment that all children born in the U.S. are citizens from the moment of birth, and that includes those who's parents were citizens as well as those who's parents were not. It does not make a distinction between the two, or clearly state that only those who's parents were citizens are natural-born citizens. In fact it makes no distinction between the two. They are on equal footing, and both are natural born citizens.

248 posted on 08/14/2009 5:50:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Bump BTTT!!


249 posted on 05/27/2010 6:50:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Don't care if he was born in a manger on July 4th! A "Natural Born" citizen requires two US parents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-249 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson