Replies

I too agree. Seeing all the law review articles which carefully avoid John Marshall or Bingham, as well as the scrubbing and sealing of most of Obama’s background suggests that there are lots of people in high places who have gone along for the ride, and probably believe that the idiots of the proletariat need smart people to help them make smarter decisions, tell them when their children are useful, and tell them when they are too old to be useful. They are impressed with the Sunsteins and Holdrens - Holdren who has been so far afield in his scientific predictions as to rival his mentors Paul Ehrlich and Harrison and Lester Brown (not relations,but both Holdren mentors).

While the popular protests as people begin to understand the loss of liberties and ruin he intends to make of our economy, give me hope, there is another possibility: seeing how hard it is to explain, even to people who don't like anything Obama stands for, his constitutional ineligility, some major power brokers, perhaps including the courts, may be waiting for the polls to shift.

Obama’s very radical past doesn't mean much to most people. Who knew of Van Jones background, or John Holdren, or the dozens of Soros-backed left-wing activist groups. The SDS founders are baby boomers. These radical fringe groups have acted in the shadows for decades. Anyone from the political mainstream who doesn't jump on when the sentiment has shifted will never be trusted again.

Constitutional citizenship is not the stuff of tin hats, or Bilderbergers or rumors about a clearly bizarre childhood and family. Obama told us his father was a British Kenyan. Those who dismiss that don't deserve to be leaders. He knew, or was told, that he would be safe, probably because of all the advance legal preparation. We need to help others understand that the issue is with our constitution, as much as his secret background is frustrating. Our courts and our congress let him get away with that.

An officer of the court has a legal responsibility to uphold the the constitution, and our officers have, thus far, chosen not to. Either we will lose our republic, as our constitution is demonstrably irrelevant, or we'll strengthen it, having seen how close we have come to losing it.

An officer of the court has a legal responsibility to uphold the the constitution, and our officers have, thus far, chosen not to. Either we will lose our republic, as our constitution is demonstrably irrelevant, or we'll strengthen it, having seen how close we have come to losing it

That's as succinct of an explanation of our predicament as I've seen.

While the popular protests as people begin to understand the loss of liberties and ruin he intends to make of our economy, give me hope, there is another possibility: seeing how hard it is to explain, even to people who don't like anything Obama stands for, his constitutional ineligility, some major power brokers, perhaps including the courts, may be waiting for the polls to shift.

I hope and pray the wind will shift favorably, and soon, and that it will not be too late.

[...]

He knew, or was told, that he would be safe, probably because of all the advance legal preparation.

It's instructive to have in hand a list of major American law professors and from it see whose campaign they so generously supported with their money.