Posted on 04/23/2010 7:11:30 AM PDT by opentalk
If that’s true, we’ll get to the bottom of this.
At some point, it starts to look very silly for a
candidate not to be forthright and instead spend
a fortune avoiding being forthright.
thanks for posting.
Dana Perino an Obama voter? Source?
This I have not seen before - interesting
Logic can tell you how these treacherous legal minds have worked in their mocking of the Birther movement and their shading the line with John McCain's birth on a military reservation to bring about the "expired British subjection" of Obama ruling America illegally.
See it is all about covenant which is the ancient rights. Look on any law books to this day and if you simply start mowing your neighbor's lawn, or gardening on parts of their property, or farming, grazing or planting a hedge which you maintain on an adjacent property, that the law states in 7 years that land is your land.
It is called precedent.
Understand my children, that once Barack Hussein Obama completes one legal term in office, there is legal standing for any crime which he has completed. Illegal then becomes legal in the eyes of Obama lawyers who will make the courts enforce a new mandate which supersedes the Constitution in a foreign born British subject, allied to Europe,
the temporary usurper...he and his, everything must be done now, soon, quickly....as his sad @$$ is on the way out—one way or t’other—but unfortunately, not now, quickly nor soon enough for good men and women...
It seems that the talking heads don’t want to confront the issue because if they find out it’s true, they know there will be riots.
All Arizona’s law would require is that a candidate show evidence of eligibility. If the Secretary of State (I think) rejects it, then you would have a court case for the Supreme Court. Until then, everything would go as normal.
If Obama presented a birth certificate from Hawaii, odds are VERY good he would be certified for the ballot by Arizona.
To put teeth into this law, Arizona would have to pass a law stating that no one could run for President unless both parents were US citizens. THAT would be a rejection of Obama, and require one hell of a legal fight...but don’t hold your breath.
That is an interesting passage....
oBambi is in squatter mode right now
Squatter in Chief
Once the precedence term is set it would no longer be deemed illegal trespass of the office.
Can you take back a covenant precedence in the law as written?
Interesting....
The MSM all released strong talking points at the same time ridiculing AZ, --
Rush Limbaugh has said--they will let you know where their weaknesses are. (Big reaction to tea party, sarah Palin, AZ, and Rush)
“I’ve always been of the mindset that it would require 2 US citizens.”
I don’t believe that, but it IS a plausible interpretation. There are two views, both with arguments for and against. It would have been strongly preferable for the Supreme Court to accept the case in Dec 2008 and issue a formal ruling.
If they thought Obama qualified, it would only take a few hours to write a one page summary of that view, and then no one would be debating it now...
It appears precedent has already been established regarding removing unqualified candidates from the ballot: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=90256
They really should have done that. I read that Clarence Thomas made a statement to the fact that if Congress wasn’t going to address this, why should they.
I’m not sure exactly how it was stated - I wish I had saved the article. It really should have been in Congresses hands at least from what I’ve heard. I guess legally they are the only ones that could make an issue of this. We have no standing. I don’t like that at all!
There have been and are a number of court cases, but I don’t think any of them will go anywhere. If a conservative state (Utah?) passed a law stating future candidates are required to have both parents US citizens, then that law would become a court case that would settle the issue (I think).
If no one can get support for a law like that in a state like Utah (which is more conservative than Arizona), then no court is going to touch the case. They may be ‘ducking’ the issue, but they will continue to duck until they have a case that leaves no option.
Cases like LTC Lakin have other options for a decision, and they will take those outs.
All just IMHO. I’m not a lawyer, and the one time I was on a court martial board, the defendant plead guilty - all we did was determine sentence.
Other states are doing this too. Why all the focus on AZ?
--The Arizona House of Representatives voted by a margin of 31 to 22 on Monday to add the measure to a larger bill. The bill will have to be voted on again, separately, in the House, and will have to get Senate assent before it can be sent to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.
--"Attempts have been made in other states, such as Florida and Oklahoma, to introduce similar legislation," the New York Post reports. "None of them have ever become law."
Quote the text from the constitution, with proper indexing please.
Without that this is spam.
This must have been before Jan Brewer vetooed the bill, hmmm???
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.