Bruce-just a quick clarification. It was never my intent to imply absolute trust. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
All-in proposing the questions regarding truth and trust I was seeking to distill ideas about constitutional foundations. It is clear from this process, that we all agree (I think TNTNT agrees, but I am not completely sure) that...
the founding fathers had as their intent, related to the NBC issue, that it would not be the case that someone with divided loyalties occupy the office of the Presidency.
In as far as we can come to an “absolute truth” within human limitation, this is one of them related to our constitution. Working within that framework, and moving forward we come to our day and time in which an individual, Obama, is asking us as citizens to trust him, while asking us to simultaneously avoid a basic understanding of what we have known about our constitution, namely the statement above.
Now, as Americans, we are being forced to choose between truth and trust. If we choose truth, it is the harder path. Many have recognized that state law needs to be more precise on the NBC issue and that is one area to start and must not be neglected. But we also must force the issue of what has been perceived as vagueness with the constitution related to exact wording on NBC and citizenship in general.
If we choose the trust route, and say, well let’s let this birth stuff pass and deal with things we can because this birth thing carries too much weight, well then we lose the truth issue all together.
In a civil society such as this republic we are trying to protect and defend, trust can only exist within the confines of the law (which is our absolute truth with which we work.)
Therefore, if WE THE PEOPLE, choose to back away from Obama specifically, we have chosen wrongly. WE THE PEOPLE are in charge of this government. WE THE PEOPLE must protect and defend the constitution. We do that by voting most of the time, but sometimes as in relation to Obama, that avenue did not work properly, and it must be fixed. WE THE PEOPLE are faced with a constitutional crisis, and we cannot lose heart in this matter.
Was Obama born in the US to two citizen parents? It matters NOT how that question is answered, what matters is that it is asked and answered to the satisfaction of WE THE PEOPLE who run this government. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Yes, we may be talking about an insurmountable task, but creating this “American experiment” in the first place was no easy feat and we owe it to the founding fathers, and to future generations to give it our best shot.
I propose a flanking maneuver. WE THE PEOPLE in this new era of constitutional awareness, press our elected officials to put forth a bill “celebrating” the exceptional wording of our constitution, and beginning with the clause NBC, and in that celebration demonstrate in visual form for all our citizens, just how each of our presidents has upheld that idea. This type of “celebration” will help all our citizens recognize the importance of the words chosen in our founding documents and inspire those who are not voting (children, illegals, etc.) to see the beauty of our country in its very detailed aspects.
Force the hand of those who are seeking to destroy our constitution. That is what I say. What say you all?
Because it is one thing to argue generalized intents and policies, and the wisdom of letting someone like Obama become President. Maybe simply being born here shouldn't be enough, but as a people governed by a written Constitution, we should abide by what it says, not by what we wish it said.
Now of course, that still leaves the issue of whether Obama really was born in Hawaii. But leaving that aside for the moment, I'm just trying to figure out what your position is regarding people who were born in the U.S., but who had at least one parent not a citizen of the United States.