Posted on 07/31/2009 4:30:00 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
Not an unreasonable fear. It's possible one stole our country.
By the way, Obama was born in 1961, NOT 1986.
Yes, and that case is heading for Florida.
You wrote-
“I would add to your list:
A decorated, combat experienced Army Individual Ready Reserve Officer volunteered to deploy to a war zone, but demanded the Commander in Chief demonstrate his eligibility to hold the office before he deployed. His orders were quickly canceled and his Security Clearance was suspended. (Cook v. Good)”
Er, I don’t think I understand what you said.
The 1986 law (and the previous law as well) held that -
- If born in the US, no matter to who - Citizen, no other conditions required.
- If born outside the US to one citizen - age and residency requirements.
I think his campaign to hide his BC might prove perjury.
You could argue that he understood the law incorrectly. The fact that he hid his BC proves that he knew very well what he was doing.
I'm sure there are a lot of 'Barack Hussein Obama's' out there in this country, so it's probably just that. /sarc
I’m sure that perjury = impeachment. However, if he’s impeached, his partner Biden takes over, giving the Dems more political capital to burn. We don’t want that either do we? His controversy is starting to tear apart the Democratic party, so let’s continue to show the facts and let that happen instead, and see more success with Congress in the next two elections.
Gee, are those 39 social security numbers the same ssn’s used by his Czars? Congress doesn’t get to meet the Czars.
>I have a passport and a birth certificate.<
.
But you’re not the POTUS and you’re an American. In today’s globalized political world the US must have a UN approved president. It’s now a Kenyan’s turn. Who knows who will be next — Kim Yong Il, perhaps.
I agree and the courts cannot ignore this forever.
You wrote-
“I think his campaign to hide his BC might prove perjury.
You could argue that he understood the law incorrectly. The fact that he hid his BC proves that he knew very well what he was doing.”
Sure, but we are using the 1986 law for the purpose of its definition of the requirements for citizenship.
The previous law was the same, the differences were in its age and residency requirements in the case of foreign birth.
Which one applies ? Do these laws matter in the Constitutional test ? Are they relevant ? Nobody knows, and nobody proposing any legal theory has the authority to prevail, and certainly nobody has a good reason to get huffy about it.
What you may have read at DU is not law.
This Congress is not going to impeach him no matter what he does. I mean, really, that is Science Fiction.
Maybe after 2010, but even then I doubt it.
Also, to go with your posting, US Constitution Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits the passing of ex po facto (retroactive) laws by Congress, so the 86 law would not extend to Obama.
I don’t read anything in DU.
On the other hand I doubt you read at all.
That may very well be true, and will be shown by his actions.
Oh, you like to read? Read message #34 here!
What does that have to do with this case ? Born in Hawaii means he was a citizen under the previous law as well.
And you are certainly not a “real patriotic american”. I would be ashamed to claim you as a fellow citizen, you insect.
There are 2 great articles on this.
American Thinker
Obama’s birth debate: It’s about loyalty
By James Lewis
AND
National Review online
Suborned in the U.S.A.
by Andrew C. McCarthy
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.