Posted on 02/19/2010 5:51:27 AM PST by wizard1961
If BHO is removed from office because he is not a natural citizen, he then becomes a race martyr and Biden becomes president. Hillary probably becomes VP. How would this help conservatives in 2010 and 2012 -- it would hurt us, right?
If the Lewinsky debacle had removed Clinton, Gore would have become President and cruised to his own electorial victory. This would have been a disaster.
I agree there is a puzzle here. I agree there is free speech & everyone has a right to pursue this. My question: is there some angle here that I've missed that makes this smart?
As you well know none of post 82 was written by me. Your sarcasm missed and you have no response to what was written. You were proven wrong in your statement.
“There would be no sympathy for a man and a party, who knew, or should have known, that their standard bearer was not eligible to the Oficce of President, and allowed him to represent them anyway. None. Likely it would destroy the Democratic party. “
I do WISH you were correct, but I don’t think more than 2% of democrats or independants would consider it to be more than a technicality. I think 20% of Republicans would agree that since the mother was a citizen, well, close enough.
Again, this does not make me happy, but I think people just do not much care. Put another way... I think a majority of folks would be happy to drop the restriction entirely for future elections.
“Yes. Are you concerned that by repeating “Kenyan Impostor” it may become harder to win elections?”
No. I’m not concerned.
The fact that the left attempts to marginalize birthers proves that we are on to something. The circumstances surrounding the Kenyan’s birth certificate and sealed vital records raises suspicions. The only thing we know about the Kenyan is his two autobiographies that read like KGB legends for moles.
We birthers are playing an important role in undermining the credibility of the Kenyan Impostor. The polls show it.
As for the referenced professor, I'm sure he's a wonderful person.
“If BHO is removed from office because he is not a natural citizen, he then becomes a race martyr and Biden becomes president. Hillary probably becomes VP. How would this help conservatives in 2010 and 2012 — it would hurt us, right?”
Of course it would hurt us but you forget, the Constitution IS a suicide pact.
“...as soon as a person says “Kenya” the audience will immediately “know” who you “are” .... “
That’s true, and even someone like me, who would like very much to see the SCOTUS define the ‘natural born’ term once and for all, and who does not discount the eligibility questions or questioners, tends to cringe when Kenya is brought up. More often than not, when “Kenya” is brought up it’s in reference to the (probably remote) possibility of BHO, Jr.’s being born there. IF Jr was in fact born in Kenya, it obviously becomes key, but for now is mere speculation. It is more a diversion than the BC, long or short. “Kenya” doesn’t much matter, except to BHO, Sr’s citizenship, and thus possibly conferring British or Kenyan citizenship on his son.
The bigger question, the constitutional question, is: what did the Framers mean by the term ‘natural born citizen?’ It’s a more far reaching question than just BHO’s status. IF BHO produced a ‘long form’ birth certificate tomorrow showing he was born in HI as he has claimed, of an American mother and Kenyan father, it would not answer the underlying Constitutional question.
” ...there is a limited opportunity (more than time) for any group to pitch their objectives.”
But, this is not a fleeting pop culture issue, like trying to define a movement or an individual politician. It’s really about defining something written in the Constitution as drafted more than 200 years ago.
The SCOTUS does not depend on People magazine for its research (thankfully). They would have to research writings at the time the Constitution was being drafted and adopted to determine the intent of those Framers.
There was a common language, a common understanding among the Framers. They were among the most highly educated men of their time and had studied the same writings. They knew what they meant by the phrase ‘natural born’ that they purposely and meaningfully inserted into the Constitution.
When a party (or parties) who are deemed as having ‘standing’ presents the question to the SCOTUS, this or some future Court will have to fill in a newer, differently educated population about what was so clear to those men of the 18th century. With an upcoming generation of thousands upon thousands of “anchor babies,” with legal immigrants maintaining dual citizenship for themselves and their children, and with marriage between citizens of different countries very common today, this issue will eventually have to be resolved.
I'm certain he's done more research than you.
TY FRiend for the history of the term, “natural born”. FRegards ....
You’re welcome.
“Every minute we spend here could have been spent on something else.”
I agree, but the opposite way. Every minute someone tries to divide us is time wasted. When one group tries to throw the other group under the bus, it should be due to something outrageous, not an argument of a finer point. If there were, for example, secret members of the KKK in the RNC, by all means — ostracize them. But if someone says that Obama is suspicious in the way he hides his past, that person should feel foolish?
“Birtherism For Dummies”
So its OK that soldiers are confused about who their commander in chief is? It’s ok that Justice wastes resources to hide someone’s past? We should criticize each other and give each other “dummies” lessons to save time? Hah.
Hillary would not become VP if Biden were to become President. They would appoint a VP, like Nixon appointed Ford.
“Unless, of course, they really are on the margins.”
Exactly. That's the conspiracy mindset in a nutshell. The fact that everyone laughs at us and says we're nuts is proof of how brilliant and insightful we are. At that point, you're impervious to feedback from reality.
“We should criticize each other and give each other “dummies” lessons to save time? Hah.”
Yes, great point. I did not invent our gap, it simply concerns me. I think we could pursue the documentation aspect without triggering the Kenya Nutcase reaction.
Can we reload in a way that Coulter, Beck, et al can support?
“The SCOTUS does not depend on People magazine for its research (thankfully). They [w]ould have to research writings at the time the Constitution was being drafted and adopted to determine the intent of those Framers.”
I agree with almost everything. Sadly, I think your “would” has become a “should” and that is where the whole problem lies.
I can agree with that.
“I get the motivation, but so far the approach has been ineffectual at best.”
There is no perfect approach when millions of people are calling things out in crowds. Nor is there a way of making so many people ignore this. No matter how we address it, we will be nitpicked and forces will seek to divide us.
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.