Careful what we wish for: there have been unqualifed candidates on every ballot for 200 years, probably, if SCOTUS overturns this election, it'd have to overturn every one.
I'm ~happy with Biden over Obama.
But not Pelosi, for some reason.
I'm sure you've seen this post, it gives me hope.
-------------------
Thats what SCOTUS is there for - taking the Constitution, the law, the concept of “original intent”, and common sense to hammer out the isssues arising from flaws in the Constitution.
Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not.
These were decided without clear stiipulation from the Constitution:
Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona (rights must be read to suspects)
United States v. Nixon (limits on executive privilege)
Roe v. Wade (implied right to privacy)
In this case, the Founding Fathers CLEARLY DID NOT WANT a non natural born POTUS AND they WOULD have demanded Obama’s Birth Certificate (”original intent” and common sense).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2129516/posts?page=231#231
Then you are happy that our elections was manipulated by terrorists?
Obama is more than non natural born. He is financially tied to Auchi. Auchi conspired and helped overthrow Iraq. that is how we got Saddam.
We can’t bend rules for enemy combatants.
Hey - can you get this circulated around ???
I think that we need a brute force search in order to find the applicable info. I have been researching the Hague Convention of 1930 on Nationality ... haven’t found anything yet.
They have monkeyed around so much with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 so much in the last 56 years (changing length of U.S. residency after a certain age ... 14, 15, 16, etc.).
Anyway, it seems to me that they FORGOT one thing ... the disclaimer!
Per SEC. 357. [8 U.S.C. 1489]:
“Nothing in this title shall be applied in contravention of the provisions of any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party and which has been ratified by the Senate before December 25, 1952: Provided, however, That no woman who was a national of the United States shall be deemed to have lost her nationality solely by reason of her marriage to an alien on or after September 22, 1922, or to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship on or after March 3, 1931, or, in the case of a woman who was a United States citizen at birth, through residence abroad following such marriage, notwithstanding the provisions of any existing treaty or convention.”
Berg cites the Hague Convention of 1930 as precedent. If the Senate ratified it AND NEVER repealed it, then the laws pertaining to the Hague Convention of 1930 STILL apply.
I think that is where Berg gets the 10 years U.S. residency (5 after the age of 14) in order for Stanley Ann Dunham to register Obama as a natural born citizen.