As much as I want to know Obama is (or isn’t) able to serve the office, allowing this suit to move forward sets a rather dangerous precedent.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Yeah I think upholding The Constitution would set a dangerous precedent. The Framers risked death, ruin and worse. The were very serious about the requirements to become POTUS. We either have a Constitution or we have mob rule and anarchy.
Still, it is very interesting that, through all of the many lawsuits over Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS, Obama has never bothered to publish his original birth certificate and put all of the rumors and allegations to rest.
How so?
Why is this a dangerous precedent?
Questions about Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to run for POTUS were raised as early as last spring. The DNC HAD to be aware of this, and yet they did nothing. They didn’t WANT to check whether he was eligible to run or not.
If it turns out that he is not eligible, then the DNC will be almost as much to blame as Obama himself.
No, it’s not ideal to raise such an issue after someone has been elected. But whose fault is that?
“As much as I want to know Obama is (or isn’t) able to serve the office, allowing this suit to move forward sets a rather dangerous precedent.”
Say what? Your tagline could apply to your comment on this thread, “Admin Moderator, “No. We dumped it because it was stupid.””
How so?
Exactly what dangerous precedent does this set ?
Constitutional justice is such a dangerous precedent...
The precedent of appealing to the Supreme Court about national matters when all other options are corrupted and unavailable, so that the Court can ascertain whether a critical Constitutional process is being followed?
Why? I think ALL presidential candidates should show proof of citizenship. Do we want the next one to be from Iran?
How so?
I fail to see any danger in a suit that aims to force the person in charge of free, fair and legal elections to perform due diligence.
I don't believe the court is being asked to rule directly on anyone's eligibility, although even if they were, I'm convinced we could use a bit of legal clarification around that point as well.
What are the odds of the court ruling that the topic is none of our business? To me THAT would be the only danger and something of that sort is a risk with ANY case that goes before the court.
Stopping this suit sets an even more dangerous situation.
“allowing this suit to move forward sets a rather dangerous precedent.”
You could not be more wrong.
Failing to allow this suit to move forward sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Personally I would prefer to see this suit go forward than to end up with a constitutional convention. I just don’t trust the clowns in Washington with “fixing” the constitution.
I think allowing foreign nationals on our electoral ballots is much more of a dangerous precedent. Roger Calero was barred from entering the U.S. at one point by the INS for cripes sake.
” sets a rather dangerous precedent.”
What “dangerous precedent”? That the People have the right to sue to enforce the Constitution?
“...allowing this suit to move forward sets a rather dangerous precedent.”
Are you kidding? NOT allowing this to move forward sets a more dangerous precedent.