Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
The latest convoluted illogic by Horowitz:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=bdf164eb-e805-454b-b56c-24616042d333
Posted at 11:40 AM on 12/7/2008 by David Horowitz
Answering My Critics: The Attempt to Unseat Obama by Appealing to 9 Unelected Officials is a Radical Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law
I have become accustomed to the fact that when it comes to political issues people are averse to complexities and messy facts and prefer to argue ideological simplicities instead. Thus I am lectured by many that the Constitution matters, that it can’t be subordinated to politics, etc., etc. Then I am told that I have gone ideologically soft, that I am Obama Republican and that I am not a conservative. All because I have pointed out what should be some obvious truths.
First, the issue is not whether the Constitution should be subjected to the whim of an electoral majority. It should not.
Second, the issue is whether an election that has been decided by nearly 120 million people should now be thrown into the laps of 9.
The question before the Supreme Court will not be whether the Constitutional rule about the qualifications for President is constitutional or not. Obama is not going to argue that there is no such constitutional rule. He is going to argue that he has qualified under the rule.
Whether Obama’s birth certificate is authentic or not is a factual question — not a constitutional question. Whether he has complied with the Constitutional rule is a matter first of the facts and then of the interpretation of rule. Both can only be resolved by the subjective opinions of individuals. In other words the answer to both questions can only be political.
To repeat: The supporters of Obama will not challenge the Constitution; they will challenge the interpretation of the Constitution which is different, and is political. If the matter goes to the Supreme Court, nine unelected justices will decide on the facts in the case and on interpretation of the constitutional rule. The Supreme Court is universally regarded these days as a political institution. Although liberals are responsible for this, conservatives also conduct political demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court, thereby acknowledging that it is a political institution.
So here is the real question before us, which none of my critics so far has understood: Do we really want to try to unseat an elected presented by forcing the issue into the lap of 9 Supreme Court justices?
My answer is no. Nothing would do more to undermine the unity of the country, the legitimacy of the Court, and thus the writ of the Constitution and the rule of law than this.
The attempt by some so-called conservatives to declare the winner of this election illegitimate and to deny Obama his office is a radical assault on our constituional framework and system of law.
In sum: Behind the law is a political consensus — a belief. that whatever its flaws, the system works. Nothing will convince more people that the system doesn’t work than having 9 unelected individuals undo an election that took place over a 2 year period in front of the whole nation and was decided by 120 millions voters.
I hope this time I have made the issue clear.
Clear as mud, Mr. Horowitz.
Re: Joseph Sandler. He is a lawyer for the DNC, not, as far as I can tell, a lawyer for BHO, although BHO is a subject of the suit.
Well, he has turned into a useless idiot...is this what Barry is counting on...this is huge...so we should just forget about it and sweep in under the carpet...what an idiot.
Which is about the same as the Michael Weiner crowd.
My post 483 should be directed to you. Sorry.
Horowitz would rather attack Keyes and citizens who want to uphold the Constitution than attack Obama for his refusal to show his birth certificate. Now what kind of sense does that make?
At this rate, you will have one millionth of one percent of the conservatives with you. Pure, but inconsequential.
And, there are a lot of very strong conservatives that don’t forgoe their principles, and work for their conservative values ....but they are obviously not as purely conservative as you.
Its not either or, the point can be made about the questionaqble birth certificate while moving forward.
I still don’t see the problem in questioning Obama’s citizenship....all he has to do is provide his BC, and this will all be over with. That he does not, seems to point to the fact that he is hiding something. We have the absolute right to know EVERYTHING about the past of POTUS, who we entrust with the nuclear button, amongst many other very important responsibilities.
***
If Donofrio’s case is accepted, Obama’s birth in Hawaii would be moot. While Obama may be able to prove he was born in Hawaii, SCOTUS would have to determine what a “natural born” citizen is ...
If SCOTUS determines that a “natural born” citizen is born on U.S. soil AND born to two U.S. citizen parents - then he will be disqualified.
However, he would STILL be a citizen ...
That's what this case is all about.
Who is the competent authority? How did the NJ Secretary of State allow a Nicaraguan-born candidate onto the ballot? If the Constitution has qualifications, when and how is that qualification to be proven by a candidate (not an accuser) before being allowed onto (not announced that they are on) a ballot?
If the Supreme Court takes the case, then the argument is whether there was damage in this current election deserving of a remedy, or if the ruling is only for future elections. If the current election was damaged by the admittance of a Nicaraguan-born candidate and the implication that other candidates not be natural born were also allowed on the ballot by the same oversights, then the remedy is to have each candidate show their qualifications to the Court (or the state Secretaries of State, or the Electoral College electors) immediately. I say all the candidates, and not just Obama, because if Obama's qualifications are shown to be deficient, then the president must be chosen by the college from other candidates receiving electoral votes. Those candidates must also be qualified to serve.
-PJ
No, it wouldn't. The Court would still need the birth certificate to establish the facts of the case.
The Kook Brigade isn't interested in sensibility. Malkin. Horowitz, Rush and anyone who doesn't join their ranks is "in on it" - "afraid of controversy" - "not genuinely conservative.
P.J. could start a new running thread, Freeper Funnies.
What this (non) issue does prove is that the Left does not have a monopoly on idiocy.
Tell that to David Horolosthiswits.
That's not what the Donofrio case is about.
The case is not about Obama's birth certificate, it's about how the New Jersey Secretary of State allowed a Nicaraguan-born candidate onto the ballot. He's testing the natural-born clause by asking who's responsibility it is to check the candidates' qualifications.
It's already a fact that Roger Calero was allowed on the ballot when he was not eligible to serve. This suit is addressing that. One can presume that if the court finds that the NJ election was damaged by the allowance of an ineligible candidate, the remedy is to force the NJ Secretary of State to demand proof of eligibility of all the candidates who ran there. That would force Obama to show that he was eligible to run in New Jersey.
In that case, it is not the responsibility of states to prove that an announced candidate is not eligible (the honor system), it would be the responsibility of the candidate to prove that they are qualified to run.
-PJ
FYI, that wasn't a law, it was a Sense of the Senate resolution.
-PJ
Real conservatives are never found in major media slots. Just the fact that they are employed by them is a solid sign that they have either sold out, or have a registered skeleton in their closet.
-PJ
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.