Yes there are. But sweeping it under the rug because “64 million” voted for the commie ain’t one of ‘em.
Not much.
In order for this to be successful requires not on, but several leaps of faith. The case is doomed to failure.
I see people who never heard of "standing" to bring a case are now internet experts. The facts are:
None of these Plaintiff's have standing to bring the case.
Even if they have standing, they have demonstrated no evidence to support their claim. (and yes I know what Obama's step grandmother allegedly said - but that is not evidence)> Many here simply are unaware or refuse to understand what it takes for evidence to be admitted in court.
All of these cases, even if the Supreme Court let them go forward, would not survive the first Motion For Summary Disposition at the trial court level.
Finally, as difficult as this is for many to understand, the burden of proof to show Obama is not a citizen, is on Donofrio and Berg and Keyes. Obama, has to prove nothing until such time as the Plaintiff's show evidence, not conjecture and speculation, that Obama is ineligible.
The thing that troubles me is that so many people who complain about the Left running to court to have a judge erase a loss (See Al Gore in 2000) have no problem with the exact same tactic when they are the losers.
These cases are going nowhere, and it not because of some vast conspiracy.
Note: I have to leave for the est of the day. If you respond, I will not be able to reply to you until tonight.
The two basic opposing arguments present us with the following question:
Should the principle of majority rule supercede the principle which holds the United States Constitution to be the ultimate legal authority?
There has been so much discussion about Natural Born Citizen and what the real definition is that perhaps it is something that does need to be clarified. I suppose there are arguments on both sides.
I agree with you. Mr. Horowitz says that we need to respect the results of an election (we absolutely do) but seems untroubled by the possibility that a vital portion of the Constitution is being violated!
With jet travel and dramatically increased immigration, issues such as these are here to stay. John McCain, Barack Obama, and a minor candidate who I’ve read was only a naturalized citizen all faced questions about whether they met the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement in this election.
SCOTUS must do the right thing on this, or the politicians will cook up new definitions in order to allow candidacies of those whom they view as good bets (Arnold) in the next election. This definition will evolve according to who dominates Congress and which candidates the dominant party plans to run.
I have also read in the past about women from the Middle East who fly to the Michigan area just before they are about to give birth, producing an American citizen on the taxpayers’ dime and then flying home. Assuming that this is accurate, I would not want these children, who presumably became citizens through gamesmanship, to be able to run for the presidency. What about the children of illegal aliens?
I am not a Constitutional expert and so do not know whether anchor babies, etc., would meet Constitutional requirements. I suspect that they would not. However, it would not surprise me if they were allowed to run even though they did not meet those requirements because no one had the guts to stop them. (We seem to be suffering from this attitude to some extent now. After all, at least one secretary of state allowed a naturalized citizen on the ballot!!!!)
This definition must be clarified and a system set in place to verify that all candidates meet the standards when they register to run for president.
I have enormous respect for the office of the president and for our electoral process. It would be immensely foolish and beyond outrageous for anyone to push these lawsuits simply to try to delegitimize our president-elect. I have never said that any president was not my president, and I will not say so about Barack Obama.
However, IF these lawsuits raise legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility, they must be heard by SCOTUS NOW. If not, I absolutely hope that “natural-born citizen” is defined ASAP in another context by the Supreme Court.
There is no need for discussion or arguments about Natural born citizen. The constitution is clear, you have to be born here, in the US, or have been made a US citizen by the time the constitution was written(a criteria no one today can meet for obvious reasons), and to have lived in the US for 14 years in order to hold the office of President. There are laws that were written later to clarify status of people born outside of the US. There is also no confusion there either, the laws are clear.
The only confusion is in the minds of liberals and others who are too stupid to see how important this is to our rule of law. There is also confusion as to where Bozo was actually born and that is a big confusion and a definite unknown.
However, the biggest confusion is why hasn't Bozo cleared this up by the simple expedient of showing a valid copy of his vault BC and why he has spent 1 million dollars, so far, trying to get out of showing a valid copy. That is the real confusion, and it is even more confusing when you have hard line conservatives(up till this point at least)like Michell Malkin saying we should drop this.