Ineligible Obama, Playing with Constitutional Fire

Right Side News ^ | January 2, 2009 | JB Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

Numerous legal challenges have been filed in an effort to force president-elect Barack Obama to validate his constitutional eligibility for the office he seeks and while it is true that suit after suit has been denied in the courts, it is also true that all of them have been denied on a technicality rather than on the merits of the case against Obama.

And although Obama could have ended the debate months ago by simply delivering a $10.00 certified copy of his official birth records to prove his constitutional edibility, he has instead chosen to spend nearly a million bucks in legal defense fees hoping to run out the clock and assume office before any of the legal challenges will be heard by the courts.

A few things are quite clear at this point

* Article II - Section I of the Constitution clearly limits those who can serve as Commander-in-Chief to "natural born citizens" of the United States, and for good reason

* The Hawaii certificate posted on Obama's web-site is insufficient and in question at best

* Obama's Kenyan relatives state that they attended his birth in Kenya

* Later, Obama was indeed a legal citizen of Indonesia, traveling under his Indonesian passport as recent as in his early twenties

* There is no known record of Obama changing his Indonesian citizenship back to American citizenship, and it wouldn't make him a "natural born citizen" even if he did

* None of this seems to matter to anyone of consequence...

On this basis, we are headed towards not one, but numerous constitutional crises.

How will an unconstitutional president rule?

[little jeremiah]

Defeatists always lose. Go ahead and proclaim defeat now but then please, get out of the way of those who are not defeatists.

[Political Junkie Too]

Why are some conservatives suddenly convinced that this one issue is the do-or-die save-the-Constitution issue? What happened to confiscate-to-redistribute taxation? And eminent domain used to transfer property from one private owner to another private owner preferred by the government? And concealed carry permits required in 48 of 50 states (and not readily available to all law abiding citizens in several of those)?

Maybe it's because this is an Article II question, and not a Bill of Rights question?

The Articles defined the basic structure of the federal government, and the limits placed on them. The Bill of Rights were amendments that contrasted the federal defining powers with the rights that were to remain with the people and the states. Your examples were:

• What happened to confiscate-to-redistribute taxation? (Amendment XVI, but outside the Bill of Rights)
• And eminent domain used to transfer property from one private owner to another private owner preferred by the government? (Amendment V)
• And concealed carry permits required in 48 of 50 states (Amendment II)

Why the h*$$ should I care where the President was born...

What if we just ignored the 4-year term for the president in 2012? How would you feel about that? That's just a Constitutional provision, too, after all.

-PJ

[little jeremiah]

>>>Do you honestly believe the average American citizen or politician give a shit about what the constitution has to say? If so you have been living on a different planet than I have for over 30 years.<<<

Well, what about YOU? Do you give a “shit” about the Constitution? You appear to be willing to wave the white flag and “For my part, I welcome Obama’s brownshirt civilian force as my overlords”.

[little jeremiah]

I think we have a new rule -

>>>>It has nothing to do with being for or against the Constitution, as your claims have no grounding in reality to begin with. Being opposed to ridiculous Truthers like you or the ones that think 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy (as much as you hate to hear it, you and they are remarkably similar) does not mean that we oppose the Constitution.<<<

As soon as someone brings up 9/11 Truthers and/or uses the word “Birthers” we know exactly who they are. Means they most likely, for one thing, have a screen name on DU or Kos.

[mcshot]

I agree!

[jetson]

I agree.

[Snardius]

Maybe you could post a list of Sane Freepers and Insane Freepers, so we could know which we are?

Can I please be in the list of "insane FReepers"...then, occasionally, when I want to participate in a topic without being called names, I'll agree with everyone supporting a crackpot issue so I can be thought of as "sane"...?

[little jeremiah]

I agree.

[little jeremiah]

It’s hard to get radio where I live so I did not hear that. I like Steyn and am glad he mentioned this issue.

And you make an excellent point which I will copy as it bears repeating:

“Words mean things. Words written in the Constitution mean things. Hey, those of you who do not believe this is important, have you realized that ****OBAMA THINKS THIS IS IMPORTANT****? If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be hiding it. He’d be out in front of his beloved prompter, telling you that the natural born clause is stupid and ancient and we are all ready for Change. (And Hope.) Obviously Obama thinks that the natural born qualification is very important indeed to America. You guys disagree with him, too. Obama’s a truther too, or he wouldn’t be fighting this hard.”

[little jeremiah]

Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsover. You have proved yourself to be without intelligence, or just a purposeful disruptor.

Now, for the lurkers - it would actually be child’s play for 0bama to prove whether or not he is a natural born citizen or even regular citizen. All he needs to do is reveal the various records he has hidden and sealed away, espcially his birth certificate. Simple. ANd any naturalization papers and passports he’s held. Ta Da!

[TLI]

3. The possibility that criminals will riot if their selection is prevented from taking office is irrelevant. We should do the right thing by determining whether Obama is eligible. Then we should do the right thing by swearing him in if he is eligible and choosing a different President in accordance with the Constitution if Obama is ineligible. Then we should do the right thing by arresting or if necessary shooting rioters and criminals who respond violently to that lawful process.

Absolutely correct.

You know, anyone, and I include ALL of the FReepers that comment here, that object to your statements in any way are being lazy, complacent, un-American and undeserving of the rights and freedoms enumerated and implied according to the REST of the Constitution that they may or may not be ignoring.

Yea, this means every single one of you that posted or will post objections.

We are looking at the highest elected official in our entire system of government. If you object to candidates, President-elect, or a sitting President being excused from following fundamental requirements of the Constitution you do not appear to understand and are not fit to enjoy the rights of being an American citizen.

[supercat]

3. The possibility that criminals will riot if their selection is prevented from taking office is irrelevant.

It would be relevant if, and only if, the country is governed by mob rule.

[tom h]

Totally agree with you, however if Obama is exposed as ineligible, most Dems will claim to have had no knowledge of the matter — successfully, with the cooperation of the media.

But there will most likely be a weakened Democratic Presidency and a GOP sweep in 2010, which would be quite welcome.

[PlainOleAmerican]

An “ineligible candidate” can’t be “duly elected.”

It’s outright FRAUD!

[Citizen Blade]

You know, anyone, and I include ALL of the FReepers that comment here, that object to your statements in any way are being lazy, complacent, un-American and undeserving of the rights and freedoms enumerated and implied according to the REST of the Constitution that they may or may not be ignoring.

That's a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well" and it's a juvenile debating tactic. All it does is make you look foolish. You're not going to get people to stop disagreeing with you by throwing out baseless insults, sorry.

[Snardius]

Go ahead and proclaim defeat now but then please, get out of the way of those who are not defeatists.

It is painfully clear that you either didn't read my posts or misunderstand my position. In either case, I'm tired of so inadequately presenting my case.

But I'll try one last time...I am not a defeatist, nor am I a coward (you didn't call me that someone less eloquent than you did)....I am merely suggesting that there is a better way to oppose what we all know is coming than to make a stand on an issue that can so easily be used against us and to define us as "crackpot conspiracy theorists."

At this point you could prove beyond a doubt that he was born in Iran from the unholy union of Osama bin Laden and a camel and he's still going to be inaugurated POTUS. And once he says "I will." nothing will stop him from serving the next four years.

The only thing we can do is fight against him and his ilk imposing his agenda and to do that we must have some credibility. To surrender our credibility now over something so minor as the authenticity of a birth certificate is political insanity...and a gift to those who oppose us.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Only those hoping to help Obama run the clock out...

[GovernmentShrinker]

If both major parties went along with the idea of not holding a Presidential election in 2012, it would only be because an overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t think there should be one for some reason, and I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. There would have to be some pretty unusual circumstances (like Iran or China just nuked us) for a solid majority of Anericans to go along with this plan. However, it’s hardly comparable to Obama’s situation, in which there’s nothing resembling clear proof that he’s not eligible AND he easily won a normal peaceful election (and has gathered much more support since then). There’s sufficient support for him at this point to sustain a Constitutional amendment, but why bother, since there’s no real evidence that he is ineligible.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Hehehehe... I consider myself the most handsome man in America, but some might disagree....

[Citizen Blade]

Obama has three law firms working the more than seventeen lawsuits and travleing around the world covering his tracks, burying his documentation and operating research work to uncover any loose ends and bury them. How much do you think that costs?

I have no idea how much work Obama's lawyers are doing or how much he's spent on legal fees so far. You're the one claiming he's racked up $1 million in legal fees- the onus is on you to provide evidence of that amount.