Posted on 01/02/2009 10:37:08 AM PST by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
You are correct. Our apathy will kill this nation.
It is very sad that so many of our sons/daughters, fathers/mothers and brothers/sisters have lost their lives fighting so our country could remain free.
All lost to a pathetic new generation of ingrates.
He may have viewed being a constitutional lawyer simply as 'know thine enemy'.
Not a waste of time, because not following up amounts to conceding that our Constitution is not the basis of US law. As a US citizen, I’m not buying into that.
You said it all here and even FR is now infected with the likes, as is evidenced on this thread.
How sad!
And since we all like conspiracy theories, what part of Africa did Rahm visit? Was he in Kenya at all? Id he was snooping around, was he detained by the authorities like the last guy that was there looking for the BC?
ping
There may be personal reasons that have nothing to do with eligibility, and there is certainly a desire not to provoke yet another string of lawsuits based on alternative “theories”. He was elected as fairly as any other President in recent history, and based on his appointments and comments since Election Day, he is already a lot more popular than he was then.
The fact is that the only possible result of even a partially successful legal challenge to his eligibility is riots, and political and economic destabilization (the latter inevitably leading to more popular support for socialist programs). Some of the details bring up legal technicalities which have never been addressed by the courts and are not addressed by the Constitution or any legislation. Some of the theories advanced by the promoters of the ineligibility claim rest in part on Indonesian law — at a time when Obama may have held dual citizenship, Indonesian law didn’t recognize dual citizenship and would have deemed him solely an Indonesian citizen.
I don’t buy the notion that any other country’s laws trump the US Constitution when it comes to eligbility for the office of POTUS, but those who are determined to push the issue of his eligibility have actually advanced such a claim. This is the sort of thing that could take years to wind through the courts, and I’m not interested in seeing the US politically and economically destabilized by such a pointless endeavor at a time of critical global political and economic instability.
“....I think debating his eligibility in 2009 is a big waste of time...”
You, sir, are no friend of our Constitution.
I don't think those of us who oppose the issue of "where was Obama born?" are guilty of apathy. For me I am not in favor of handing the political opposition the ammo they will use to describe all who oppose Obama's agenda as whacked out conservative conspiracy theorists. It was done to perfection during Clinton's term and allowed them to deflect investigation into some serious criminal issues. We should pick our battles and not be distracted by the minutia.
So essentially what you’re saying is, in this case, we should disregard the constitution in the name of expedience?
I could not disagree with you more on this issue. While I agree we need to organize opposition to his agendas, we need to preserve our Constitution or we may as well give it all up. We who served in the military as well as public office holders take an oath to “SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.....” and if this issue is let to slide and the constitution not defended then all our years of service were for nothing.
You sound as if you'd be surprised that this would be the first time this has happened...
I agree with you, but I still wonder whether either Justice Scalia or Thomas would, for reasons of political expediency, let the matter slide. There is one more suit pending, scheduled for conference next week. Will any of the four conservative justices drop the matter in order to prevent a revolution? Which is exactly what would happen if Obama turned out to not be natural born.
Lawyers have hi-jacked the language..Nothing matters anymore. There is always an “explanation why the constitution does not matter”. This BC thing is just the latest example of how weak a document is in protecting your freedoms. You are ultimately protected by 9 black robed attorneys steeped in the latest sophistry.
"The Obama/Dunham divorce decree to be posted Friday, Jan 2"(today)
Is this going to be like the African news agency thing or what?
Your years of service were for nothing and mine...You have made the world safe for attorneys and the IRS.
This looks like the same old stuff, regurgitated with a new title and date.
If you won’t stand for Article II Section I, which part will you stand for and how will you make that stand once Article II Section I is rendered moot?
Yes, that’s what he’s saying.
Tyranny in the name of peace...
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.