Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ineligible Obama, Playing with Constitutional Fire
Right Side News ^ | January 2, 2009 | JB Williams

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; constitution; obama; obamatruthfile; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-279 next last
To: GovernmentShrinker
Bravo! I've read all of your refreshingly clear-thinking posts on this thread with pleasure.

In Post #20, you stated:

The amount of attention being paid on FR to this and similar distractions (e.g. Michelle’s inactive law license) is alarming, and seriously pulling attention away from strategies to oppose socialist expansion plans under the Obama administration...

I would add that this kind of nonsense is killing FR by driving away people who value common sense, and who are appalled by the fever-swamp rantings of the fringes on both the right and the left.

41 posted on 01/02/2009 11:26:06 AM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tom h
Which is exactly what would happen if Obama turned out to not be natural born.

A revolution? Really? If the masses aren't going to revolt over the complete destruction of the American financial system by the most inept, self-dealing, corrupt, political class in the history of congress they aren't going to man the barricades over a phony birth certificate...no matter whose it is.

42 posted on 01/02/2009 11:26:42 AM PST by Snardius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
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 ... 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 disagree.

1. I cannot imagine a reason worth $1M in legal fees for failing to produce a $10 document that would make all of the objections except those from the tinfoil hat crowd go away. I considered this topic unlikely and almost frivolous when it was first brought up - like demanding George Bush's birth certificate - but I have revised that opinion based on Obama's legal tactics.

2. The fairness of the election and Obama's current popularity are both completely irrelevant to his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America. The question is whether he meets the constitutional standards to hold that office, and he has an absolute moral obligation to prove his eligibility now that it has been questioned.

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.

4. It should not take years or even months to go through the courts. The courts should accept the case immediately, demand proof of eligibility, evaluate that proof of eligibility, and settle the question. From that point, the Congress can resolve the question within one to two days and swear in President Biden if there is insufficient evidence that Obama is eligible.

5. Finally, the Constitution is far more important that whether Obama will actually be a good president (unlikely) or the worst president in our history (I'm betting he'll make the bottome three if he takes office). We must do what is right to maintain the rule of law, or the costs will be even greater than the cost of the exceptionally grave damage that I expect Obama to inflict on our country.

43 posted on 01/02/2009 11:27:16 AM PST by MathDoc (Don't blame me, I voted for Governor Palin and the wrinkly white-haired guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tom h

He is going to turn out to be ineligible. The question is, will that become apparent before or after he is sworn into office?

Face it now or face it later, but sooner or later, we will face this issue.

If it’s after he has been sworn in, then what? The entire election and existing government must be ruled invalid?


44 posted on 01/02/2009 11:27:21 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE

pong


45 posted on 01/02/2009 11:27:41 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

Oh please, the mighty zero will be crowned this month and there is nothing anyone will do about it. This stuff is just fantasy.


46 posted on 01/02/2009 11:29:08 AM PST by Snurple (VEGETARIAN, OLD INDIAN WORD FOR BAD HUNTER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
It may not be breaking news but it sure is damn persistent and it isn't going away.
47 posted on 01/02/2009 11:29:59 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Snardius

“You sound as if you’d be surprised that this would be the first time this has happened...”

Not at all, what I find surprising is the relative flippant and facile aquiescence of it from a FReeper.


48 posted on 01/02/2009 11:30:47 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

Well stated!

However, the founders did not rest our freedoms in a single document, nine individuals or even the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

Our freedoms rest in the reality that they were “endowed by our Creator” and are wholly “unalienable” by any man.

If need be, the Second Amendment is the final enforcement right of the people at large, against a government which no longer serves the interests of Freedom and Liberty.


49 posted on 01/02/2009 11:31:13 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

FR has millions of readers. I’m sure obamanoids want the issues relegated to a section where they will be imminently ‘buried’ away from public consumption.


50 posted on 01/02/2009 11:32:19 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

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?

That’s a question I would like to know the answer to. We haven’t seen ole Rahm since the Blago story broke. Come on, Africa is the typical Chicago boy’s choice for a Christmas vacation? Give me a break. Not buying this at all!


51 posted on 01/02/2009 11:33:42 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MathDoc

I’ll second all of this!

BRAVO!


52 posted on 01/02/2009 11:34:16 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

AMEN!


53 posted on 01/02/2009 11:35:36 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican
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?

How effective do you think you're going to be when it really matters if you allow your opposition to frame you as a crackpot during the first engagement? It's not the birth certificate that's going to get you where you want to go. But, if you allow it, it will be the tool they will use to demonstrate the fallibility of all your future arguments.

54 posted on 01/02/2009 11:38:17 AM PST by Snardius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
He was elected as fairly as any other President in recent history...

Just out of curiosity, what was your opinion of the Chinese Women's Olympic Gymnastics team this past year?

Were they eligible to compete by meeting the age requirements? Did they win fairly despite questions about their age qualifications?

If somebody is unqualified based on the rules for the job, then how can any win be fair when the game was rigged by allowing unqualified competitors?

-PJ

55 posted on 01/02/2009 11:39:07 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Well, by the point of your post, we have three previous posters who do not give adamn if he is Constitutionally eligible, they just want to move on and pretend there is no detrimental future for swearing in an affirmative action lying perjurer who is bolod enough to try and use a forged COLB as his 'proof of eligibility'. And of ocurse, the usual liberal pretending to want government shrunken ridicules those who want the Constitution cherished and followed.

If we measure the importance and gravity of this issue by the ridicule and deceit the obamanoid sycophants spittle daily at FR, there is presently no more important issue in the nation and a significant number of sycophants are damned scared to face the issue.

56 posted on 01/02/2009 11:39:24 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Well, I find it hard to believe that someone would spend nearly 1-million dollars to keep his birth certificate hidden, no matter what the "personal reasons".

Maybe you can enlighten all of us as to what some of those "personal reasons" might be that make it worth $1-million bucks to hide. I can't think of any.

But I do believe that he wants the presidency so badly that he would fork out $10 million if necessary to hide such a thing as being foreign-born...a clear violation of our constiution. This has everything to do with "eligibility"...it's the elephant in the room.

It has been said that anything perceived as a "crisis" will make people let go of their freedoms, but using the "depression/recession" as an excuse for allowing this gross violation in our country's security is simply outrageous.

Nothing is going to "destabilize" this country more than sticking our heads in the sand and letting such a thing happen without some proof offered that this man is not foreign born. It sets precedents that could unravel the entire concept of America and her Constitution. If he is allowed to stay in and later we find that the truth bears out this Constitutional violation, we have opened the door to any tin horn dictator to come here and run for President.

We've got to maintain our Constitution and rule of law, or we turn in to a 3rd world country.

I don't understand Americans who just want to let this go by because it might be just "too much trouble". Maybe those men and women who have fought and died for this country could have thought it might be "too much trouble" and just quit.

Also, to be willing to let this go for fear of "riots" is totally - excuse my french - chicken $h!+. If they come up the driveway and say "give me your house and your money or we will riot!", are you going to comply?

The threat of riots is a leftist fear-mongering ploy, and the worst form of extortion in our society. Give in to this and then we will be threatened everytime they want something new. We're a nation of laws, not law of the jungle.
57 posted on 01/02/2009 11:41:33 AM PST by FrankR (“Turtle up”, economically, for the duration of the 0bamanation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Snardius

“How effective do you think you’re going to be when it really matters if you allow your opposition to frame you as a crackpot during the first engagement?”

America’s enemy within has been referring to people who still hold dear the principles and values of our constitutional republic as “crackpots” for decades now.

They have done so with such great success that they now even have you making their case for them....

Yet, you either stand for constitutional law or you don’t. Upholding the constitution does not make one a “crackpot.” It makes one a patriot in the true meaning of the term.


58 posted on 01/02/2009 11:43:11 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I agree. Most of the Constitution is a historic relic. We should not get all wound up in it. The whole "natural born" issue is ridiculous. We live in an international world, we are all citizens of that world.

This is 2009, already! Let's move on. This thing makes us all look silly.

59 posted on 01/02/2009 11:44:55 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer1997

So Who Is The Face ?
The Voice in The Wilderness?
The Spirit of Our Founding Fathers?
Must the Blood Shed for This Nation Rise from The Ground ?
No Face, No Voice and No Spirit but What of The Blood?

As A Soldier ,An Oath was Taken to Uphold the CONSTITUTION.


60 posted on 01/02/2009 11:45:45 AM PST by bravotu (Have a Nice Day !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-279 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson