Posted on 01/18/2009 2:41:44 AM PST by Evil Slayer
Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect's constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.
WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, and several of those have reached the U.S. Supreme Court already. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Obama has the image of a Chicago thug politician as does his Governor. Obama will somehow get DQ’d or impeached for his corruption. It will catch up to him.
BTW, John McCain is a natural born American citizen. He was born to Americans who were out of the country serving our Government (his father was in the military).
What is the status on the possible case desposition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday (stemming from the Philip J. Berg case)?? I couldn’t find a thorough explanation of what was going on with that.
I have no idea what will happen on the 23rd of January in the Supreme Court. Absolutely none.
Lying and commiting fraud don't make one ineligible to be president. If that were true, most of our presidents would have been ineligible.
Geez — he is ineligible because he isn’t a natural born Citizen. He committed fraud.
Nobody has demonstrated that he is not a natural born citizen.
You said — “That, sir, is how it was explained to me.”
Now all that remains is to see if the Supreme Court agrees with you... :-)
I just said in response to you, SatinDoll, that — “Now all that remains is to see if the Supreme Court agrees with you... :-)
BUT, how come I have a sneaking suspicion, that if the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, that you’ll claim that they are not right?
Barack Obama has publicly stated that his father registered him as a British citizen shortly after birth. This does not negate his being a U.S. citizen if he was born here. It does negate his being able to claim “natural born Citizen” status, something he has never done.
Obama has only claimed to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen.
It isn’t what I say that is important - it is what Obama hasn’t said or proven. He promised transparency but still hasn’t produced that long-form birth certificate, or allowed his college admissions records made public.
The premise is incorrect. Whether Britain grants him citizenship through his father is no concern of the United States. His American citizenship is unaffected.
There is no special class of "natural born" citizens apart from citizens by birth. They are the same thing. You are either a citizen by birth, or a citizen by naturalization. The law recognizes no third category.
One of the problems with this situation is that so many elitists in this country hate our Constitution. There are many who think we should have open borders and that anyone, from anywhere in the world, should be able to vote in our elections and hold high public office here.
We now require a long-form birth certificate to get a drivers license but candiates running for President don’t have to prove they are natural born citizens, a requirement under Article II of our Constitution.
Lawyers have found the loophole, as no one requires proof of citizenship throughout the election process. Oh! The political parties are supposed to certify that the candidates meet the requirement, but no one is honest anymore.
This is a legitimate issue that has been raised.
But it is still entirely hypothetical. No known major candidate was ineligible, even Obama.
Yes, I agree that this should be *proven* and I’ve argued that before (before the election). After the election, it seemed that the horse was out of the barn and one wasn’t going to be able to close the barn door and have the horse back inside again (just a figure of speech...).
And you’re right about the dishonesty and because of that, what was not seen as *required* in the past, should be required now. Dishonesty seems rampant and it extends all the way up to the top, including the President as we have seen with Clinton and his impeachment.
At least the citizens who do want to see this loophole closed do have a way to do it, if the courts don’t do anything (and they may not simply because of the status of our present laws, really..., so I wouldn’t necessarily blame the Supreme Court if nothing came of the cases). You know about the idea to enact state laws requiring specific documentation before someone is qualified. I do hope that it’s not too difficult to get this done before the next Presidential election comes up.
I hope y’all realize that I agree with the desire to get Obama out of office — it’s just that I don’t see that the mechanism is really there to do it (my take on the situation..., and I know that others think there is... and so, that’s why I say, “We’ll see...). I just don’t like to see people get false hopes up for something that I see no mechanism in place to do what they want. I would rather have people “keep their energy” intact for fighting Obama, in that they “realize” that if they pursue these present actions in court, that they are most likely going to fail (but that’s not saying that they can’t do it, mind you..., just keep in mind that it’s most likely a failing option...)
And if someone does keep that in mind, realizing that it’s most likely a failing option, they can also keep in mind that they will take up the fight in other ways, too — at a later time — which I would hope it to be enacting those state laws — and not simply “giving up” after failing with these present court actions and saying “We’re finished if he remains in office!” It would be this attitude that “we’re finished” if we can’t get Obama out of office — that is the dangerous attitude to have (and/or also the one where one says, “The Constitution is shredded if he gets away with this!” — but the Constitution would not be, and that’s why I give the example of the 21st President to show the Constitution is not shredded...).
You see, those kinds of ideas promote “giving up” after the point — if — all these court cases fail. That’s not my idea — i.e., “giving up”... :-)
The Constitution is still intact, no matter what the Supreme Court does. All we have is a loophole in the system which can be taken advantage of by someone who can fool people (just like we’ve been fooled [legally speaking, of course...] before by another President, except they didn’t close up the loophole at that time...). Nothing is going to change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it, and so it’s going to remain intact.
It’s not hopeless even if these court cases fail...
—
The other part of the equation that we have a *big problem* with here, is that the voting public is shifting on their ideas, away from the principles of the founding fathers. And I think that’s happening because the mass of the public have abandoned God in the public sphere, taking God and His principles, guidelines and values out of government, schools and the public discourse. Until *that* is corrected — politically speaking, we’re going to be “in the wilderness” for a while... That has to be corrected by either national repentance, or by individual repentance from those other voters (and thus slowing growing back the conservative values, one person at a time, but that will be a long time...).
—
I’ve sorta laid out the fundamental thinking I have on this specific matter and the underlying fundamental problem, too. So, this is what energizes my thinking on the matter.
A. Bruce Springsteen is scheduled to sing “Born in the USA” at Barack Obama’s inauguration.
Ironic, yes, but in more ways than one. The last line of the first verse couldn't be more apt: "... you spend half your life just covering up". Hmm...
On a more serious point: That song tells the tale of a young man pulled off the streets, trained for soldiering, sent to fight a war in a foreign land, in the name of defending freedom, and who discovers after his return that America has washed its hands of him.
Reagan came to the conclusion it was a "message of hope" (his words). We can only assume he never read the lyrics.
You have to ask, what does the choice of this song mean?
The January 23rd SCOTUS “Conference” is for the Orly Taitz case (representing Alan Keyes). There is something also happening in SCOTUS with regards to Berg vs. Obama on January 21. That is what I was referring to.
I’ve always known we agreed on things from reading your responses. Thank you for being honest, and let me tell you I agree with what you say.
The thing that bothers me most about Obama is what he says that the MSM ignore. He keeps saying things like, “make a New Declaration of Independence” and “Make The World Anew”, both statements associated with wars, our Revolution and the War Between the States. He has repeatedly said that our Constitution is a flawed document and implying that he will change it first chance he gets.
Frankly, I believe he is advocating war in this country, between our citizens!
I suspect SCOTUS is looking for the perfect test case to address Obama’s eligibility. But hey! I don’t understand lawyers thinking anymore than I understand how physicists think!
You and me both!
There is some sort of SCOTUS desposition this Wednesday (potentially) in Berg vs. Obama, a “Conference” with the Justices on Friday (the 23rd) in the Orly Taitz driven case and more in lower courts.
I am aware he was eligible for British citizenship by virtue of his father being a British citizen, but I never read anywhere that his father officially registered him with any British authority. Where did you get this piece of information
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.