The reasoning behind the opposition is crystal clear: Your Kenyan chimp "president" isn't who he says he is, and we all know it.
A verbis ad verbera
Posted on 07/01/2009 12:08:10 AM PDT by FromLori
A popular Tennessee Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn (R), has become the first woman and the first Tennessean to add her name to the list of co-sponsors for Representative Bill Posey’s (R-FL) proposed amendment (HR-1503).
The bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and would require candidates for President of the United States to provide among other things, “…a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate…”.
The bill’s list of co-sponsors continues to grow with Blackburn as its latest member. The seven Representatives already supporting the bill are: - Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida) (sponsor) Rep. John R. Carter (R-Texas) Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virgina) Rep. John Campbell [R-California] and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) Posey’s bill is controversial because there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who oppose the idea that a candidate for President or Vice-President should have to submit a copy of his or her birth certificate for inspection. The reasoning behind this opposition remains unclear.
The bill reads:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”.
and
“Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”
If enacted, the amendment would be in force during the upcoming 2012 U. S. Presidential election.
The bill has been referred to committee in the U.S, House of Representatives.
-
I am told it would not apply to Obama even in 2012 because if it became law he would have to sign it and a President cannot sign a law that would apply to him directly. Any scholars out there who know for sure?
Every law the President signs applies to him as a resident/citizen of the USA.
It always takes a woman to get the mans job done.. LOL
This should warm the hearts of anyone voting for the Democrats.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3504/pub_detail.asp
PING!
The left’s mentality regarding laws, contracts, vows, and Constitutions
is that they are not as valid as contemporary “wisdom” articulated by a few elite individuals.
Holding said elites to old standards is simply binding them to outdated rules which were based on less knowledge than is available now to the elites.
A retarded Ferengi...
(sorry for the non-PC term, but it fits in this case)
I am starting to have friends who are not very political ask me about nObama’s birth certificate the Hawaiian one. They are totally surprised when I tell them about the Kenyan BC that is for sale on eBay.
So, Obama’s tax hikes would not apply to him?
Is it up on ebay again? Last I knew, it was taken down again for the fourth or fifth time?
Funny you should ask. Yes. The reason is that we are a nation of men, not laws. The sooner the people wake up to this fact, the better.
I'm not being sarcastic in the least.
It’s time for those GOPers with balls, ie, the women,
to actually stand up and state that the democrats see
this as a nation of men, not laws,
and give examples of where they put their own personal preferences above the written text of the law.
From what I can see, the party members on both sides are guilty of making the US a nation of men, not laws. Agreed that the DEMs don't hide it as well, and that Palin and Bachman are superior at articulation of sound principle, and Boehner/McConnell represent "status quo ante."
I was just reading a case where a defendant was charged with machine gun possession, and the federal courts refused to let him tell the jury about the Supreme Court's (still standing) 1937 Miller case, and how that case applied the 2nd amendment. The courts REFUSE to let a defendant TELL THE TRUTH, or even present the jury with binding precedent. This is not a nation of laws, period, full stop.
The US is no more than a high grade banana republic.
A bright, sunshiney day BUMP!
The reasoning behind the opposition is crystal clear: Your Kenyan chimp "president" isn't who he says he is, and we all know it.
CERTIFIED, legitimate birth certificate!!
I also WISH, we’d ENFORCE our existing immigration laws.
I’ll dream on ... to when laws really mattered.
This defiantly needs to pass before 2012! If we can get back the house and get back more seats in the Senate where it is more divided we might have a chance of getting rid of BO when he can’t produce a valid BC!
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.