Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
“Would y’all follow the links before commenting?”
been there, done that.
“It isn’t a matter of losing NBC it is a matter that it never existed.”
- Agreed. The key question is Obama’s status at birth. but please tell that to those peddling the stuff about dual citizenship and losing citizenship due to accepting foreign college funding. Its not how citizenship law works. (viz Perkins v Elg) If he was NBC at birth and never explicitly renounced citizenship, he is eligible.
“It is clear that Wong Kim Ark did not fully address NBC status”
Fair enough, but there are obvious implications and conclusions you get to once you rely on English common law as they did. Those implications are summarized here:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
“The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S.
Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by
looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress,
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the
Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm
that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth
within a nation’s territory and allegiance.”
I have spent enough time on this.
“For calling Obama a liar?! “
For the umpteenth time, that *not* the point of disagreement here. Nobody is taking Obama purely at his word on this.
“For calling Obama a liar?! Outrageous!”
For alleging nothing Obama says is true. I know, hyperbole. But I think that sort of hyperbole is ridiculous, unfair, and unhelpful, as I said.
Like democRats newbie?
I certainly cant get any truth out of you.
ALL I ASKED FOR WAS SOME SHREDS OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT OBAMA WASNT BORN IN HAWAII.
the door is always open if you actually find anything at all to share.
Nope. He attacked, and admitted he attacked, because I said Obama is a liar. Unbelievable!
“Btw, you better watch attacking others for their opinion as it’s frowned on.”
I’ll bet my sort of “attack” has been posted millions of times.
Exactly! YOU nailed it!
“Not one of us would’ve looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would’ve given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis. “
THAT’S your proof??? Weak, man, really weak.
Excellent roundup of citations.
The critical point here though is that the distinction is unestablished and the law is unclear. SCOTUS should clarify the meaning no doubt. But lacking that the effective definition is what the public will accept, and they have accepted his qualification without complaint, save from a tiny minority.
And as for SCOTUS, you have the fact that he is already the sitting President. Should SCOTUS address the issue, even after Obama leaves office, it would have to consider not only the status quo but the precedent (and not all precedents are decisions). The odds that SCOTUS would adopt a restrictive reading of “natural born” that would exclude either a sitting President or one who has already served are very slim.
This line of argument is therefore quixotic at best.
“So you pick and choose what’s a lie and what isn’t.”
I have to. It’s unpracticable to write everything off as a lie. And it’s not as if I have no basis to go on once I seperate myself from absolute disbelief. Hard evidence, for instance, of which there is none for a Kenyan birth and a few for Hawaiian birth.
The question is not what *can* be done, the question is what *DID* happen. The Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement from Aug 13th 1961 tells us that Obama *did* get a birth record at that time. That’s my conclusion. DO YOU AGREE OR NOT?
So lets try ONE MORE TIME.
1) Did Obama get a birth record in Aug 1961, yes or no?
2) Do you acknowledge that the newspaper announcement shows that Obama *DID* get a state of Hawaii birth records? He did, right?
3) And he got it between Aug 4, 1961 and Aug 13, 1961 and it shows him born on Aug 4, 1961, right?
"Abortion is Legal-Fighting Roe vs. Wade is a Losing Argument"" or
"You Don't Need A 'Machinegun'-It's Got Nothing To Do With The Second Amendment - It's A Losing Argument" or
"Building a Fence At The Mexican Border Will Cost Us Votes - It's a Losing Argument"
My point, in case you haven't guessed, is that standing up to the government when they are wrong is an American tradition! And it's all that keeps these evil bastards from completely controlling our lives!
“because I said Obama is a liar”
Because you said nothing Obama says is true. That sort of allegation makes us look stupid. Just like how they looked to you during the Bush administration. There is such a thing as Obama Derangement Syndrome. The MSM doesn’t have it, but I fear some of us do.
Two of the worst offenders are on here. And I have to leave for now. I have company. See ya later!
Obama has never claimed to be a Natural Born Citizen, on his websites (now tactically removed from the internet and other archives) he has always claimed to be a Native Born citizen.
Since Obama is a constitutional lawyer, one has to wonder why he made that statement about himself, and has yet to claim to be a Natural Born Citizen.
By the way your whole argument about Obama’s birth announcement evades the fact that Obama never lived there, it was someone else’s house. A little fact that kinda ruins the whole argument that The Obama’s actually lived in Hawaii at the time.
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.