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

To: nathanbedford
I have long maintained that it IS a Constitutional issues and as such, should not be ignored. It was a crime that it was ignored in the primary process and before that, the vetting process. I do not, and have not ever thought the issue would amount to anything, but I view it instead as one more of a thousand cuts on many fronts that should be inflicted on this abortion of a President.

As I stated in a previous thread, the framers of the Constitution placed that citizenship restriction on the office of the Presidency for good and specific reasons. They did not place it there simply as a student might pad a book report with verbiage to reach 1000 words.

The military, police and fire departments have very specific processes and procedures that must be followed, sometimes to the point of near absurdity. The reason this is so is because they are written in blood. Those processes were implemented as a result of tears, pain and blood.

So it is with the Constitution. We of Today have a conceit that somehow everything is new under the sun. It isn't. Every situation, emotion or conflict has a direct analog to those faced by the Founding Fathers. Sure, they didn't have cloning or the Internet, but the point stands.

Those things that are in the Constitution are significant. There is no waste. It is a remarkable document, and every bit as relevant today as it was in 1788.

In closing, it is an excellent thread you have written, NB. Good writers always know how to put an exclamation point at the end of a statement correctly, as you have done:

"The summons to produce a birth certificate in accordance with the constitutional mandate is but a metaphor for the call to govern in accordance with the Constitution.

8 posted on 08/01/2009 4:39:38 AM PDT by rlmorel ("The Road to Serfdom" by F.A.Hayek - Read it...today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rlmorel

I think we were fooled before the election into thinking that when a party reviews its main candidates for nomination, they are put to the test for proof of the few requirements the Constitution requires.

Perhaps we need legislation that puts legal requirements duly ON the party who sponsors a candidate for President.


82 posted on 08/01/2009 11:04:05 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

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