What If Obama Really Was Born in Kenya?

Slate ^ | August 3, 2009 | Brian Palmer

[Zakeet]

Despite a congressional resolution affirming President Obama's U.S. birth and a reaffirmation of his birth certificate's authenticity from Hawaiian officials, media outlets continue to air frivolous allegations that the president was born in Kenya, rendering him ineligible for the presidency. Let's pretend, for just a moment, that the birthers had credible evidence that Obama was foreign-born. Then what would happen?

Resignation, impeachment, or nothing. If Obama stood his ground, and Congress stood by him, then the only way to legally remove him from office would be for someone to sue. Problem is, no one would have standing to bring such a lawsuit. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an injury personal to him, that the defendant caused the injury, and that the court could provide a remedy. That turns out to be an impossible task.

Average citizens could not show a personalized injury because Obama's allegedly illegitimate presidency would impact everyone in roughly the same way. Courts invariably dismiss such claims, like the 1937 case alleging that Justice Hugo Black was ineligible to serve because as a member of Congress he had voted to increase the justices' salaries. Even membership in much smaller aggrieved groups generally doesn't work. The Supreme Court rejected a suit brought by parents of African-American children challenging the IRS's lax enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and another by legislators who claimed their voting rights were diluted by the line-item veto. In both cases, the communal nature of the injury precluded standing. Thus the lawsuit of Army Maj. Stefan Cook, who argued that his pending deployment to Afghanistan by an illegitimate president constituted a particularized injury, was doomed to failure. (The case was mooted when the Pentagon canceled his deployment.)

[Smokin' Joe]

My multitask skills are just fine, thank you.....

Bravo.

However, I do question you literacy skills......

I don't have trouble with the languge. I see that you think we are wasting our time addressing this issue while you are wasting your time decrying us for wasting our time, which wastes our time reading your waste of time decrying us wasting our time, etc.

Read carefully before you post.....

I did. In the vernacular, it was the 'same ol' same ol', whining wbout 'Why are we wasting our time when we could be adressing other issues?', the saw about looking like kooks, when to the MSM, the knee-jerk liberals and Obamite Kool-aid drinkers, that would be a step up in our general appearance in their eyes. I really don't give a damn what they think!

For Republicans who choose to ignore the fact that Obama has not produced a single credible document about his past from birth through the onset of his candidacy, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Those of us who have been interested in and following this matter for over a year could have used some support back when, long before the usurper was sworn in.

As for those who think we should spend our time on other issues, we do--when we aren't wasting it addressing the carping of those who think we are wasting our time on this one.

Which brings me to the question, Why do you bother to waste your time and ours cluttering the thread by even expressing that we are wasting ours?

Try not to get to distracted .....

Oops. I slipped. Back to work...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You are the one that is spinning. You can't even admit that the same statute that makes John McCain borne American, uses the same wording as the 14th amendment. I've got news for you dufuss, born an American citizen means natural born citizen.

"Are you claiming that John McCain was born after the passage of this 1952 statute?"

You really aren't that bright are you? Look up the term Jus sanguinis and you will find that was part of U.S. statute before 1952. The nationalization and immigration act combined many statutes into one act while also extending citizenship to other areas previously undefined such as Guam. But go ahead and keep citing Supreme Court decisions that have nothing to do with U.S. citizenship. You're good at clouding the issue. I'll give you a Supreme Court Case on point, Minor v. Happersett. In it, the courts opinon was written as:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

As I've been saying all along. Chew on that one...

[nevergore]

Hmmmm...should I waste time on this thread or not....Hmmmm...waste time or not?.......Maybe I shouldn’t waste time on this thread.....”lightly tapping fingers on desk”.....Hmmmmmm....To waste time or not to waste time, that is the question?......

LOL, you and I never will agree on this issue.....I believe that you and many others are being intentionally manipulated and it appears that you and others are on a quest.....

But we can agree on this....Obama is a marxist and he is intentionally witholding documents he could easily rlease.....The question is why?????