Skip to comments.MUST, -- MUST, -- READ --- FULLEST ANALYSIS SO FAR AS TO OBAMA BIRTH ELIGIBILITY STATUS
Posted on 08/25/2009 6:30:47 PM PDT by kellynla
Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a "natural born citizen". However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...
now if we can only gain “legal standing”.
The Failed Obama Administration©
Why on earth does not every single US citizen have ‘LEGAL STANDING’ to take this issue to court?
WHO DOES????? Do we just keep guessing and have the courts say “no, that’s not it....”
I think whichever judge made that ruling should be rode out of town on a rail...
>>> I think whichever judge made that ruling should be rode out of town on a rail...
yeah.. that was sort of my point.
You just made it better.
Why would they let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way, when the Constitution is the exact thing they’re trying to destroy?
And Major Cook proved it.
Should definitive proof arrive that Obama has been lying about his birth I think it will simply be something that will play out in the courts (over decades) ...it might even create sympathy for him
What would be the likely long range ramifications if an ineligible President has signed law or issued executive orders?
BTW- I believe John McCain was born outside the US to parents who were both citizens at the time. Not that it has any relevance to this case.
If his entire career has been a lying fraud, that will create sympathy for him. That’s a little hard to follow.
Why does not Colonel Hollister have legal standing?
Why do the plaintiffs in the Santa Ana case brought by Taitz not have legal standing?
Even if true that Obama should not have taken office because of his birth, the insult to injury would still be . That there still is no leagal way united states citizens can remove such a president after they take office.
look at Bill Clinton .......its just about sex ...this is something Obama had no control over...granted the lying is the heart of the matter but all he has to do is plead ignorance
In that, you are mistaken. The Constitution states, point blank, that upon finding a President ineligible, the Vice President becomes acting President. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
The Constitution is the supreme law. Statutory law is inferior to the Constitution.
“...if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.”
This “in doubt” statement will become another source of smoke and mirrors magic to keep the Joker in the WH. The only way to resolve this BC mess is for Congress to DEMAND that 0 fully identify himself once and for all.
Many feel betrayed when they see how Congress completely ignores to come up with an answer to this legitimate question that many Americans have raised for quite some time.
Sheesh, what is so difficult about getting to the truth?
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.