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

To: Mr Rogers

Are you still posting that nonscense? evidentually you are....shakes head.....


165 posted on 05/01/2010 5:09:02 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ((.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: Forty-Niner; Mr Rogers

It must be getting late or I’m getting tired.....

Are you still posting that nonsense? Evidently you are....shakes head.....

There, that’s better!


166 posted on 05/01/2010 5:18:29 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ((.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

To: Forty-Niner

The ‘nonsense’ I posted has carried the day every time it has been put before a court.

At this point, the only way I know of to challenge it legally would be for a state government to require candidates for President to have been born of two US citizens, and thus give legal status to the birther definition of natural born citizen.

The moment a state does that, the Democrats would HAVE to sue and I see no way for the SCOTUS to avoid the case or issue a formal, written ruling on what “natural born citizen” means. And I strongly suspect they would rule in the democrats’ favor.

There is a reason no member of Congress dissented from certifying the election. There is a reason Rush, Coulter, Malkin and others refuse to support birthers - and it ISN’T because Rush & Coulter are traitors to their country! And yes, there is a reason why neither Arizona nor Utah nor any other reasonably conservative state has passed a birther bill for ballot access.

I personally agree with the birther definition of NBC, and I disagree with the concept of anchor babies. But I neither make the laws nor set the definitions...


169 posted on 05/01/2010 5:24:07 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | 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