Posted on 03/11/2011 4:37:00 PM PST by Red Steel
This article is a minor improvement over the regular schlock that gets posted about the eligibility issue. Did you attend the hearing?
Yes, I testified at the hearing.
Every step the right direction is at least something. I think there’s a lot of pressure against any movement the right direction.
The LJS article butchered the NBC issue but is being forced to make at least some corrections.
Please provide links.
Are the legal sources obscure 18th century legal dictionaries?
It strikes me that the term has never been defined in American law, nor in case law, so essentially you have an interpretation - based on "original intent". And as we know many of the most learned legal scholars and high ranking judges believe that original intent is only one of many factors one uses to interpret the law, along with current community standards, evolution of our understanding of justice, penumbras and emmanations, European and Native American legal traditions and other factors.
So, it's asking a lot for people to toss out a sitting President (or forbid him from running again) based on this hard adherence to a defintion.
After all we violate huge swaths of the Constitution every day: Social Security is clealy unconstitutional based on the Founders Intent. So is Foreign Aid. So is maintaining a standing Army.
Do you favor abolishment of the standing Army?
Most conservatives, and even many birthers are not ever consistent, so it does start to look like an obsession with one facet of a stone with thousands of facets on it.
As the key or demonstration issue I believe it is a very weak one.
I got no reply, and never hear did hear if he corrected himself, until yesterday. Yesterday morning, he quoted Michelle on this topic, and emphasized it a couple of times. “Don't call me a birther,” he says, “but according to his wife Michelle...” As a guess, probably 10,000 people hear him say this, and he'll probably keep repeating it.
So, the concern is spreading.
The sources I provided were Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and Minor v Happersett.
My point in all of this is that the courts are the proper people to tell us what “natural born citizen” means, and this bill would give the courts a case that they could decide. It should be a win-win for anybody interested in having the courts fulfill their Constitutional role of interpreting the Constitution and applying it to particular cases.
This is basic, basic stuff. If even this basic stuff has to be fought for so hard, it tells us where we’re at as a nation.
There are a lot of Constituitonal issues that I haven’t spoken out on because I have not researched them in depth. This one is Constitutionally a no-brainer. The courts should decide this issue.
My particular interest in this issue is from a “rule of law” perspective - probably because I have observed first-hand how badly the laws and rules have been broken by just about every government entity there is, at local, state, and federal levels - and how law enforcement and courts at every level have turned a deaf ear to all the evidence and pleas for an investigation.
Good for you! Eventually the word gets out. That’s why this issue has grown in spite of the puppet media ridiculing anybody who doubts Obama’s claims.
Abercrombie’s statements were a huge red flag to a lot of people who had thought we were crazy to have doubts. The puppet media took Mike Evans’ claims to have “misspoken” at face value and never bothered to check that he DID claim to speak directly to Abercrombie; he recounted their discussion even, in multiple recordings. And they ignore Abercrombie’s statements to the Star Advertiser columnist who then printed the gist of what he had said. He was saying there were people very serious about Obama’s birth certificate not just because of politics but because it could be dangerous in the next election - because he would have trouble if state eligibility bills passed.
The puppet media blew off all that, but the people who were struck by it have not forgotten it. It simmers below the surface.
“BHO said it himself : “The only people that don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.”
BHO posting a PICTURE on a website { That includes inviting Factcheck to come and take more PICTURES ( When Hawaiian statute prevents Factcheck from authenticating the alleged document and HDOH can’t disclose information from documents in the vaults by that same statute, and the newspaper announcements do not give a place of birth ! } is not disclosing the truth whilst also fighting to keep plaintiffs from discovering in a court proceeding what exactly BHO’s status is ....... Is not disclosing the truth !”
A Georgia Republican has decided to tweak his presidential birth-certificate bill to delay its implementation until after the 2012 election, the second such bill to be recently changed in the wake of political pressure.
“Issues have been raised,” state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross told Reality Check Radio last week (via Jim Galloway). “A lot of people are saying it’s a political bill. So in order to allay concerns about the bill’s potential political nature, I have proposed a substitute, which would move the effective date of this bill to July 1 of 2013.”
What would this itty bitty law hurt ?
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.