West speaks to a crowd of about 400 at Tuesday night's town hall meeting in Jupiter.
Posted on 03/16/2011 5:38:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
West speaks to a crowd of about 400 at Tuesday night's town hall meeting in Jupiter.
“Who is going to tell us who this man is? Is he legally there or not?” said Karch. “What are we going to do to ensure that, if he isn’t legally there, it doesn’t happen again?”
Said West: “I will tell you this: That is the dog chasing its tail. The most important thing is, it’s the policies. That’s what we have to be standing on.”
The crowd of about 400 applauded, but Karch wasn’t satisfied.
“But if he’s not, it’s treason,” Karch said.
Said West: “You will waste more time worrying yourself to death about that instead of making sure that you expand the majority in the House of Representatives, you win back the U.S. Senate so that you can stand against the policies that are emanating out of the White House…
“What is your objective? Your objective is getting back to a constitutional republic principles and values. If you spend your time worrying about someone’s citizenship, you will never get to that objective.”
West didn’t offer his own opinion on Obama’s citizenship during the public forum. So PostOnPolitics asked him after the meeting.
“He is a citizen. He’s the president. I mean, that’s all I know. I am concerned about his policies,” West said.
If one officer of government, or one branch of government, or a certain level of government, breaches their oaths of office, that doesn’t give any other officer of government, or branch of government, or level of government, license to breach their own oaths.
All of them swore to uphold the Constitution, which requires that the President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of this country.
And as of right now, in a legal matter, he is. IF it changes in the future, then we have a remedy.
Wrong. He either is, or he isn’t.
And reasonable proof has not been presented either way.
The burden of proof remains on him, and the duty to follow the Constitution still rests on every officer of government.
If one officer of government, or one branch of government, or a certain level of government, breaches their oaths of office, that doesn’t give any other officer of government, or branch of government, or level of government, license to breach their own oaths.
All of them swore to uphold the Constitution, which requires that the President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of this country.
US District Court for the District of Columbia, “Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto). “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution (See US Const. Art. II, Section 1). This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, April 14, 2010
US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, “Rhodes v MacDonald.” “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment. But a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.” US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, September 16, 2009
US District Court for the Central District of California, “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al.”
“There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not won the election and taken office. However on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to the Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts, October 29, 2009
The Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was]a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in allegiance of the United States natural born citizens.” November 12, 2009.
I can’t help it that the courts have closed ranks to defend Obama, or that not a single one of them has allowed the discovery process to go forward so that the American people can find out the truth.
To Allen West, I can do many things at once.
Well, time will tell.
We’ll have to wait and see if the new Democrat Attorney General, David Louie, pursues this with any more vigor than the previous Republican Attorney General, Michael Bennett did.
________________________________________________________________________
I am not talking just Hawaii...
The AGs from the states involved in the Health Care lawsuit are now talking and comparing notes on election issues. A finding of usurpation would fix this massive headache for them very quickly.
I am not talking just Hawaii...
The AGs from the states involved in the Health Care lawsuit are now talking and comparing notes on election issues. A finding of usurpation would fix this massive headache for them very quickly.
I’ve heard of a “stretch” before but yours above is ridiculous.
“Focus on Obama policies instead.” Just like the Democrats focused on Nixon’s policies instead of going after the White House tapes.
No, the analogy is not perfect. But the two situations seem very similar to me.
There is something Obama does not want people to see in his records. I don’t know what it is. But I have some ideas.
I can’t help it that the courts have closed ranks to defend Obama, or that not a single one of them has allowed the discovery process to go forward so that the American people can find out the truth.
Thats the problem with your argument. You say the answer must be either “x” or “y” and then you tell me it is “z.”
All of the states that certified votes for him accepted that he is eligible, so right now he is. If he is proven to not be later, then he wont be.
The burden is on the states to verify. The Presidential election is not federal. It is voted on a state by state basis.
The problem isn’t that there aren’t many ways that this could be dealt with, it is that none of them have any interest in “skinning this cat,” which in this case means “following the explicit requirements of the Constitution, no matter what anyone else may do.”
What we’re really seeing is the final chaotic throes of a political and legal elite who have utterly abandoned constitutional republican self-government and the moral principles upon which it depends. Instead of being anchored to immovable eternal self-evident truth, they are like toy boats tossed about on the tempests of a raging sea.
You don’t need to further elaborate. We already know that you don’t believe the Congress has any responsibility to make sure that the Constitution is being followed, as they swore to do.
This debate is over if all you are going to do is consistently switch between topics, build up strawmen, and use wild hyperbole.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your claim that the Congress has no duty to uphold the Constitution, when they have sworn to do exactly that, is ludicrous.
The problem isn’t that there aren’t many ways that this could be dealt with, it is that none of them have any interest in “skinning this cat,” which in this case means “following the explicit requirements of the Constitution, no matter what anyone else may do.”
What we’re really seeing is the final chaotic throes of a political and legal elite who have utterly abandoned constitutional republican self-government and the moral principles upon which it depends. Instead of being anchored to immovable eternal self-evident truth, they are like toy boats tossed about on the tempests of a raging sea.
As a conservative Republican federal judge, appointed to the US District Court bench by George W. Bush after serving as a Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia put it:
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment. But a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.” US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009
That's so ridiculous. Of course it's lacking in factual support. The judges have refused to allow discovery in order to get at the truth.
The burden of proof that he possesses the necessary credentials remains on the job applicant, not on those who believe the employers have a right to see the proper paperwork.
You can't prove a negative, jamese777, and those who get sucked into a demand that the people of this country should have to try are being foolish.
Just show us the frickin' ten dollar document.
You can’t prove a negative, jamese777, and those who get sucked into a demand that the people of this country should have to try are being foolish.
Just show us the frickin’ ten dollar document.
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.