Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
Five Georgia men have challenged President Barack Obama’s inclusion on next year’s presidential ballot, with at least some citing an oft-discredited theory that Obama is not eligible for office because the Constitution says that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”
All the challenges have been made through the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, which referred them to the state administrative hearings office. Hearings have not yet been set.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
There aren't any supreme court decisions that support anything but what I've quoted. If there are any decisions you're unsure of, share them and I'll explain them for you. The court has been very consistent and that definition was quoted and affirmed in Wong Kim Ark. Tell me what OTHER authority would trump that and why??
I read up a little more on both Minor and Ark
and although I certainly don’t claim to understand it all,
I do see what you are saying is all there.
So who dropped the ball?
IMHO, No.
The Constitution already says "Natural Born Citizen." It, again IMHO, is up to the courts, ending in an appeal to the SCOTUS, to "define" what that means.
Under the Constitution, Congress legislates, The SCOTUS opines as to whether that legislation is constitutional or not. Here's the catch. The SCOTUS is an appellant court. Cases get there when (a) one of the adversaries is not satisfied with the ruling of a lower court....
(b)and The august body decides to hear it.
This gives The SCOTUS a perfect out in many cases. For example, in the case of the Birth Certificate kefuffles, they could have sent several of those cases back to lower court with the demand that the lower court order discovery!
Friendly bet: after the Mombasa MF is gone, these basic questions of who is a citizen, what kind of citizen, and eligibility for offices will be re-visited. Maybe I'll like the result, maybe not. But that's what, IMHO, courts are for.
Just as this site is under constant surveillance by the Left, we should welcome trolls here for the insight they give us into an important, even if entirely disagreeable ... mindset.
As to Blade, troll though he may well be, his POV is the same as many elected Republican officials in every state. That is, he feels Obama's Constitutional eligibility is not a suitable topic for discussion; not a valid question.
While I heartily disagree, I am also a realist and now expect nothing to be done about it while the impostor is the sitting something or other and lives in the White House.
Hi, KB—merry week-before-Christmas.
Question. If trolls are A-Okay, then why have a long succession of them who posted material identical to Blade’s been zotted?
Inquiring minds and all that. ;)
Perhaps nothing should be done...yet.
Why not?
Firstly, because winning against Obama and the left using the NBC argument would be seen by a very large plurality as an unjust and unfair denial of the will of the majority who elected him. They would see it, at best, as the use of a technicality no longer relevant to the modern age in order to overturn the will of the people. It would make Obama into a martyr.
Secondly, so few people realize that Obama is not Constitutionally President that his masquerading as such sets no precedent. That is why the ferocious bleating of the NBC deniers is so useful: It establishes beyond any possibility of denial that most people either are totally unaware of the facts, or angrily deny that Obama’s masquerade as President is in violation of the Constitution’s NBC requirement. So when the truth finally is recognized officially, they won’t be able to argue that Obama’s masquerade was accepted in spite of the full and certain knowledge that he is not a natural born citizen.
The Constitution already says "Natural Born Citizen." It, again IMHO, is up to the courts, ending in an appeal to the SCOTUS, to "define" what that means.What if the judiciary disagrees with you, and says the Constitution assigns the matter to another branch of government with no intention for judicial reviewability? What if the appeals, all the way to the SCOTUS, lose?
it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices. [Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J. 2009)]The plaintiffs appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found the appeal frivolous 612 F.3d 204 (2010). The plaintiffs then petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition denied.
sourcery wrote: “Firstly, because winning against Obama and the left using the NBC argument would be seen by a very large plurality as an unjust and unfair denial of the will of the majority who elected him.”
It “would be seen” as much, much worse than that. Anyone can simply look up the definition in /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and see that Obama qualifies. No one was saying /Black’s/ had it wrong, not until a certain faction wanted reasons why Obama cannot be president.
Remember my challenge to you, sourcery, to cite yourself holding the two-citizen-parent theory before the issue was Barack Obama? You declined. I’ve issued that challenge over and over and birthers *never* have the goods. Their sources are either so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), or so new that they came up with it specifically to deny Obama the presidency.
Americans accept, even celebrate, that our Constitution does not always give the majority its way. Furthermore, we respect contrarians, those who advocate for unpopular positions on principle. The problem for the Vattel-birthers is that we never heard a single one of them take their position when what was at stake was the principle.
I think you are right, sourcery, that the NBC argument would be seen as unfair and unjust, yet you miss the core issue and the magnitude. People see you for what you are. Vattel-birthers are not principled contrarians. They are cheaters who started telling the rules different when they did not like who was winning.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this time, sourcery, you will respond with a citation showing that you advanced your legal theory before the issue was Barack Obama. If so, I will post the appropriate apology and retraction. I would still disagree with your legal theory, but I would respect you as principled contrarian, and take back my implication that you are just another sore loser trying to cheat.
“...so old that they were considering the situation before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)...”
-
You say 1898 was before the 14th amendment?
In what parallel universe do you exist?
Blade:”I think you are right, sourcery, that the NBC argument would be seen as unfair and unjust, yet you miss the core issue and the magnitude. People see you for what you are. Vattel-birthers are not principled contrarians. They are cheaters who started telling the rules different when they did not like who was winning.”
I truly fail to see the legitimacy of your argument, Blade. You continue to harp on the question as to why all the birther’s waited until this President to voice their concern over NBC status. What other President in the past 50 years was even suspect? The only reason it has been aroused at this time is simply because now is the time it applies.
The other reason is that the law (especially in this country) requires study, fact-finding, and much research - this doesn’t happen at the click of your heels. Like any detective work, a continual searching for facts leads down many pathways and blind alleys before arriving at the solution.
Why do you continue to accuse those on this thread of bias? Of course we are biased against a President who wants to take this country to places we all abhorr. The bigger question is why aren’t you just as concerned? Is your beef with birthers or those who want to dismantle Obama? Is it the means you dislike or the ends?
Great post and thanks for articulating a more in-depth understanding of the process. I’m hopeful. Let’s cross our fingers...
He’s a punk . I do see your point though .
He’s a punk . I do see your point though .
by your standard, any anchor baby who claims to have been born this side of the Rio Grande, regardless of his parents, regardless of his background, is qualified to be President of the US! If, if, that were the case, there would have been no reason whatsoever for the founders to include the clause about if they were born before the US Revolution; because anyone born before the revolution would not have otherwise qualified. IOW
you’re full of shit.
...... a long succession of them who posted material identical to Blade’s haVE been zotted?
Trolls aint "A"- OK with me. IMHO they are just barely sometimes OK. Those who support the legitimacy of Obama don't need or want their day in court. They need things to stay the same because they already have the sitting POTUS-like idol to worship and adore.
Rest assured that the arguments they make on the Mombasa MF's behalf will be repeated and inf and ad naus. It behooves us on the other side of the "aisle" to understand these people.
Also by the time this tedious and tendentious issue wends its weary way to the SCOTUS, Raoul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Mama Kirchner will probably be sitting justices, the proceedings will be in Spanish, and the born-in-LA offspring of two illegal aliens will be confirmed as a "Natural Born Citizen," will march into the WH to the music of salsa bands and mariachis, and the arguments will continue on FR.
If one follows the normal troll arguments, this is a distinct possibility!
I trust you admired the way in which I avoided your sensible question because I really have no idea.
Blade is that chick who works at the law firm,in Chicago, who has been aassessing attack/defense and under mining Article 2, Sec. II.
Blade is that chick who works at the law firm,in Chicago, who has been aassessing attack/defense and under mining Article 2, Sec. II.
Spots on my tie. No standing. A BC that does not meet ASPCA standards is OK. My lawyer is really a dentist. Etc. etc.
Yo, Your Honor, answer the frickin' question!
Well said, KB, every word of it. Here’s my favorite part:
‘the born-in-LA offspring of two illegal aliens will be confirmed as a “Natural Born Citizen,”’
Nailed it. That is the ultimate goal. First they have to accomplish the bizarre task of defining ‘natural born [US] citizen’ as ‘half foreign’. Then it’s off to the races.
As far as finding out what they’re saying, may I suggest we don’t need FR for that? The web contains an abundance of moonbat riches. For a crash course in moonbattery anti-birtherism [i.e.: to read blade’s comments in their natural habitat], just visit Fogbow, FactCheck or ObamaConspiracy. The Obots there have all the leftist talking points boiled down in easy-to-reference format.
Be warned. You will also need your hip boots. You will be wading through a fetid swamp of snarky posts about their FR ‘secret’ identities, and how they so brilliantly make us all look so stupid. Of course every now and then you also come across their lamentations, as they mourn another of their own who got the zot. It really sticks in their craw when that happens.
My point being, we can read their views any time on any of several hotbeds of Obotism. We don’t necessarily need to read them here.
What happened over at the WAPO? Was this you posting as vtreacy or your companion Dr. Conspire?
vtreacy: The Post has started deleting my responses to the trolls, but you can read them here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/the-occasio...
t
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.