Replies

Thanks.

I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

But I think that is not really clear. When what is meant by the wording of the Constitution is not really clear, it is entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court it established to clarify things. While I don’t believe the Court would rule the way so many at FR want it to, I do wish they would take a case bearing on this point and issue a ruling defining the terminology.

I also think a ruling deciding Obama was not eligible and therefore was improperly elected would be extraordinarily destructive. It would constitute the greatest power grab by the judicial branch in US history and would require it to make many thousands of followup decisions to determine which actions, if any, taken under Obama’s invalid authority are legal. The consequences of invalid decisions would then have to be straightened out. Cans of worms aren’t in it.

I think conservatives who cling to the notion that the disasters of the last few years can be reversed by a Court ruling are unconciously falling prey to the liberal notion that the Constitution as interpreted by the Courts is the answer to all our problems. That anything we don’t like can be declared unconstitutional and it will go away without appeal to Congress or the electorate.

I really, really don’t think that’s what the Founders intended. If the people want Obama out, that’s why we have elections.

I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama.

Sherman: “I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama”

I may not speak for the majority on this thread, but the main emphasis of this action now is to get Obama off the ballot for the 2012 election. As you said, most all of his actions to date may have been executed as a fraud, but that is water under the bridge. I would anticipate a finding in which Obama was not allowed a second term and write off his last four years as a massive deception on the part of the Democrat party. Perhaps there would be some penalty against that party since they did (with malice and forethought) get him elected.

You banned BladeBryan, but this Sherman Logan Obot operative is allowed to stay and soil the carpet in the living room? What gives?

"I have, BTW, no dog in this fight."

You are just as much an Obot operative as was BladeBryan.

I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

This is a good time to interject this point. Your quote above is critical to the point. You said:

"The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by "natural-born citizen." Which is virtually identical to what the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett while they were discussing the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:

"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."