Posted on 02/21/2012 6:38:28 PM PST by writer33
Phoenix (CNN) Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, briefed GOP contender Rick Santorum on his investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate, the controversial law enforcement official told reporters Tuesday.
After a speech to a Republican gathering in Phoenix where Santorum appeared earlier in the day, Arpaio explained he wanted to inform the candidate of his investigation "as a matter of fairness in case he wouldn't want me to support him."
Arpaio said he plans to endorse one of the four remaining GOP candidates in the coming weeks. But the sheriff added he would not make his choice known before he announces the findings of his birth certificate probe at a news conference set for March 1st. This endorsement would be his second in the race; in November 2011, he endorsed then-candidate Rick Perry.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Is there a "general" legal definition or is there a specific legal definition?
My sincere apologies to Sen. Santorum, you are correct. I had forgotten he left the Senate in January of 2007 - way before the discussion of eligibility during the 2008 election.
Give it up. The Supreme Court is not going to find Barack Obama ineligible, neither prospectively (theoretically possible) nor retrospectively (impossible).
Chief Justice Roberts doing it over, just to make sure (LOL) |
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. For those of you in Rio Linda, that means they aren't going to walk it back. Birthright citizenship == natural born citizenship! Any other interpretation by SCOTUS would seemed contrived to screw Obama judicially (a 'Rat specialty, BTW). So they are not going to do it (in the unlikely event they are actually called upon to rule)!
Consider the futility: Billy Ayers is fully eligible to president. His parents were both US citizens. His daddy was Thomas G. Ayers, a solid citizen, who was CEO of Commonwealth Edison. So much for depending on constitutional arguments to select presidents!
The Supreme Court is not going to find Barack Obama ineligible, neither prospectively (theoretically possible) nor retrospectively (impossible).
Well since it has never gotten that far your statement is nothing more than an opinion and I'll disregard your opinion if that's all right with you.
No, there isn't.
There are nine people in a room who read the polls and have a certain understanding of the Constitution, backed up by their respective staffs who read the polls and hopefully strive for an understanding of the Constitution.
It's more of an assessment of the situation and a prediction than it is an opinion.
What it really comes down to is, birtherism is a blind alley, a waste of time and resources. It diverts bandwidth from the real effort!
Well! Gee! You have certainly wasted a lot of your time on these threads. Isn't there something more productive that you should be doing?
What if the American mom was a conservative Christian patriot?
She wouldn’t be screwing around with a psychopath Nazi if she were a conservative Christian patriot. She is more likely to do so if she were a nazi sympathizer with loose or no morals. Kind of like Stanley except she preferred communists to nazis. Obummer is just what the Founders were trying to prevent.
The point of the natural born citizenship requirement was, and is, to ensure to the greatest degree possible the presumed loyalty of an aspirant to the office.
If "Obama" is telling us the truth about his origins (which he very well may not be, since no definitive proof has been offered to date, one way or the other), then his even potentially divided loyalties deriving from the foreign citizenship and transitory nature of BHO Sr's sojourn in the US would make Barry a citizen of a type other than Gold Standard (Natural Born) Citizen. That being a citizen not requiring the force of manmade law, including the 14th Amendment, to make you a citizen.
There were necessarily naturally occurring citizens prior to the 14th Amendment, and didn't require human law to render them citizens. They could not be anything but citizens of their country, because they were born there, and of parents who themselves were citizens. This shouldn't be difficult, and yet you fail basic logic. Again.
Now tell me once more how I'm circling the wagons. Heh
What the hell do polls have to do with strict legal definitions?
And your choice of words is condemning! A certain understanding of the Constitution? Certain as in fixed or certain as in it's their own interpretation of what it means or as they wish it to be?
Strive for an understanding as in understanding it as it was meant or striving to bring about a "certain understanding"?
Are these the same nine people who swap on and off the computer to battle wits with one person? Or do they simply whisper "sweet nothings" into the ear of the person typing trying to give the illusion that it's just one person instead of nine? Lengthy silences are telling. All that scrambling for an answer, delayed replies. Quick, somebody jump in and take over and get this guy off of my back! Shift change...see you tomorrow! Shift change...the style, tone and argument changes....so obvious.
Yeah, your "nine people" are following the polls. They're following the polls on how this issue is going and they're simultaneously trying to steer it in a "certain" direction and the polls they're watching show whether or not they're successful.
Don't even bother with the petty "tin foil hat" BS.
What it really comes down to is, birtherism is a blind alley, a waste of time and resources. It diverts bandwidth from the real effort!
You have the effrontery to dictate how bandwidth is spent?
Who are you to be making that decision?
So go spend your time on "the real effort" instead of spending it on eligibility threads if it's such a concern to you.
Could it be that Arpaio is intending to do Obama a favor by clearing any doubt as to where he i.e. Obama was born? This could tie in with that ex Odinga compatriot publishing a book and Arpaio delaying his announcement of his posse’s findings on Obama’s eligibility for POTUSA. Could it be someone had to get safely out of Kenya? It is very interesting how many dots that existed a few years ago are now being connected.
The Courts do not agree with you.
Yet? You treat yourself like you are the legal genius here?
The case in question, that Madison speaks of, is CLEARLY, even by wacko bither standards, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Yet? Madison still tells Congress that more legislation concerning Citizenship rules, would be helpful.
Congress DOES have the right and duty to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.
The opinions of Congress, On Constitutional matters, are EVERY BIT as important as the opinions of the Courts.
Even more so, in situations were the Constitution CLEARLY grants the the authority to the States, the Electors, and Congress, in Presidential elections!
Congress has spoken.
The Courts will NOT reverse Congress, on these matters.
The Courts do not agree with you.
SCOTUS has never heard the issue as all of the cases were dismissed prior to the case being heard in court.
Yet? You treat yourself like you are the legal genius here?
And yet you are the real legal genius?
The case in question, that Madison speaks of...
Yes, let's discuss that case further and read down a bit past where you traditionally end your quote...
@James Madison, House of Representatives 22 May 1789
And just a bit further down...
So, no your argument of Madison proving your assertion is wrong.
Correctly...
Or do you "grok" what he's saying? It's a little archaic so some may need help.
You might find reply #175 informative as well.
That’s no doubt. Just about every thread I read regarding this issue he’s there wasting time and resources.
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.