Stop in the name of love!
Posted on 10/30/2008 9:43:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters
That is unfortunate that you were not taught one of the greatest speeches of all time, if not the greatest. It told more about what America is about than volumes of history. Fortunately, my Arkansas high school provided me with the chance to know that great piece of rhetoric and wisdom.
Among the inconceivable are the actions surrounding this issue. 1) posting fraudulent “proof” (since removed) alledged to be his legal documentation of eligibility; 2) total silence from the Treason media on this claim which clearly fits “Man bites Dog” theory of news at a minimum. Such a claim of ineligibility is newsworthy merely because of its unique nature. What could be better for a few laughs than such a craaazy idea? But what is funny is I hear no laughter; 3) Kenyan claims that he was born there; 4) Actions related to McCain’s eligibility. Leftists raised the issue because of his birth in Panama Canal Zone. McCain gave proof to court without demure or delay. Senate at the insistence of the Democrats then gave its superfulous Seal of Approval on his eligibility after Democrats were CAUGHT trying to sneak in a provision which would allow a Kenya-born or Indonesian citizen Obama to be eligible. WHY would they have tried this?
What is Obama doing here with the resisting the demand, producing fraudulent proof, using technicalities to dismiss the case rather than just saying “Lets stop this silliness here is my Birth Certificate from the state of Hawaii. This is just another example of how desperate the Republicans are to stop Change.” Would be a very effective ad pilloring the mean spirited Republicans.
But nooo......
As per the XXth amendment the Congress must be elected before January the 3d beginning its new session. Hence the election cannot be scheduled after that date. The new presidential term beginning Jan. the 20th also poses a constitutionally mandated date.
So the Constitution has explicit dates prior to which the election MUST be scheduled. The Court would definitely get involved should one not meeting the constitutional requirements.
From my reading of the Constitution there is no mechanism to stop an ineligible candidate from running for or even winning the Presidency. It appears that the Congress can challenge the eligility of the candidates only at the counting of the electoral votes as the Democrats attempted with Bush in 2000.
Now since the Treason media has pulled a curtain of silence over this issue the public outrage required to get the Democrats to act responsibly does not exist.
Unless you consider the constitution to be the mechanism, which I do. And citizens have 1000% standing to sue to ensure their constitutional rights are upheld.
Kentucky democrats are more suspicious than Texas voters as a whole — LOL! But I’m a Virginian. We elected kiddy-porn, homo-eroritic writer — Webb. I’m so ashamed.
When I went to school in Texas, we still had too many Unreconstructed Rebels to teach about Lincoln’s speeches. LOL!!!
If not, VP Cheney, in his capacity as president of the senate, could bring an action to test the validity of any senator.
Absolutely! Our Founding Fathers couldn't imagine anyone with this much brasseness.
Ultimately our nation's experiment in self rule is founded on good will. Self rule will only succeed if we are an honest and moral people of **good will**! There is no possible way to write enough laws or construct laws ( or constitutions) so tightly written that it will control a population whose hearts are set on thuggery.
For me the epiphany came during the 2000 election. It was plain to me that the leaders of the Democratic Party are **not** people of good will. Those good hearted people in the Democratic Party who can not see this are Useful Idiots.
One more thing:
It was during the 2000 election that I determined that I could never again be a friend to of of a Democrat. They are either too evil or too stupid. I can not be friend to a thug or an idiot.
That should read “brazenness:.
Stop in the name of love!
Getting it heard by the Supremes may not be his goal.
Publicity likely is. Hopefully it will get **LOTS** of publicity!
A **normal** and rational person would have honored the first court's demand and presented a birth certificate. Obama is not behaving in a normal manner. He is behaving suspiciously. The American people deserve to know about that.
Elections are not a federal function.
Presidential elections are functions of the various states and are merely a process to select the constitutionally mandated electors forming the Electoral college.
Are you assuming that there is actually some law regarding the required prood of eligibility of candidates? There may be, but I am not aware of it and no one has referenced it in the many discussions of this.
The Constitution does not say anything about a priori qualification only that one must be a Natural born citizen living here at least 14 yrs. and 35 yrs. of age in order to SERVE. Presumably those who certify the electors in each state would certify that they voted for a qualified candidate.
At the time Cheney receives and counts the votes Congress can object.
Other than State certifications and Congressional acceptance I see no constitutional role for the Court.
Remember the comments from the Founders that this system was set up for Honorable men. It does not work without them. It appears that this is a coupe attempt and Obama is willingly inviting a Constitutional crisis.
Well the reason I think the founding fathers gave us a month between the election and the electoral college vote was for issues like this.
It’s up to the Congress to figure out if he’s eligible or not.
It was the same in my hometown but did not affect the schooling. Orville Faubus was governor in my youth and rode racism to multiple terms.
What are you referring to wrt a “statute of limitations”?
Is it too late to question Obama’s eligibility to serve as a senator, given that he has been there for four years?
The only way I know of to remove a sitting Senator is for the Senate to do it. The House and the Senate are not subject to impeachment but have the authority to remove members. Back in the sixties Harlem Congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, was removed for his corruption. His constiuents merely reelected him and the next House allowed him to stay.
Now it would be incumbent on us to make enough of a stink that the Senate would do it should the proof be there that he is ineligible. Or he could be sued for fraud or have criminal charges filed against him leading to the same results.
This issue could have never arisen in the past since there was no Treason media able to cover up such crimes so effectively.
The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.
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.