Replies

I wrote this on another thread, and it is just as relevant here. You and some others feel this is not an issue at all and should be disregarded. You have chosen to categorize as lunatic fringe, sour grapes or irrational, those people who think the question of Obama’s citizenship is an important issue.

I disagree, and here is why:

It has been suggested that a citizens, we are “obliged” to honor the majority choice as President elect.

We are not “obliged” to honor their choice. If Barack Obama is not a citizen as outlined in the US Constitution, then he should not be allowed to assume office.

That requirement is found in the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The founders put that stipulation in there for a REASON. A specific reason. A GOOD reason, one that is just as relevant today as it was back in 1787.

If the population of this nation decides there is a valid reason to allow foreigners to run for the office of the Presidency, then the founders, in their wisdom, included a mechanism within the Constitution to change the document.

The mechanism sets a bar of difficulty that is high, but there is a reason for that as well. We WANT the document to be difficult to change, so that if a change is proposed, there will be debate to ensure it is appropriate.

It was designed specifically this way to prevent any tin pot dictator or politician from proposing and enacting changes due to a hue and cry of the moment to a document which was very well thought out.

If anyone thinks that we, as a country, can disregard both the Constitution, and the mechanism included in it to make changes to the document, then the entire document may be disregarded as the situation dictates. If that is true, we are finished as a Republic.

I agree with your post. We are obliged to support a “legitimate and eligible President”. Even if we disagree with their views. I did not personally like Clinton but he was my president. Of course, I argued against many of his policies because I disagreed with him and also did not like his co-opting Republican ideas.

Here we have a Poseur who is not eligible to serve and we cannot oblige ourselves to serve him. It is not possible. Biden yes. Hillary yes. Ralph Nader yes. As unpalatable choices they may be, they would be legitimate.

Obama is not and anything he signs or agrees to will be unconstitutional. When he is found out in the ensuing years, we will have to fix the mess by litigation which will make the original problem worse. In still others we will be forced to fix them by fiat for expediency.

The funny thing is we cannot argue policy difference with someone who not eligible. He be challenged so that we can fight a legitimate President such as Biden or Hillary.