Replies

You keep asking if I agree. As if my personal opinion is important. It isn't my opinion that is important. It is the law. Standing has been well defines in the U.S. court system for over 150 years. And based on that precedent, none of these plaintiffs have standing. It's as if I say OJ Simpson was acquitted in the murder trial and you ask don't you agree he was guilty. My opinion does not change the fact that he was acquitted.

I do think many conservatives ought to think twice before they demand a system where any citizen can sue to declare the winner of a presidential election ineligible. Could you imaging what groups like ACORN could do with that tight the next time a Republican is elected? Can you picture a half million lawsuit filed?

I am not asking you because I think your personal opinion is important. It is just as important as mine, no more, no less.

I am asking you because we have a difference of opinion, and I think you are wrong.

As a citizen of this country, I DO have a stake in what is happening. This isn’t some murder trial in California for some kind of Bozo celebutard.

I wrote this earlier, and, 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.

And by the way, I am not asking to SUE. I am asking that a candidate PRODUCE legal documentation that he is indeed a citizen, as REQUIRED under the Constitution of the United States.

The fact that he did not do so due to a breakdown in communication, bureaucracy or whatever is not important.

The fact that Barack Obama REFUSES to produce proof that he meets the Constitutional requirements of the office says more about him and his followers than it does about me or anyone else who agrees with me.

I will ask again, differently: If required by a court to produce evidence and is unable to do so, should Barack Obama be allowed to take office? Can we overlook the guidelines of the Constitution, just this once?

Nice try. David Axelrod woul dbe proud of you and your platoon pushing that notion that this would be a suer overturning the election. The fact is, if Obama is not eligible, and he claims to be such a Constitutional scholar that even Clarence Thomas doe snot meet his level of competence, then it is Barack Hussein Obama, affirmative action candidate, who has in fact overtunred an election due to his fraudulent scam. Character does count, and your little squirrel has proven he has none by spending so much money and garnering so much unrest in the domestic tranquility because he refuses to prove he is eligible on Constitutional grounds. And your character is becoming somewhat questionable too