Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SaxxonWoods

You said: “I am aware of what is going on at the Supreme Court.

I’ll give you a big “point taken” on the natural born statement I made. I was in error. I amend that to say:

“There is no evidence that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.””

The question as to whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency is NOT a question that needs evidence then (already provided by Obama’s admission even) but instead it requires judicial interpretation of the Constitution in regards to what is already known.

I have faith that the Supreme Court will hear this case and give an interpretation on the natural born citizen clause.


64 posted on 12/09/2008 10:55:00 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: TheBigIf
“The question as to whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency is NOT a question that needs evidence then (already provided by Obama’s admission even) but instead it requires judicial interpretation of the Constitution in regards to what is already known.

I have faith that the Supreme Court will hear this case and give an interpretation on the natural born citizen clause."”

Thank you for your civility in making your case. There is too little of that around here these days. Re your first sentence, I'll wager that if an attorney gets to argue this case before the Supremes, s/he will not say “The question as to whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency is NOT a question that needs [requires] evidence...”

As to your second sentence, I'll reserve my faith for use in religious practice, but you are free to use yours as you see fit. Like you, I await the Court's decision on hearing any case petitioned re Obama’s eligibility. Looks like yours is the only reply to my post so far. No one wants to answer my question re the lack of interest by Constitutional scholars in the issue. No one has any evidence that Obama is ineligible under the Constitution given a layman's reading. I will grant you that the Justices could take a different view. For now, we wait.

67 posted on 12/09/2008 11:35:12 AM PST by SaxxonWoods (Charter Member, 58 Million Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: TheBigIf
I have faith that the Supreme Court will hear this case and give an interpretation on the natural born citizen clause.

The only thing before the SCOTUS was whether Donofrio (and the subsequent cases) have standing. That's all that the arguments would hinge on--who can sue a state official over irregularities involving voting. Winning the case at SCOTUS would mean that the court would order the lower court to hear the case, which could then be appealed up the courts. You might get a decision out of SCOTUS on what "natural born citizen" means in three years or so if everything fast-tracks.

81 posted on 12/09/2008 5:10:03 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson