Posted on 02/28/2011 11:25:29 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
There's been a lot of discussion in certain circles on the topic of President Obama's "eligibility." (Incidentally, Dr. William Oddie cogently argues in a recent commentary that Obama is an enemy of the Catholic Church. Click here to read it.)
Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School — and author of the book What Happened to Notre Dame? — argues that it's time for a new approach on the eligibility issue. His commentary is reprinted below.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
No new point or idea. It was just said by another.
Dual citizenship could force Thai leader from office
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/dual_citizenship_could_force_t.html
If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Excellent. This thread is a keeper!
bttt
The fact that no detailed process has been specified is irrelevant to the question of burden. There is a long history of “burden of proof” in litigation, and in general that burden lies with the proponent of a fact essential to the cause of action, here, the purported fact that Obama is eligible under the Constitution to be President. Once the initial burden has been met, the denier of that fact must then produce evidence the fact is false.
The problem is, while the constitutional rule still implies a burden of proof on the candidate and his party, the current system relies too heavily on internal party vetting of candidate qualification. There’s a pathological conflict of interest in that. The adverse political party is a far better source of contrary evidence, but it often comes too late in the process, or not at all if bringing it up could backfire on other under-qualified candidates (as with the McCain eligibility flap). Once, Lord willing, we are done with Obama, this deficiency in the system needs to be revisited.
However, this is not strictly a litigation question, and runs more to the political sense of “burden of proof,” and all the legal fineries of burden of proof logic go pretty much out the window in favor of the common sense rule, which is still this, that if you say something is so, it’s up to you to prove it, and if you don’t prove it, the electorate has a right to doubt you, and to act politically on that doubt.
So really, the burden of proof is still on him no matter how you slice it. And he has failed to meet that burden, and we need to continuously remind the public that their intuition of doubt, brought on by his evasiveness and unwillingness to acknowledge his burden of proof, is fully justified, and not only so, but potentially explanatory of his aversion to policy that advances genuinely American interests. And if this self-inflicted doubt accelerates the dampening of his political power and his potential for reelection, then we can only count it a good thing to sustain that doubt by continually highlighting his obligation, his burden, to remove it, if he can.
“maybe we could find out and then move on.”
Move on to what?
....and compliant media and liberal judges who do his bidding for him (the whole kit and kaboodle of corrupt political groupies, appointees and allies who despise the US Constititution and Bill of Rights).
this is interesting
“He would have to specifically renounce it to lose British citizenship”
In 0dumbo’s case it was said that 0dumbo lost his brit citizenship unless He specifically applied for it at age 21
Now I wonder if that was true.
Move on to either accepting he can prove he was born in HI and no one has the guts to go after the natuaral born issue Or prove he is not eligible and get him the F out
You should send the article to every local, state and national rep that you have and to you local pastor/priest/preacher/rabbi etc.
This is written by a ranking official from Notre Dame University...is Ted Baxter or Crissy Matthews going to call him a nutty birther too?
Correction
apparently 0dumbo while born a UK citizen through hsi father became a kenyan when Kenay became independent in 63.
apparently Kenyans who are dual citizens must apply for sole Kenyan citizenship at age 23. Likely 0dumbo did not
but NOTHING changes that 0dumbo was and is NOT a antrual born citizen
natural
While several poliicians are AWOL in Wisconsin with no apparently accountability, he expects House members to do serious work on behalf of American citizens? They are little more than self-serving tools of lobbyists and activist groups. Blatant disregard by the administration regarding the ruling on Obamacare alone is proof positive that disregarding our nation's laws (healthcare, immigration, marriage) demonstrate a clear contempt thereof.
Shooter points out:
The Constitution specifies no process for certifying presidential qualifications.
That may be correct.
However, 3 USC 15 most certainly does. The blatant disregard of that statute by the Congress during the 2009 Joint Session, most particularly in the face of the public's outcry over O's eligibility, was a failure of each member to defend the Constitution. That charge especially applies to the Republican members.
The burden of proof has always been on Obama, but someone has to request he submit that proof. The Joint Session was the time and place.
I believe this completely explains the current State of the Union.
BUMP.
Charles Rice is one of the most brilliant and principled men in America.
I am DISGUSTED with weenie Republicans. Is there a true man or woman among them? What happened to grit?
Boehner’s phones, voice mail, and e-mail should be clogged and shut down with complaints from those defending Article 2 Section 1. The halls leading to his offices should be filled with petitioners demanding that Obama’s eligibility be investigated. Letters by the ton should be arriving at this office.
Boehner should hear deafening demands that Obama’s eligibility be investigated every time he greets a crowd.
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.