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

To: Windflier
Yes, Obama needs to be opposed on the issues, but he also needs to be opposed on his ineligibility to hold office. Contrary to what some may think, we conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time.

That sounds lovely, but it's a non-sequitur.

The average American voter isn't going to trust conservatives if they dilute intelligent positions on the economy, foreign policy and social issues with an issue that is considered a factually incorrect joke by the vast majority of the country.

It's easy. Current legal thought points to the 14th Amendment, which supersedes, or amends, earlier interpretations of the Constitution. Courts concur, American people concur, GOP avoids, DNC stokes. You don't have to be Sun Tzu to see how this battle is going.

If birthers could really walk and chew gum at the same time, it would occur to you that you're walking off a cliff.

71 posted on 05/08/2011 9:40:08 AM PDT by Steel Wolf ("There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." - Ibn Warraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Steel Wolf

The 14th Amendment addresses who can be a citizen, not who can be a Natural Born Citizen.

This really isn’t as complicated as folks like you are trying to make it, and painting constitutional patriots as some sort of ‘conspiracy nutcases’ is simply doing the work of the enemy.

If you’re willing to concede your conservative principles, and ignore the fact that Obama and the left are trampling on something as basic as the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility, then you’ve already surrendered to the pressure of their political correctness.

There’s no point in having a constitution, or even a country, if you’re not willing to fight for it.


77 posted on 05/08/2011 9:51:41 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Steel Wolf
Current legal thought ...

Whose current legal thought?

Any time this has been brought into an appropriate legal forum, the plaintiffs have been told they have no legal standing. No serious judicial examination of this issue has taken place to date. This is an issue that has to be addressed by the SCOTUS.

Last week, as I watched the arguments before the 9th Circuit, one of the Federal Appellate justices asked Gary Kreep how his client has been hurt by Obama occupying the Oval office. To my eye, the Justice was attempting to limit the scope of the damage that Obama has perpetrated on this country to one man. Thus no damage, therefore no standing before the court. Next!

Look at the amount of damage this man has done to this country over the past two years and what is to come? Two more years of damage? This has to be addressed for that reason alone.

101 posted on 05/08/2011 10:23:25 AM PDT by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | 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