Posted on 11/04/2011 8:03:55 AM PDT by edge919
The end game for you, it appears, is limited to a political win during one election cycle in particular.
Whereas the "end game" for folks like myself (& I believe edge919 and others) is to not only get a political win but to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution at all times.
Someone born with foreign citizenship, and thus foreign allegiance owed is not Constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military.
A multi-national at birth must not be allowed to openly set the precedent. Would be just another brick removed from our sovereignty foundation.
Excellent post. The point here is to uphold the Constitution and not allow it to be relegated to being nothing more than a suggestion. People fought and died to uphold the ideals represented within and when changes were necessary, it was amended under due process. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to deal with the fraud and deceit of 2008 and never, ever let it happen again.
The law is that if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen.
The law is that if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen.
There’s no such law.
You’re only a natural-born citizen if you are born in the United States to citizen parents. If you must rely on statutory law to determine your citizenship instead of natural law, you are NOT natural born.
No law declares such. You are confusing the 14th amendment term "citizen" with Article II term "natural born citizen." Unfortunately, so do most people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?page=428#428
Here is a good starting place:
“…The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first…”
Pretty much says it.
Thanks for sharing. This is a good resource page.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2802939/posts?page=40
Constitutionalist, Dr. Laurie Roth, may try to gain standing!
States that a candidate MUST meet certain Constitutional Qualifications. I forget- were Obama ballot approvals challanged AT THE TIME OF Application ?? or were they challenged after the fact?
I don’t think any challenges were made during the prescribed time frame. The Hawaii law, only allows a couple of weeks to file an objection. I think the same may be true in Arizona.
IIRC obama isn’t the first president of foregin extraction. i beleiev the first was chester arthur. othes will correct me, i’m sure, but having another liberal in the white house (HIllary) isn’t goonna fix anything, if anything there will be far more damage to the constitution adn our rights and freedom than already is. I want someoen in the white house who will restore honor and freedom to us. I want soemoene in there who resopects the constitution. i certainly don’t want to lose the war for the want of a nail.
If enough people do their part to keep Obama off the ballot, I’m not really seeing how Hillary would benefit. She blew an opportunity to do this herself in 2008.
If you do believe it matters, then why not fight to have it upheld?
Not only should we fight back against things like Barry care because it's clearly unconstitutional, we should fight back against his "presidency" because it too is unconstitutional.
Yes, Chestur Arthur was the first usurper...with many similarities to the Barry Soetoro situation.
The Constitution must take precedence over party politics, for obvious reasons.
If Barry were to be exposed to be the usurper he is, the (D) brand would be devastated by a Constitutional scandal the country has never seen before. Watergate couldn't hold water to such a historic crime.
A bad economy, gun runner, solyndra, etc couldn't come close to an illegal President and unlawful Commander in Chief of the military as far as the long term preservation of our Constitutional Republic.
Think the independents and/or blue dogs would give them a pass?
With only the most liberal on the left still in support of them, not even the Clinton's could weather a storm like that.
Don't just think in terms of a one or two term political cycle (unless you think Hillary will live forever), think long term preservation of the Constitution.
Another excellent post. The big picture is the important thing here, not someone’s potential short-term gain ... although I still don’t see where Hillary benefits from Obama’s removal from the ballot.
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.