Perhaps last chance to challenge a sitting presidents eligibility.

[galtgulch]

I bring this to everyone's attention FYI. Just in case anyone here might believe that to be a natural born citizen one must have two parents who are American citizens. Let us at least make Obama prove his qualification under the Constitution.

>>>"The only legal means to challenge Obama's Eligibility

Posted April 20th, 2009 by Schvenzlerman

Leo Donofrio, counsel in two cases denied hearings by the SCOTUS, set forth, at http://naturalborncitizen..., that there is, due to separation of powers, only ONE Constitutional means to challenge a sitting President's eligibility. Established by the Founders, it is a Quo Warranto action in federal court under the District of Columbia Code. It requires any U.S. public office holder, where the office is in the District of Columbia, to prove their qualification.

The D.C. Code stipulates that only the U.S. AG, Eric Holder, or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, may institute a Quo Warranto proceeding on their own motion or on the relation (request) of a third person. Either officer has Constitutional authority to command Obama to prove his credentials. Alternatively, an interested party may, if the officers should decline to institute a Quo Warranto proceeding, apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. The Code provides for a jury trial.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO ASAP:

Send a letter to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, asking him to institute a Quo Warranto action in the matter of Obama's eligibility. Make sure that you send it via Certified Mail (the green card) for return receipt purposes. Keep it short and simple, and skip the political diatribes. For your convenience, here is a letter format that you may use:

(date)

United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor

United States Attorney’s Office

555 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Sent via Certified Mail

Dear Mr. Taylor,

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to institute a Quo Warranto action to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States of America. Issues of fact related to his qualification as to "natural born citizen," if not also his citizenship, are unsettled and thus represent a Constitutional crisis that must be resolved.

Our uniformed services are under great risk of liability under international law in undertaking to perform orders in their chain of command if their Commander in Chief does not hold clear title to the office. This issue thus represents a potential threat to civilian command of our military forces, a bulwark of U.S. civil society.

I respectfully ask you to institute, on an urgent basis, such action to put an end to this cloud that now hangs over the office of President.

Sincerely,

(end of proposed letter to Taylor)

For informational purposes, Leo Donofrio's letter to Taylor, requesting a Quo Warranto action, is here: http://naturalborncitizen....

Donofrio states very clearly in his blog his SUPREME DISAPPOINTMENT that Taylor has not to date received thousands of such letters - it will require that much to move him. Donofrio makes the case that Taylor is not a hack but rather a man who respects the law.

Go for it - Send your letters NOW!"<<<

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; I am sure the US Attorney for the District of Columbia is not going to do this. I suspect the man is neither insane nor an idiot.

Gulch: IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

[galtgulch]

Here is perhaps the definitive arguments in law and history on the subject which follows. I found it at :

http://tinyurl.com/5zmz5b

You may prefer to read it at that site where the text is white on black, with some red and blue, and the argument is followed by lengthy comments. The birth certificate is irrelevant, the natural born citizen issue is pertinent if we are to follow the Constitution as we should.

gulch

>>>"“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA

[uPDATE - 11:10 AM Sat. Dec 13, 2008]: Yesterday, a SCOTUS clerk told Cort his decision wouldn’t be released untill Monday. This was at approximately 11:00 AM while the Justices were still behind closed doors.

Tonight I will publish a point by point breakdown explaining why the application I prepared for Cort’s brief was so much stronger than the one in my own.]

PREAMBLE

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT

Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection. McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama’s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a “natural born citizen” by the Constitution.

As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will. He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.

IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.

The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues. I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails. But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger. And the candidates knew that.

I suppose they’ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next. But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call.

OBAMA’S ADMISSION

Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. It’s this very definition which I included in Cort’s Wrotnowski’s brief. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)

There it is. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii. I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site. I said that over and over, but they’re still lying about my position. Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is the truth now part of a conspiracy?

Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama’s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law.

What have we come to?

The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It’s an argument that fails - if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.

My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. It’s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.

The people are subservient to the Document and if we don’t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.

Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.

But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it’s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists. All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published. It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries.

“Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,” they squawk. Me so crazy. Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn’t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue. And that’s the only issue before the Honorable Court.

That being said, let’s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term “natural born Citizen” as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are “citizens”.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED THROUGH HISTORY

I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it’s quite the opposite. Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

I understand the countering argument and I’ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog. But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven’t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [s 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at “footnote 10″:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."<<<

Here is a link to the site where the author of the above holds forth:

http://tinyurl.com/67sv2d

And here is what you will find there:

>>>"Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution

November 23, 2008 · 21 Comments

There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“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 most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”"<<<

www.campaignforliberty.com 20Apr 10PM 147479

gulch

Edited April 21, 2009 by galtgulch

[galtgulch]

Gulch; I am sure the US Attorney for the District of Columbia is not going to do this. I suspect the man is neither insane nor an idiot.

Gulch: IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

Chris,

I had occasion recently to tell some people about the youtube video in which Michelle Bachmann grilled Geithner and Bernanke. I didn't mention her party affiliation just that she was on the House Banking Committee and that she asked Geithner where in the Constitution he found the authority to be doing all the things he as done since March. He kept answering that the Congress granted the power and she kept drawing his attention back to the Constitution and he mentioned a particular bill from the Congress and she asked him again to point to where in the Constitution itself he found the authorithy. He finally blurted out "the Laws of the Land."

One of the people I told this to responded by saying "she must be a Republican!" I find the implications of that remark to be revealing don't you?

The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land and that means we should take it seriously at all times and on all issues. We can't use it when it serves our purposes and ignore it when it doesn't, can we? Every elected official in government takes an oath to uphold it , the Constitution, which should be more than a meaningless ritual or rite of passage. Instead they deal with it as if it is a magical phrase like "open sesame" which lets them into the magic kingdom where they can pass any law they want which is "necessary and proper" to do whatever they wish.

I remain hopeful. I don't know if enough people will send in letters to the man. Just remember that one of Bush's appointees, a judge who presided over the hearings on that school board in PA who threw out the intelligent design folks case saying it was just creationism trying to impose itself into a science classroom. So it depends on whether the man is another Geithner type who evidently pays absolutely no attention to the meaning of the Constitution or not. If not then perhaps he will take the natural born clause seriously and demand that Obama prove his eligibility which has nothing whatsoever to do with where he was born but instead has everything to do with whether his parents were citizens of America and Obama has already stipulated that his father was Kenyan and a British subject. In other words he never was eligible and should be removed.

Doesn't anyone take the Constitution seriously? It has nothing to do with whether the District of Columbia official is insane or an idiot. It has to do with whether he has the proper grasp of the meaning of the Constitution and our loyalty to it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 20 Apr 11PM 147484; 23Apr 5AM 148262

gulch

Edited April 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

"Doesn't anyone take the Constitution seriously?" Yes I do.

"It has nothing to do with whether the District of Columbia official is insane or an idiot." Yes it does.

It has to do with whether he has the proper grasp of the meaning of the Constitution and our loyalty to it." Gulch we have had this discussion at length the clause is not clear and will not sustain your case.

"I remain hopeful. I don't know if enough people will send in letters to the man." They won't.

" Just remember that one of Bush's appointees, a judge who presided over the hearings on that school board in PA who threw out the intelligent design folks case saying it was just creationism trying to impose itself into a science classroom."

Uh...Gulch...um there is absolutely no federal right to an education - that judge was flat out wrong, an activist, a religious bigot and an overreaching repressive leftist.

You keep strange company. So you believe that the state should determine what can and cannot be taught in a science curriculum? This is a science curriculum that you will force a citizen's child from the citizen's family and restrain his freedom for one hour to be force fed your particular interpretation of what a science curriculum.

Hmm interesting.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

It has to do with whether he has the proper grasp of the meaning of the Constitution and our loyalty to it." Gulch we have had this discussion at length the clause is not clear and will not sustain your case.

Adam

Adam,

All that is clear to me is that you have not diligently read the admittedly lengthy posts I copied and pasted here for you.

www.campaignforiberty.com 21Apr 6AM 147556

gulch

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

"Doesn't anyone take the Constitution seriously?" Yes I do.

"It has nothing to do with whether the District of Columbia official is insane or an idiot." Yes it does.

It has to do with whether he has the proper grasp of the meaning of the Constitution and our loyalty to it." Gulch we have had this discussion at length the clause is not clear and will not sustain your case.

"I remain hopeful. I don't know if enough people will send in letters to the man." They won't.

" Just remember that one of Bush's appointees, a judge who presided over the hearings on that school board in PA who threw out the intelligent design folks case saying it was just creationism trying to impose itself into a science classroom."

Uh...Gulch...um there is absolutely no federal right to an education - that judge was flat out wrong, an activist, a religious bigot and an overreaching repressive leftist.

You keep strange company. So you believe that the state should determine what can and cannot be taught in a science curriculum? This is a science curriculum that you will force a citizen's child from the citizen's family and restrain his freedom for one hour to be force fed your particular interpretation of what a science curriculum.

Hmm interesting.

Adam

Adam,

I do not believe in "free compulsory public education" which is obviously a peculiar admixture of contradiction and an oxymoron. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a right to an education, federal or state or local.

I do believe that the acquisition of knowledge is an objective value. I am opposed to indoctrination of children with irrational nonsense and the concomitant squelching of the use of their own rational faculty in the process. I see it as a form of child abuse.

It is not clear to me just what you are advocating other than the abolition of public schools with which I agree. The consequence of that I fear will be that children will be force fed mysticism, religiosity and precious little understanding of science and the scientific method and the history of science. I imagine that there are many religious people who would want their children to learn science too though and would pressure for that to be offered.

Unlikely we will see that course of action anytime soon. But I am certainly not in favor of government schools of indoctrination. But that is what we have now to the extent that public schools exist.

The creationist vs evolutionist struggle goes on.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Apr 6PM 147758; 23Apr 5AM 148262 and growing.

Despite your contention the concept of "natural born" as distinct from mere citizen was demonstrated by the Founders and that distinction made clear in what I posted above. Natural born meant that both parents were citizens of America and not Britain. The Founders parents were all British and that is why they grandfathered themselves in. But Obama does not fall into the grandfather clause because he did not live at the time of the Revolution and founding. His father was clearly British subject as a Kenyan and Obama has readily admitted to that. His supporters, or many of them are willing to overlook this and could care less about the Constitution anyway as their actions make plain.

Why are you so eager to ignore the reality of this unconstitutional occurrence?

gulch

Edited April 23, 2009 by galtgulch