Quote:

This could cause serious peril to our country.

I think, finding Obama ineligible to run for president, will make for some VERY interesting news.

No really?

Thorack, isn't Obama causing serious peril to our country?

You want to see the wrath of the FSA, watch what happens if this gets legs.

bah you corrected it before I could get out my "accidentally the microfilm" joke

damn these posting limits... hurry up and pay up on the FFL guys

I believe if he if found to be a fraud that it rises to the highest crime, treason and as a US citizen defending his fraud upon the citizens of the US we find him guilty and may the punishment in that case fit the crime.

LS...the FSA has been around alot longer than Obammy.

OK ... "Debbie Downer" from my husband ... why wasn't McCain (born in Panama) a "natural born citizen" nor Mitt Romney's dad (George Romney, who ran for president in 1968, and born in Mexico)? "You would think intelligent people would have more useful things to do with their lives."

According to him, only persons of Native American decent would qualify as president (?!?). Now you see what it's like to live with someone who doesn't get it. Grrr ...

President Biden??? I don't know what else they could do. Maybe void the election results and then you have President Boehner. Either one should be interesting. Bwahaaaaaa!

If he's found to be ineligible expect epic race wars when the black population completely flips out and accuses "whitey" of throwing their man out of office.

While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered a viable and legal candidate for United States president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives had fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished U.S. citizenship. While the Constitution requires that a president must be a natural-born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican Revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790[citation needed] and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is not clear that Romney was actually eligible for the office of president.[citation needed]

Forgot the year of this quote but it seems to fit the situation:

Paul-Henri Spaak, President of the United Nations General Assembly

“We do not want another committee, we have too many already.
What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and
lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking.
Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.”

What about the issue with him accepting student aid as a foreign student when he was going for his undergrad? Isn't that significant?

Yes Really!! Please tell me what the second and third order effects of having a fraud President are? Please tell me, I'd love to hear the pontifications on this singularity. I dont think anyone has done a deep dive on what happens to every piece of legislation he has signed, are they all null and void does spending cease, please tell me? I'm seriously concerned about the legal ramifications in the overseas military contracting community that support trigger pulling Soldiers.

Thomas Jefferson- mom was English, guess he should have been disqualified too. Andrew Jackson- Irish parents Woodrow Wilson - English mom.....

This case is going no where.

Crzy: I'm not supporting the others, but, you have no valid examples.

TJ and AJ were born pre US, how the **** could they be relevant?

WW English mom was a citizen when he was born.

This is probably why BO won't release his college transcripts, b/c he probably wrote about his birth origins and his own words will disqualify him.

Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856. His parents married prior to 1851, mother automatically gained citizenship upon marriage in accordance with naturalization statutes of the period.

As Dictator I really don't think this applies to Obama. He can just write a new law or command that disposes of this petty triviality.

And all those who keep this **** up will be declared terrorists and placed in a black bag without trial and put in prison indefinitely. He has the power, the law does not matter, power is the only thing.

Quote:

Yes Really!! Please tell me what the second and third order effects of having a fraud President are?

I would like to answer that question but it could get me banned!

From what I understand of this case, they are not challenging the birth certificate at all, nor the place of birth. They are challenging "natural born citizen". And there is a Supreme Court precedent on exactly this term, from the late 1800s:

"The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

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."

Since Obamas birth father is undisputed as a foreign national (its on the birth certificate itself), this means according to the Supreme Court interpretation of the term "natural born citizen", he is not eligible. All the other stuff is irrelevant to this fact.

Even if this judge rules against Obama, it will immediately be appealed to another court - likely finding its way to the Supreme Court eventually (provided this case goes well).

Has the Supreme Court ever agreed to hear a case where it has already ruled on in a prior case?? I cannot recall ever reading about one, but I am no expert there. I would also give it very low odds that the current court would choose to over rule its own prior case precedent, and re-interpret the language again. After all, when it was done the first time, it was only 100 years since the founding of the country, and the understanding of language as used in the Constitution (and its meaning/intentions) then was much, much better than now.

swingtrader wrote..

Now we are going to find out if we really are simply a larger, and later version of Argentina.

You mean in terms of the Presidents elected (and their qualifications vis a vis the "natural born citizen[ship]" clause, and lack thereof), the defacto presidents, or the military juntas?

Oh god, that last bit just made me laugh nervously.

imho, we should listen to thorack. What possible upside is there for "getting" Obama on this? I thought paralyzing the US gov for years over a lie about a BJ was bone headed...

Think: who benefits?

Hint: Not the US.

Both Jefferson and Jackson were grandfathered in as when the country was founded, no one had two parents who were citizens when they were born, because US citizenship didn't exist

Wilson's parents were both citizens when he was born.

Chester Arthur, on the other hand, was not legitimately President as his parents were not citizens (British father, just like Obama). But that was not provable publicly until after the fact. Arthur was not elected as President either, he became President when Garfield was shot. Also, since his character in office was impeccable and not disloyal, there was no reason to pursue the point.

Obama made a huge mistake with releasing the doctored certificate, as it is provable that that document is a fraud, and as mentioned, having a Connecticut SS# belonging to a dead relative of his wife while claiming to have been born in Hawaii doesn't help his case any.