BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 207304 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104713 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Part 1 done. I was aware of most of what's in the video, and so interesting it is, but I confess did not know about Wilson's statement. Frankin's statement was idealism, well, socialism at best, but yes, partly the reason for the war of Independence. Most of the message is true, though a bit biased. Who produced it? An insider friend told me that if we really really knew how government really works, and the point at which govt is run by a few people, we'd implode out of just plain worry and hopelessness.
I read part II. I'm curious, would like to know who made those videos. Much of what is aired is hard to dispute, yet, it gives one side of the story onlyu I know, and I've always said so, governements are not happy when its citizens are happy and prosperous. It worried them, makes them uneasy. So, the economy is manipulated, with the help of brokers and bankers, of course, how well we saw that during the last year of GWB's term. The chickens had come home to roost. Banks foreclosed mortgaged homes when they didn't really have to, relishing the profits to be made when the markets picked up - Terri is right on that score. The Lisitania excuse mentioned n the video for entering the war, for example, is totally incorrect. The ship was sunk May 1915, video tells us the US went to war a short while later. Not so. It went to war a full TWO YEARS LATER, after a number of other provocations. Commonwealth of nations and France fought on until the Americans got into the fight the last year of the war. Now, if the rest of the information in this video is as correct as the Lusitania...

In any case, we are stuck with the system we have, duplicated in almost every country worldwide. What to do?
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104714 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
1 Peter 3:14-17
14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
<3
Then you can't be suffering very much, now can you?
ballantine

United States

#104715 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite.
'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship)reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.'"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 whichthe 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 jurisdictionwithout reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first.”.
==========
Sticks and stones
may break my bones.
BUT your words
will NEVER hurt :)
I guess the truth never hurts people too dumb to understand it. As you point out, Justice Waite merely said some unknown person had doubts about children of aliens which the court expressly declined to address until taking up the issue in Wong Kim Ark. He didn't say the doubts had merit or that they were talking a type of citizenship other than natural born citizenship. It is simply a lie to say Justice Waite said native born children of aliens were not natural born and no legal authority in history, other than dumb birthers, have ever claimed such case is relevant to the status of children of aliens. Why do you keep pretending you understand law when it is clear you don't even understand what you cut and paste? Why do so many ignorant people pretend to be legal scholars on the internet?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104716 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?
Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.
It is spurious to assume anyone might know whether the founding fathers would or would not be "cool with that" social contract of the 21st century popularly known as Obamacare. The founders were "cool" with the idea that people enter into a social contract with the body that governs them. Obamacare was enacted by the the Congress, elected by the people and signed by a President who ran on the issue of dealing with the serious issue of health care access in the present time. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court, which is vested with the judicial power of the United States per the very constitution that the founding fathers drafted.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
It's at first strange, weird even, that a man who could write so knowingly on science, the cosmos, subjects I am not familiar with,(and thank you, I've learned so much from you, forced me to do some research too) could be so clueless and naive when it comes to politics. Your view of Obama is obviously prejudiced, nothing will change that, no more than the speed of light. From up here, and as concerns medicare, we see it as right wing politicians who want their country the only one out of step in the industrialized world. You stick up for those who more or less say " Hey, eventually, free universal health care for ALL citizens, rich, middle class and poor alike, is not a good thing and we'll cancel obamacare as soon as we're in power. And the fact that the actual fractured system in place, where 55 million have no chance to get medical care unless they are dying...and even then, their wallets
and purses rifled for Visa card numbers --- cost them more per capita than any publicly-financed medical insurance system in the world."
Obama is far from perfect, as he has done some whoppers, yes, but if you consider the list of achievements in an uncertain world and a mess that god himself could not fix in 20 years, the tally is not so bad after all. And, let's face it, consider the alternative. brrrrr

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104717 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
You wanna make Obamacare work?
Cut out all the beuracracy...16000 new IRS agents and not one doctor?
Pay for it out of the ultra massive defense budget. We could cut defense by 75% and it would still take Nations of the world 20 years to become legitamate threats to America.
How about instead of seeing every dime of our federal income tax go directly into the pocket of Obama's cartel buddies...we use it to pay for "free universal healthcare"
When the man takes steps that are for the good of the people...he may have my support.
OK, we cut defense budget, eliminate the Fed, and provide universal health care. Many people would be "forced" to pay for health care through taxes, claiming they are therefore not "free".

I cannot say that I believe cutting defense by 75% is reasonable, but I do believe that the profiteering military-industrial complex that so worried Ike is fleecing the public, while wrapping themselves in the flag and slandering anyone who differs as disloyal.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104718 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said whoever his father is would be reason to dislike him....there are plenty of other reasons.
I know you like Harpo as Romney's father. You wrote that to me under your other name.
You are free to dislike him and vote for anyone you choose. However, the birth certificate nonsense and foreign firth fables are ridiculous. He was obviously born in Hawaii to an American mother who lived in Hawaii and is the legitimate President of the United States. There is simply no rational reason for anyone to conclude that there is doubt about his US birth and natural born citizenship.
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re "lying about his father."
No one ever really knows who their real fathers are. Even if your birth certificate and your mother tell you that George is the father, you never known.
It is highly likely that of the 43 presidents before Obama, some of them had fathers who were not the same as the ones that they thought were their fathers or that were listed on their birth certificates.
If you feel that someone else was Romney's father, as I do from time to time, you have the right to vote against him. The same, of course, for Obama. But that is all. The people that dislike Romney or Obama are likely to be the ones who think that their fathers are not their stated fathers, and they would have voted against him anyway.
But go on and dream that Davis was Obama's father if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I prefer to dream of Harpo Marx as Romney's father.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104719 Sep 1, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
When you conflate Republiscum with Democrats then it is NOT TRUE.
It is said that Sheldon Adelson is putting $100M into the Ryan/Romney/Antichrist campaign. It is said that the Kochs are putting in $500M.
17 billionaires own the GOPUX.
Period.
Citizens United is pure Republiscum.
If you are worried about buying and paying of politicians - they are pretty darn cheap btw - then go with Obama who, at least, is saying to get a constitutional amendment to kill Citizens United.
I am for 100% publicly funded campaigns - so many fewer nonsense ads - and for treating ANY gifting of ANYTHING to ANY public official as bribery.
Are you?
You might get this from the Dems but never, ever, ever, ever from the GOPUX.
You have understood nothing I said.

It doesn't matter who wins.

Goldman-sachs has it's hand so far up Obama's ass his adams apple is actually a nuckle. And Romney has bent over begging for the same.

I presented my evidence. I am not going over it all again.

The elections are more of an auction than an election.

There should be a solid week of debates to determine top contenders.

A predetermined number of candidates (maybe 4 from each established party and 4 who don't belong to either) should get a set and equal amount of money provided by the Govt. to campaign with. If you go over, you are out.

That should fix a few things.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104720 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is spurious to assume anyone might know whether the founding fathers would or would not be "cool with that" social contract of the 21st century popularly known as Obamacare. The founders were "cool" with the idea that people enter into a social contract with the body that governs them. Obamacare was enacted by the the Congress, elected by the people and signed by a President who ran on the issue of dealing with the serious issue of health care access in the present time. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court, which is vested with the judicial power of the United States per the very constitution that the founding fathers drafted.
<quoted text>
Agreed.

I never claimed Obamacare was accomplished by some illegal means.

It doesn't change the very high likelyhood that it will be repealed when a republican takes office.

And the founding fathers were certainly not ok with the federal govt taxing our labor for any reason. But that is a whole new discussion.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104721 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, we cut defense budget, eliminate the Fed, and provide universal health care. Many people would be "forced" to pay for health care through taxes, claiming they are therefore not "free".
I cannot say that I believe cutting defense by 75% is reasonable, but I do believe that the profiteering military-industrial complex that so worried Ike is fleecing the public, while wrapping themselves in the flag and slandering anyone who differs as disloyal.
If you end the Fed...there are no taxes, no IRS, no reason you give 35% of your income directly to an illegal institution. The federal income tax is illegal anyway.

I am sure you will scoff at the thought, but I am right. We are being robbed. There is no better way to say it. I can prove it upon request.

We have been brainwashed and strong armed into giving up our money for nothing.

It seems insane to hear it for the first time but only a very small percentage of us legally have to pay Federal Taxes. It is VOLOUNTARY compliance for the rest of us. By filling out a 1040 you are entering into a contract with the IRS.

Use the money you once paid in taxes to purchase any insurance you like.

You will have plently left over to do with as you wish.

Cutting defense by 75% is not likely to happen, but it is a vast pool of money that could be better spent elsewhere. 75% was to illustrate exactly how advanced militarily we are compared to the rest of the world.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#104722 Sep 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to dislike him and vote for anyone you choose. However, the birth certificate nonsense and foreign firth fables are ridiculous. He was obviously born in Hawaii to an American mother who lived in Hawaii and is the legitimate President of the United States. There is simply no rational reason for anyone to conclude that there is doubt about his US birth and natural born citizenship.
<quoted text>
Again I agree with you Wojar. But his BCs are undoubtedly fake in my opinion. I think GB and JO asked me to explain this too. And after I run to the store, I will.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104723 Sep 1, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no Constitutional Convention records of debates regarding the eligibility clause in the Constitution. James Madison who kept records of the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention made no reference in his book entitled "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"
Alexander Hamilton's version was:
...
The Committee of Detail originally proposed eligibility requirements for the Executive under a Tenth article. See William C. Rives, History of the Life and Times of James Madison, Volume 2.

"The convention was now brought, in the pro-
gress of their deliberations, to confront again the
difficult problem of the constitution of the execu-
tive department, which had already been the occa-
sion of so much vacillation and embarrassment in
then* proceedings. The tenth article of the plan
reported by the committee of detail provided, in
pursuance of the resolution previously adopted by
the convention, that the executive power should
be vested in a single magistrate, to be styled the
President of the United States, who was to be
chosen by the national legislature ; to hold his
office for seven years, under the condition of in-
eligibility a second time ; "

Concerning this "Tenth Article" it was stated "At the end of the first section, tenth article, add,'he shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty one years.'" WEDNESDAY AUGUST 22. IN CONVENTION. 1787.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debat...
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The natural born citizen clause replaced a previously drafted eligibility requirement:
"[H]e shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty one years."
On September 4, 1787, that was changed to
"No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S."

The rule was modified to require a person born in the United States.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#104724 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I agree with you Wojar. But his BCs are undoubtedly fake in my opinion. I think GB and JO asked me to explain this too. And after I run to the store, I will.
Only birther "experts"---who have not shown that they are really experts, and who certainly have not show that they are fair and impartial---have claimed that Obama's birth certificate is fake.

These experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate:

http://gratewire.com/topic/tea-party-conserva...

And:

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

Nathan Goulding with The National Review:“We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document." (And when Zatkovich was commissioned by WND to write an article on whether Obama's birth certificate was forged or not, and he wrote that it was not forged, WND simply did not run it.)

Other information on this:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-r...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decodi...

http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...
ehancock

Arlington, MA

#104725 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite.
'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship)reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.'"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 whichthe 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 jurisdictionwithout reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first.”.
==========
Sticks and stones
may break my bones.
BUT your words
will NEVER hurt :)
Re: "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."

First, that says that the source of the terms used in the Constitution is the common law (hence not Vattel).

Second, if the Supreme Court had said: "It was never doubted that if you wore suspenders and a belt, you would hold your pants up," would that mean that you had to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up?

Obviously not, and the statement in the Minor v Happersett case is similar. It simply lists the two ways of becoming a citizen at birth---birth in a country and birth by citizens---and then says that if you had both of them, there was never a question that you were a citizen at birth. But it did not say that you had to have both of them to be a citizen at birth, and it did not say (and it went on to say that it did not have to say) which of the two would be necessary.

Third, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor v Happersett case,(hence it would overturn Minor, if the Minor statement were actually a ruling, which it wasn't). And the Wong Kim Ark case both defined the term Natural Born as coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth and stated that the 14th Amendment requires that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a citizen at birth.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104726 Sep 1, 2012
U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The Venus
12 U.S.(8 Cranch) 253

==========

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.

Page 12 U. S. 289
...
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

[Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12...

Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 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.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104727 Sep 1, 2012
ta ta
;-)
ehancock

Arlington, MA

#104728 Sep 1, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
What then, in your opinion, is the reason for the fraudulent certificates?
If he was actually born in Hawaii, there would be no need for a fraudulent birth certificate.
Well said. He was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials and the Index Data and the birth notices in the newspapers all show. And as the witness who wrote home about the birth to a woman named Stanley to her father named Stanley also shows. And, the chance of Obama's mother actually traveling abroad without her husband (WND has proven that he was in Hawaii with a FOI Act request) late in pregnancy makes it a million to one chance that she was in a foreign country when Obama was born.

So Obama was born in Hawaii, and only birther "experts"---who have not shown that they are really experts and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial---say that there is anything wrong with Obama's birth certificate.
ehancock

Arlington, MA

#104729 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The Venus
12 U.S.(8 Cranch) 253
==========
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
Page 12 U. S. 289
...
As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
[Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12...
Vattel Book II Ch XIX § 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.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
There is absolutely no evidence that the Constitution used the Vattel definition of Natural Born Citizen. In fact, the phrase Natural Born Citizen did not appear in any English-language translation of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution was written. And Vattel is not referred to in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104730 Sep 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
What is sad, we taxpayers probably spent $10M on this investigation.
What is sad is Rouge is assuming without facts again.
ehancock

Arlington, MA

#104731 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
When foreign powers are allowed to interfere in what is STATE buisness...
We are no longer "one nation"...now are we?
The same oath also says a few things about LIBERTY and JUSTICE does it not?
You can't have it both ways.
Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?
Not only do foreign powers have no say...but Obama needs to mind his buisness as well. The constitution gives the Federal Govt. ZERO power in this matter.
If the Constitution doesn't give the federal govt. EXPLICIT power to weigh in on the matter....
Arizona can do whatever it wants, whenever they would like to do it. Period.
Constitution trumps pledge of alligance EVERY day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The oath quite clearly says INDIVISIBLE. There is no way around it.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#104732 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you think that Giuliani was going to laud Obama at the RNC? The dems will have their turn next week; They'll have touching stories or good mommas with dying kids too. It's all part of politics. I really believe, though, that democrats care a bit more. It's the same here.
Yep. Democrats care more.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-aborti...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fireworks fly in face-to-face Democratic presid... 23 min Synque 16
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr OzRitz 1,345,584
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Ari son of Anarchy 213,436
News Trump: 'I'm going all the way' 3 hr Patriot 281
News Not even Rubio can ignore Trump, GOP anger 3 hr Asp 158
News Expectations low as Obama, Ryan meet at last 18 hr spud 42
News Rand Paul to end presidential bid Thu Sheri 1
More from around the web