THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[foxpaws]

Scalia I believe uses Vattel regarding foreign trade laws – he is quick to state foreign laws and ideals when he needs them to back his opinion – but usually demeans them when dealing with precedent regarding our constitution. I wonder if he used Vattel for Heller when he wrote the decision of the court – I’ll have to check.

And if you are big into Vattel – one of my favorites of his…
"We ought to reject every interpretation that leads to an absurdity."

It appears that the founding fathers never broached the subject of ‘natural born citizen’. I often think that when they left things up to interpretation – they really left things up to interpretation. They were bright men, who knew that changing circumstances and even with the passing of time things would need to be reviewed in the constitution, and addressed either with amendments or with enactments of law. They get very specific with certain things – separation of power for instance – but, remain rather vague in others.

So, if the court reviews it – it will be probably interpreting a section of the constitution whose time has come to be analyzed. If not, and the court allows Obama to be sworn in – then, as you said Bryan, they have spoken with their silence. That at this time, that part of the constitution, and the laws that have been enacted to define it, can stand as is without review. Or, at least the case brought up is the wrong case to use to review the law.

Often that is the problem - wrong case, wrong time. Many times people who want the court to review something wait for years for the right case. They then groom the case so it can rise properly thought the courts. They also look for timing - so that the court's make-up at the time their case gets presented will have the split they want.

I actually would be quite happy if the electoral college just threw caution to the wind and voted in Hillary – but, that won’t be happening…

I like to be on top too

 

[shagdrum]

I often think that when they left things up to interpretation – they really left things up to interpretation.

That is a platitude based on equivocation...

The Framers never put anything in the constitution about interpretation or even judicial review. The power of judicial review came by precedent from the case of Marbury v. Madison. It is viewed as an "implied" power...

Judicial review and interpretation are not necessarily the same thing. Judicial review is more limited and narrow in scope. Interpretation (especially as you seem to be talking about it) allows the SCOTUS to broadly dictate what the Constitution means...

And, do you really wanna dog Scalia with me?

 

[foxpaws]

Jefferson hated the idea of judicial review – and was quite vocal in his disappointment in Marbury vs Madison.

But, Adams, who appointed John Marshall, was happy about the turn of events. The actual outcome of Marbury vs Madison was that the court was allowed to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional—the power of judicial review. He accomplished this in such a way that Jefferson could not complain, even though Jefferson opposed the idea of judicial review.

However, it is important to note that this was a very specific case, regarding a very specific point of law. Jefferson’s viewpoint regarding this in this quote…

"In the construction of a law, even in judiciary cases of meum et tuum, where the opposite parties have a right and counterright in the very words of the law, the Judge considers the intention of the lawgiver as his true guide, and gives to all the parts and expressions of the law, that meaning which will effect, instead of defeating, its intention.

However, regarding the public interest regarding the greater good of the country – Jefferson was far more interested in a freer interpretation of the law rather than the specifics of the law…
The last part of Jefferson’s same quote…

But in laws merely executive, where no private right stands in the way, and the public object is the interest of all, a much freer scope of construction, in favor of the intention of the law, ought to be taken, and ingenuity ever should be exercised in devising constructions which may save to the public the benefit of the law. Its intention is the important thing: the means of attaining it quite subordinate."

So, in this case – the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the constitution – does this address an executive (public) right or a private right? Obviously an executive (public) right. So shouldn’t the public interest be placed first – with a more ‘free’ interpretation of the law taking precedent? And what is the public interest here?

Since the chance that the court will actually look at this case is probably miniscule – we won’t need to worry about me dogging Scalia… This time… But, remember I do like to be on top...

 

[MonsterMark]

And what is the public interest here?

The public interest would be to not allow a fraudulent candidate to take the highest office in the land, not matter what results from that action, (riots, etc).

worry about me dogging Scalia… But, remember I do like to be on top...

dogging....That would be in front from my perspective.

Here this might help you with your positions.

 

[Marcus]

I highly recommend this 1988 article from the Yale Law Journal. Since it's 20 years old, it isn't polluted with one-sided arguments one way or the other regarding Obama. It brings up some fascinating points I suspect some of us have never considered.

It's a fairly short read if you ignore the footnotes. Oh, and it's scanned, not text, so hard to quote from.

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

 

[foxpaws]

Ah Marcus - now if you can only breath through your ears... you would be perfect....

And - Bryan who knew - 6 positions? wow - I am impressed...

 

[shagdrum]

However, regarding the public interest regarding the greater good of the country – Jefferson was far more interested in a freer interpretation of the law rather than the specifics of the law…
The last part of Jefferson’s same quote…

But in laws merely executive, where no private right stands in the way, and the public object is the interest of all, a much freer scope of construction, in favor of the intention of the law, ought to be taken, and ingenuity ever should be exercised in devising constructions which may save to the public the benefit of the law. Its intention is the important thing: the means of attaining it quite subordinate."​

You are stretching quite a bit here. The parts I highlighted and underlined demonstrate that.

The primary focus, when it comes to judicial review, according to the Jefferson quote you cite, is clearly in supporting the idea of trying to assertain the intention of the law [as written]. The level of scrutiny is simply greater when it comes to certain cases; but the overriding view is on being consistent with the intention of the law.

The difference between the two approaches is that of original meaning and original intent. It is not originalism and a more "living constitution" approach (as you imply when you say "freer interpretation). There is no "freer" interpretation allowed under Jefferson's quote. The overriding concern is clearly the original intent of the law. Everything else is secondary.

So, in this case – the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the constitution – does this address an executive (public) right or a private right? Obviously an executive (public) right. So shouldn’t the public interest be placed first – with a more ‘free’ interpretation of the law taking precedent? And what is the public interest here?
[/QUOTE]

There is no "public right" that can be taken from Jefferson's quote. He said "public object with the interest to all". public interest is very different from "public right". And the idea that the "public interest should be placed first" is not at all supported by the quote you cite. He makes it abundantly clear that the intention of the law is what takes precedent when it comes to judicial review, IN ALL CASES!!!

Here are a few quotes from Jefferson you may be interested in...

 

[shagdrum]

I highly recommend this 1988 article from the Yale Law Journal. Since it's 20 years old, it isn't polluted with one-sided arguments one way or the other regarding Obama. It brings up some fascinating points I suspect some of us have never considered.

It's a fairly short read if you ignore the footnotes. Oh, and it's scanned, not text, so hard to quote from.

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

Weel, I just skimmed part of that article, but it is clear that he is making some broad assumptions there that are clearly not true (and not really backed up by his evidence).

He asserts this in the second line of the article:

It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born"​

In the footnotes, he gives the snipet from the source that he cites in making that claim. that source basically cites the principle of jus soli and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment because it "confirmed this birthright citizenship, and guaranteed it's application to groups that had previously been excluded, such as desendants of former slaves."

For clarification, jus soli means birthright citizenship and, "is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the related state.

This is as opposed to the idea of Jus sanguinis, which, "is a social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state."

First, if Mr. Pryor's assumptions (based on the points in his source) were correct then a few things would not be true:

• McCain would not be eligible for president
• The part of the U.S. code that foxpaws cited in post #244 of this thread would be unnecessary and unconstitutional.
• Anyone born to U.S. citizens on foreign soil would not be considered a natural born citizen.

In fact, Mr. Pryor is making a baseless assumption when he states that the law that determines natural born status is "settled". The only place that the idea of "natural born citizen" is mentioned in any of the founding document is with regard to eligibility to be president. So that idea is not necessarily the same as "native-born". He is assuming a broad definition of "natural born" here that is not clearly supported by constitutional law, as he claims.

It is clear the idea of native born citizenship is not only based on jus soli, but is in fact a unique combination of both jus soli and jus sanguinis. The U.S. law that foxpaws cites, supports that view.

Also, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 only broadly defines citizenship. It says absoultely nothing about natural born status. It doesn't even say anything about what qualifies as a "naturalized citizen"; only that if someone is nationalized, then they are a U.S. citizen. Pryor is reading more from the 14th Amendment, Section 1 then is actually there. Here is what it says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

So the author assumes an unconstitutionally broad definition of "natural born" right off the bat for the article.

But he does acknowledge the issue of natural born status in regards to one parent being an alien and one an American. He points out that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, citizenship of a child was dependant upon the citizenship and residency of the father (further suggesting it is a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

He points out that many constitutional scholars, "conclude that a class of citizens should be considered natural born today only if they would have been considered natural-born citizens under the law in effect at the time of the framing of the Constitution." If that is the case, then Obama would not be eligible because he father was not a U.S. citizen.

The author then premises the article with the idea that, "the natural-born citizen clause can only be properly understood if we appreciate the interplay of that clause with the naturalization powers clause of article 1 as modified by section one of the Fourteenth Amendment.

naturalization clause of article 1:

Congress shall have the power [to] establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization​

The whole premise of his article is wrong! The naturalization clause in no way effects the legal definition of natural born status. And the 14th Amendment doesn't modify the naturalization clause. It only states that naturalized citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and extended the protection of rights inherent in the Constitution.

As this article (which has some flaws, IMO) points out:

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.​

So the whole idea that the naturalization clause (through modification by the 14th Amendment) somehow says anything about "natural born status" is logically absurd.

Overall, though, this article does have some good points. It trys to make more out of them then it logically can, but is does have some relevant points for this discussion. Thanks for posting it, Marcus.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - I did state that Jefferson hated the idea of judicial review – and was quite vocal in his disappointment in Marbury vs Madison. Here are lots of quotes just on the Marbury case. He did work to have the constitution very closely adhered to, as shown the great quotes you have found at the Jefferson library site. One of my favorite sites - I have used this site when we were arguing freedom of religion. Wander around it - it is a great place.

However, in many areas, where it came to the broader rights Jefferson usually erred on the side of greater freedom. In the second half of the quote that I used - he feels that a a much freer scope of construction, in favor of the intention of the law, ought to be taken, and ingenuity ever should be exercised

So - the 'freer scope of construction" ought to be taken "in favor of the intention of law". That is how that sentence is read.

He also looks at how the law could be re-constructed. By stating that "ingenuity should be exercised" (which means creative imagination) Jefferson is looking at how people could devise "constructions which may save to the public the benefit of the law."

Jefferson thought that in the case where greater good of the public that the law should be looked at with the 'intention' of the law - rather than the actual 'rule' of the law. The last sentence "Its intention is the important thing: the means of attaining it quite subordinate." goes to that point.

So, what is the intention of the natural born clause - it obviously addresses the allegiance of the candidate. Does Obama show allegiance to Britain? That is the intent of the law - to make sure that the President has allegiance to only the United States.

"Shall we mold our citizens to the law, or the law to our citizens? And in solving this question their peculiar character is an element not to be neglected." --Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams, 1817. ME 15:145

 

[cammerfe]

I have grave doubts regarding Obama's allegiance to the US. I believe his only allegiance is to power---his own power. And I point to his arising from the corrupt Chicago 'machine' as the basis for my comment.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

...in many areas, where it came to the broader rights Jefferson usually erred on the side of greater freedom.

Not as much as you seem to think. Every quote of him saying anything like that is always tempered with it being based on the intention of the law. You don't get to redefine the intention as you see fit. You have to go by what the Framers originally ment it to be. That would be a more originalist interpretation of some sort, as opposed to a the whole idea of a "living constitution" (Where ideas like substantive rights come from). The court should not have the power to re-interpret the constitution. There can be no doubt that Jefferson would not support an exceedingly loose interpretation standard that you seem to be suggesting. As you noted he had a problem with the idea of judicial review as established in Marbury v. Madison. If he had a problem with that very limited role in interpreting the constitution as being too much power and influence, there can be no question that he would not support an even more loose interpretation standard.

He also looks at how the law could be re-constructed. By stating that "ingenuity should be exercised" (which means creative imagination) Jefferson is looking at how people could devise "constructions which may save to the public the benefit of the law."

He still puts limits on the use of that ingenuity (not the same thing as cleverness; one can still be honest and one is inherently self-serving). Basically, in a questionable issue were the constitution is unclear, the court should err on the side of giving the public the benefit of law.

But that doesn't mean you can use ingenuity to dishonestly make it unclear. That leads to a disregard for the law, the constitution becomes meaningless and we cease to be a nation of laws.

Jefferson thought that in the case where greater good of the public that the law should be looked at with the 'intention' of the law - rather than the actual 'rule' of the law. The last sentence "Its intention is the important thing: the means of attaining it quite subordinate." goes to that point.

No... you are twisting his words again. He never said anything about "intention of law" vs. "rule of law". You are distorting...

So, what is the intention of the natural born clause - it obviously addresses the allegiance of the candidate. Does Obama show allegiance to Britain? That is the intent of the law - to make sure that the President has allegiance to only the United States.

Sorry, you don't get to define the intention of the natural born clause. It is what it is. We have the constitution, and historical precedent (among other things) to determine what the Framers intended it to be as well as how it has been seen throughout history.

To try and redefine the intention of the natural born clause and broadly or narrowly, as specific or as vauge as you see fit to support your arguement is exceedingly dishonest and shows the problem with the interpretation standard you support, and distort Jefferson's words to support.

 

[MonsterMark]

Does Obama show allegiance to Britain? That is the intent of the law - to make sure that the President has allegiance to only the United States.

Looks like you banged your head too hard on the headboard with this comment.

Obama's father was Kenyan right? A British colony at the time right?

No wonder Obama campaigned for the murderous cousin Odinga and gave him almost $1,000,000 for Odinga's election attempt. Obama freely campaigned on behalf of Odinga.

I would say that pretty clearly shows Obama's 'dual' allegiance and why the framers wrote the Article the way they did.

Do yourself a favor, don't be a lawyer. You just convicted your own client on the stand.

Oh,.... and what was Odinga's campaign slogan??? CHANGE! LMAO.....

Hope the swelling goes down.

 

[TheDude]

Obama's father was Kenyan right? A British colony at the time right?

No wonder Obama campaigned for the murderous cousin Odinga and gave him almost $1,000,000 for Odinga's election attempt. Obama freely campaigned on behalf of Odinga.

I would say that pretty clearly shows Obama's 'dual' allegiance and why the framers wrote the Article the way they did.

And his mother was an American and he was born in a U.S. State.

American Parent + Born In America = Natural Born Citizen ie a 'citizen from birth', according to the Hamilton draft, from the article that Marcus posted.

His support of someone is no basis to claim "ah, he has dual alliances!"

Seriously, the people voted; Obama won, let it go. Being a sore loser won't solve a thing.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - Ms Jill Pyror - don't just assume sex...

Well, assuming sex - back to the headboard Bryan...

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - Ms Jill Pyror - don't just assume sex...

Opps!

 

[MonsterMark]

Seriously, the people voted.

Seriously. 99.9% of the people didn't even know this was an issue and over 50% voted for a guy they knew nothing about. Oh, ya, I forgot, his qualification was that he claimed to be black. Obama tosses his white grandparents who raised him and it doesn't bother you.

Obama is the kind of guy who pisses on your back and tells you its raining.

Seriously, the people voted; Obama won, let it go. Being a sore loser won't solve a thing.

Has nothing to do with being a sore loser but you'll never figure that out anyway.

 

[shagdrum]

American Parent + Born In America = Natural Born Citizen ie a 'citizen from birth', according to the Hamilton draft, from the article that Marcus posted.

"Natural Born Citizen" does not mean simply a "citizen from birth". The term "natural born citizen" is a very distinct concept.

Depending on the law applicable to determine natural born status;

American father with a kid born on American soil = natural born citizen

or​

American parents and born on American soil = natural born citizen​

It is...questionable if Obama's mother was eligible to birth an american citizen at the time, given Obama's actions (which suggest fraud). All he needs to do is release his birth cirtificate.

The Hamilton thing is a bit of a red herring ment to distort and obfuscate to allow for his assumptions I pointed out earlier. It is not in anyway binding or telling of what the framers thought the term "natural born" ment. It was simply an expression of his ideas, hence the preface of the letter with this:

On June 18, a little over a month before Jay's letter, Alexander Hamilton submitted a "sketch of a plan of government which 'was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose ... in ... future discussion.'​

It was simply his ideas on the thing, and it in no way talks about what a "natural born citizen" is defined as. It only states the following...

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.​

The author then claims:,

"Hamilton's draft, which appears to be an early version of the natural-born citizen clause, contains two distinct ideas: first, that those currently citizens will not be excluded from presidential eligibility, and second, that the President must be born a citizen. Without the modifier "natural," the essence of the text is apparent: The President need not be native born, but must be a citizen from birth.​

The author assumes that the idea of "natural born citizen" is being discussed when it is unclear, at best, if that is the case. No where in the Hamilton's letter is the term "natural born" ever used.

The fact that this draft was modified to include the term "natural born" instead of what Hamilton wrote makes it rather clear that the Framers did not view Hamilton's draft as being an early version of the "natural born clause". Otherwise, they would not have modified it. That modification (and the action of making it) which changes Hamilton's draft is reflective of what the Framers thought and what they felt were the shortcomings in Hamilton's draft.

Again, the 14th amendment, and the naturalization powers of the legislature in the U.S. Constitution do not in any way determine (or allow for congress to determine) who is a natural born citizen. All they allow for is to show in what instances (or allow Congress to determine in what instances) birthright citizenship is not present and a person needs to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

As this article from 2005 shows, in the words of the man wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, the amendment was never ment to allow for citizenship to be granted simply by being born on American soil:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.​

As this article points out there is general agreement (if not somewhat vague) on what a "natural born citizen" is; specifically, "Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen.'"

So, as the 14th amendment was understood when it was written, someone born to american parents was automatically a citizen by birthright. But it is questionable weather that makes them a "natural born citizen", or if there are more qualifications on top of that. Since the 14th Amendment doesn't even mention the phrase "natural born citizen", it is unclear at best weather that determines who qualifies as a natural born citizen.

Even if the 14th amendment is the standard, it is unclear weather Obama would qualify as a natural born citizen.

Really, this can all be answered simply if Obama releases his birth cirtificate.

 

[TheDude]

Seriously. 99.9% of the people didn't even know this was an issue and over 50% voted for a guy they knew nothing about. Oh, ya, I forgot, his qualification was that he claimed to be black. Obama tosses his white grandparents who raised him and it doesn't bother you.

Obama is the kind of guy who pisses on your back and tells you its raining.


Has nothing to do with being a sore loser but you'll never figure that out anyway.

It's still their vote and they can cast it any which way they like, ignorance or not. He is part Negro, and he can identify himself any which way he likes, that's his problem.

Yeah, it does, considering the ongoing Obama theories and why he isn't eligible for president.

 

[foxpaws]

Not as much as you seem to think. Every quote of him saying anything like that is always tempered with it being based on the intention of the law. You don't get to redefine the intention as you see fit. You have to go by what the Framers originally meant it to be.

Intention…
Intention simply signifies a course of action that one proposes to follow… If that road no longer makes sense – or even no longer exists – what do you do – you do what the framers intended, within the framework allowed.

Did Jefferson believe in a living constitution? No, I don’t think he did, but he was frustrated with the idea that it was cast in stone, which was Madison’s point of view. In fact Madison even questioned the necessity of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson wrote Madison many times regarding the Bill of Rights…
“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, & kept strictly to their own department merits great confidence for their learning & integrity.” Note that Jefferson was anxious to have the legal check of this document put into the Judicial branch, that having the opportunity to have ongoing review was important to him.

Toward the end of Jefferson’s life he often commented on the fact that the amendment policy might take too long – that the avenue of change seemed to be a dead end.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Sorry, you don't get to define the intention of the natural born clause. It is what it is. We have the constitution, and historical precedent (among other things) to determine what the Framers intended it to be as well as how it has been seen throughout history.

So, the constitution states ‘natural born citizen’ regarding the presidency. At the time of the ratification it appears that common usage of that term meant only born on U.S. soil. What do you believe the ‘intent’ of the law was then? No law since has redefined, or clarified it anymore than that. Nor did the framers comment on that section of law. So - truly define it according to the 'intent' of the framers - other quotes, other law that was in effect at the time.

Really, this can all be answered simply if Obama releases his birth certificate.

So, Shag, who should he release it to? His campaign has released COLB to factcheck.org and PolitiFact. No other creditable news source has asked for it to this point. The courts haven't asked for it. Wackos have asked for it (Berg et.al.), but I certainly once again don't blame the campaign for not releasing it to them. I am sure they won't be releasing it to Bryan or you. So, without being asked for it by creditable sources, or the courts, and already releasing it to two political fact checking organizations, what avenues should they be looking at?

So Bryan, sorry, I forgot that for every spaghetti strand that dead ends regarding Obama and his impending presidency, more spaghetti strands will be added to the plate. What are you afraid of? That is what conspiracy theory is built on, fear. It isn’t the real fear of undermining of the constitution (a quick glance at old posts shows that you were in favor of the patriot act). So, is it because he is black? Because he is a liberal? What is the real fear at work beneath all the conspiracy theories? All of the grasping at straws shows a definite fear of ... the unknown? What is the monster that is under your bed at night?

 

[TheDude]

Not sure about Politifact, but FactCheck was deemed unrealiable (ie part of the conspriracy) when they gave the okay to the Obama COLB. See how it works.

 

[MonsterMark]

Obama claims in his memoir 'Dreams from my Father' that he has in his possession his birth certificate. So why didn't he publish the original. Why did he need to get a COLB that has never been authenticated by ANY REPUTABLE news agency.

The Obama campaign said they originally blanked out his Crt # in order to protect unlawful enter into the Hawaiian records.

Then the Obama people said they released the 'original' birth certificate to everyone.

The emperor's clothes are coming off rather quickly.

Must See... lmao
YouTube - Produce the Dog Gone Birth Certificate

 

[MonsterMark]

Not sure about Politifact, but FactCheck was deemed unrealiable (ie part of the conspriracy) when they gave the okay to the Obama COLB. See how it works.

Dude, you need to go back in time and take a look at how FactCheck got their hands on it in the first place.

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah, it does, considering the ongoing Obama theories and why he isn't eligible for president.

I always marvel at your inhuman ability to apparently read minds and authoritatively declare the intention of those with opinions you disagree with when there is no evidence to support your view.

Not sure about Politifact, but FactCheck was deemed unrealiable (ie part of the conspriracy) when they gave the okay to the Obama COLB. See how it works.

What is interesting is how you consistently and habitually make irrational arguments. When you disagree with someone on this forum, and the debate you, it never takes very long before you drag it down to the level of irrelevant and irrational personal attacks (like you are doing here). Moe often then not, it also involves oversimplifying and/or mischaracterizing their arguments and/or actions (again, as you are doing here).

But then, we shouldn't expect any rationality, decency or civility in any argument and/or comment from you, right?

 

[TheDude]

I always marvel at your inhuman ability to apparently read minds and authoritatively declare the intention of those with opinions you disagree with when there is no evidence to support your view.


What is interesting is how you consistently and habitually make irrational arguments. When you disagree with someone on this forum, and the debate you, it never takes very long before you drag it down to the level of irrelevant and irrational personal attacks (like you are doing here). Moe often then not, it also involves oversimplifying and/or mischaracterizing their arguments and/or actions (again, as you are doing here).

But then, we shouldn't expect any rationality, decency or civility in any argument and/or comment from you, right?

Thank you, but it isn't inhuman, just look at the pattern; once this one is kicked to the curb like the others, something else will surface.

Quit your whining, if you weren't so busy trying to sound like the know-it-all college boy, you'd realize I'm not attacking on a personal level. On the other hand, you are, yet again, with those remarks about me.

Anyhow, who should Obama release his COLB too now?

 

[Calabrio]

Thank you, but it isn't inhuman, just look at the pattern; once this one is kicked to the curb like the others, something else will surface.

Of course.
But let's clarify... there are stupid things that "surface" or become a distraction, and there there are issues that are substantive that generate interest. The issue of eligibility is a valid issue and it should be resolved, either by the court taking the case or not. It's really not kook stuff. And in an honest debate, this question shouldn't have been stifled prior to the election.

It's also very reasonable to note that a lot of questions surrounding Obama were not addressed during the campaign. The fact that he was elected doesn't mean that all past issued were resolved and no longer issues of consequence either.

I can say sincerely that I hope there are no skeleton's in his closet. That Obama did artfully game the Democrat system to ascend to power and despite this, is a man of honor and integrity who will quickly grow into the awesome responsibilities of the office he has been elected to.

But that doesn't mean him or the people around him get a pass and can continue to avoid scrutiny.

Anyhow, who should Obama release his COLB too now?

Just to make sure we're still on the same page, don't you think the entire COLB/birth certificate stuff is odd? Why is he so strangely elusive concerning this issue? I don't have an answer for this.

And note- I'm NOT a person who thinks he was born in Kenya.

I'm almost inclined to say he's just leaving that out there to keep the fringes on a wild goose chase, too busy to confront him on or with anything of substance...