'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inkara1 said:
You're not debating. You're blathering and unwilling to consider the other side. My pants are clean, since I'm still young enough to be able to control my bowels. In any event, there's only so much "debating" I'm willing to do before the cost-benefit ratio skews too far into "not worth it" territory.

Allow me to share with you an anecdote about my ex-wife. On the second day of the first job I had when we were married, she called me at work to tell me someone had come and ransacked the apartment while she walked to the mailbox. Strangely enough, even though the TV had "fallen" on the floor, the downstairs neighbor, who hears everything, didn't hear the TV fall, nor did she hear anyone running up the stairs or any other noises like an apartment being ransacked. Also, the things that were messed up and torn up were a little too particular. The only fingerprints in the whole apartment belonged to her or to me. In any event, the evidence all pointed to her as the culprit, common sense pointed to her as the culprit, the authorities pointed to her as the culprit... yet somehow, I was supposed to forego all of that to satisfy her.

If you can't see why the preceding anecdote is relevant, then you're simply not qualified to have a serious debate on any subject.
Click to expand...

We do consider the other side. You expound your contentions quite well. We simply believe that all of the evidence is yet to be presented. You, on the other hand, are willing to accept the evidence currently presented as 100% sufficient.

What you have just written says "She said it wasn't her but I didn't believe her in the face of insufficient evidence to the contrary."

Now take that to the level of this debate. You believe those who say the document exists; but those same people are unwilling to present the best piece of evidence available. We simply say "There is insufficient evidence to the contrary."

Would a court accept the word of a forensic pathologist who testified "We have a full forensic report on file; but we are presenting to the court a copy which does not include all of the pertinent information because we don't feel that information is necessary for the court to see."?
 
MrBishop said:
Are you? The topic of McCain re: his birth came up once here (http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26649) , got 7 posts..most of them dismissing the issue as a non-issue..including Spike.
I wouldn't call that 'a huge issue', especially to leftists.

"All of a sudden" related to the whole timeline of Obama's attempt towards the Presidency... from initial consideration to final vote.

Off hand, I'd say that I'm paying more attention than warranted considering I don't live in the USA.
Click to expand...

So your retort "I don't recall seeing requests for McCain's BC, or Palin's fo that matter...Biden..anyone?" was purely rhetorical and you knew of this all along. Yet you stated quite clearly that you did not recall McCains BC being contested. Does that go to your credibility that you lied about that?
 
Dave said:
link

... For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Click to expand...

Gonz said:
Does that apply?
Click to expand...

That part about "five after the age of fourteen" is very germane to the debate. His mother was eighteen when she gave birth to Barack and 18-14 = 4.
 
Frodo said:
Note to fellow Conservatives. Ya'll need to drop this issue right now!! If you "win", McCain will still not be PotUS, BIDEN WILL!!

*Envisions the Gov from Blazing Saddles in the oval office*
Click to expand...

I understand that perfectly and it will not please me. What will please me is that the Supreme law of the Land will have been upheld and obeyed. Biden is an unwelcome consequence of a country based upon the laws.
 
Unless the electors vote for another candidate on Dec. 15th.........;)

After the 15th the Joey B. would fill the slot if PEBO couldn't......
 
My poor kid...he's being forced to read my hardcover collection of the Federalist Papers
 
jimpeel said:
So your retort "I don't recall seeing requests for McCain's BC, or Palin's fo that matter...Biden..anyone?" was purely rhetorical and you knew of this all along. Yet you stated quite clearly that you did not recall McCains BC being contested. Does that go to your credibility that you lied about that?
Click to expand...
Lied...nope. Forgot about it for good reason...yup. I found it through the search engine. The minimal attention it got when it was posted on here will kinda give you an idea of how 'important' that issue was...and the primary reason for my forgetting it.

The statement was "I don't recall" - which was and remains a TRUTH!

Have a nice day.
 
Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still pending? Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?
Click to expand...
 
Amendment XII



The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm........


It has been reported that the Obama family has been denied their request to move in to the Blair House before January 5th, the day before the scheduled affirmation of the Electoral College vote count.

The Blair House is essentially the White House’s guest house– it is located across the street– into which incoming presidents have traditionally been invited to move five days before January 20th inaugurals. The Obama’s made the reasonably seeming request that they be allowed to take up the residence early to enable their children to start school. The White House denied this request.

Evidently, it's just booked solid until next president’s traditional arrival date. So sorry.
 
:rainfrow:


Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time
Berg eligibility case set for conference Jan. 9


One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top