SCOTUS agrees to consider Obama's birth certificate...

[wmbwinn]

It can't be healthy for the SCOTUS to weigh in on the presidential campaign two cycles in a row...

http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/04/oba...case_heads.php

shows the disputed birth certificate...

[Flacolaco]

What a colossal waste of time. The man didn't...well he did scheme and connive his way there....but not like that.

[chumdawg]

I've had this discussion a couple times with some (other) tin-hat friends of mine. The issue is a non-starter. What would happen if it could actually be *proven* that Obama was born outside the US? It's simple. They would re-write the interpretation of what it means to be a "natural born citizen."

They are certainly NOT going to overturn the results of an election. I guess it's fun to talk about and consider issues such as this, but nothing is ever going to come from it. If you don't believe that, then you just don't have a good grasp of reality.

[wmbwinn]

Flaco, I would assume you were right. But, if the SCOTUS is considering it, does that mean there might be something to it?

I mean, think about it: What if Obama is constitutionally barred from being President? Who is President then? Is Biden President? Do we have to have another quick election cycle? What happens?

I have read about this before and always assumed that there was nothing to it. But... if the SCOTUS is going to consider it... what does that mean?

[wmbwinn]

Chum... what if???

[chumdawg]

I already answered your "what if?". If he wasn't born here, then they just re-write the rules. Not at all a big deal.

[u2sarajevo]

What does it mean? It means the highest court of this land is going to waste valuable time.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I already answered your "what if?". If he wasn't born here, then they just re-write the rules. Not at all a big deal.

It is not easy to re-write the constitution. It is easier to amend it. But, amending it is difficult also.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

What does it mean? It means the highest court of this land is going to waste valuable time.

If it a frivolous, empty claim, then the SCOTUS can end the claim. That is not a waste of time.

[dude1394]

Hmm..finding out if a guy is constitutionally ineligible to be president. I find it difficult to see that as a waste of time. If it turns out that he IS ineligible then he could have saved everyone a heck of a lot of trouble by proving it prior to the election.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm..finding out if a guy is constitutionally ineligible to be president. I find it difficult to see that as a waste of time. If it turns out that he IS ineligible then he could have saved everyone a heck of a lot of trouble by proving it prior to the election.

If Obama is found to be ineligible, then all hell is going to break loose. If Obama is ineligible, then someone's ass should be jailed for failing to properly vet his credentials ahead of time.

Do you realize the type of constitutional meltdown and national disaster it will be if he is found to be ineligible? Violence, mayhem, death, etc.

Hope he is legit. Hope this is the garbage that most of you think it is.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

It is not easy to re-write the constitution. It is easier to amend it. But, amending it is difficult also.

That's not what I am talking about. The constitutional rules on the president are very explicit, but the distinction that the candidate be a "natural born citizen" is up to interpretation (as is much of the Constitution) and have also changed over time.

All the Constitution cares about is that he was naturally born. We can re-define that if we wish. We have certainly redefined it before.

If you are looking for controversy, you aren't going to find it in the Constitution. His mamma was an American. If she had him abroad, we can call him "naturally born" if we decide we want to.

It's US Code you are talking about, not the US Constitution.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's not what I am talking about. The constitutional rules on the president are very explicit, but the distinction that the candidate be a "natural born citizen" is up to interpretation (as is much of the Constitution) and have also changed over time.

All the Constitution cares about is that he was naturally born. We can re-define that if we wish. We have certainly redefined it before.

If you are looking for controversy, you aren't going to find it in the Constitution. His mamma was an American. If she had him abroad, we can call him "naturally born" if we decide we want to.

It's US Code you are talking about, not the US Constitution.

You might be right. I sure as hell don't want the meltdown of society (and the constitution) that I think would occur if the SCOTUS declared Obama ineligible.

[chumdawg]

I could say many things, but I guess I'll just say that if you think this is something worth talking about--any more than the likelihood of a heretofore unknown asteroid smashing into our planet and killing us all is worth talking about--then you ought to try to find a crash course somewhere in "how the world works."

[dude1394]

I think technically Mac wasn't necessarily eligible since he wasn't born in the US but on I think I heard in the canal zone. So the interpretation of eligible is open.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think technically Mac wasn't necessarily eligible since he wasn't born in the US but on I think I heard in the canal zone. So the interpretation of eligible is open.

I haven't googled it, so I'm not sure, but wasn't Mac born on a US Military base in the canal zone? If so, I would think that's sovereign US territory, much like an embassy. Just my opinion...

[mary]

Not only has the certificate been verified by the Hawaii Department of Health, but Factcheck has even posted a picture of a 1961 birth announcement from a Honolulu newspaper.

[mary]

It can't be healthy for the SCOTUS to weigh in on the presidential campaign two cycles in a row...

They're not. They haven't even accepted the case, and most likely won't.

[u2sarajevo]

Thank goodness. I thought the SCOTUS had lost their marbles. Let the man lead us out of this mess.

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

[purplefrog]

While I don't believe Obama was appropriately vetted, the time for that has passed. We need to move forward and begin to solve the problems that face us. I'm glad this wasn't taken up by the SCOTUS.

Likewise, the Dem Congress has got to refrain from any investigations into the previous administration. There is no time for this nonsense.

On the other hand, I haven't heard anything regarding Palin's wardrobe budget lately.......

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

On the other hand, I haven't heard anything regarding Palin's wardrobe budget lately.......

...or anything about Palin at all...