Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He? (by Jim Marrs)

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Exactly, BH! I almost put this in my comment on page 11 (of which conveniently none of the detractors replied to). We did not elect Barak Obama. The people tell the electors who they want to be President, and then the electors go and decide who will be President!

I find it so odd that those who are claiming Constitutional foul don't seem to be really looking in to what the Constitution says or does, or somehow think Obama of all people isn't following the Constitution. They just assume that because of the natural born clause they can strip Obama of personal rights to satisfy their curiousity.

We don't even elect Obama! The electors do, and you know what, he has proved to the electors he is a natural born citizen! He has satisfied every Constitutional requirement to every party enumerated in the Constitution!

I'll say it again: The Constitution does not take sides. It gives the people power while protecting the individual. Obama has satisfied the electors (the government), which the Constitution enumerates as the one whom Obama must qualify to, he has satisfied the judicial branch (whose job it is to interpret law and the Constitution), and he has satisfied a vast majority of people who either did or did not vote for him.

A small group of detractors that cry foul with no proof or credible testimony to back up their claims does not constitute a Constitutional crisis.

If this point has been made, my apologies. I've stayed away from the issue, but have followed it. I've thought the same thing the whole time...

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;... "

Note the emphasis on the word 'or' and so I offer this...

From the American-Heritage Dictionary

or

CONJUNCTION:

1.
(1. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
(2. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
(3. Archaic Used to indicate the first of two alternatives, with the force of either or whether.
2. Used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression: acrophobia, or fear of great heights.
3. Used to indicate uncertainty or indefiniteness: two or three.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark

It’s meant to be read like this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

This was introduced because as you know, some of the Framers weren’t born in the United States and would have disqualified them from Office.

reply to post by danx


I am so sick of this.......Obama's integrity has been questioned on so many fronts and he just dodges the answers. He is always saying,
"I have no knowledge of this or that..........I never associated with this or that......" I am just wanting to see REAL proof of his birth certificate. Call the witness's from Kenya, family , etc.

Want to know what I really think? I think he is the "chosen" one and you either get on board with that or 'not'..........Look at the Governor in Illionios
I am sure he pissed Obama off and this is classic politics. Obama will distance himself, the Good govornor will get fried.......because he would not play ball and Obamas staff let out the info to remove him....simple politics.
speaknoevil.........did I say all that?

Originally posted by danx
reply to post by TravelerintheDark

 

It’s meant to be read like this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

This was introduced because as you know, some of the Framers weren’t born in the United States and would have disqualified them from Office.

I understand your point. But do you think the SCOTUS will see it that way? This will be about interpretation of the wording and I would be willing to put money on them determining that one can be either.

Not only that but the wording is not set-up to define that only for a certain period of time are Citizens of the United States qualified and then switching to only Natural Born Citizens. It says "at the time of the Adoption" which can just as easily be interpreted as from that time forward. There is no limitation there.

I personally just think that, agree or disagree, the case will be closed handily.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

What on earth has become of ATS??

When Factcheck.org is derided as a “Pro-Obama research site” and Joseph Farah's WND..which Publishes Jerome Corsi's books by the way ...is considered some legitimate source.

Has anyone looked into Joseph Farah (WND)? He is as extreme and un-credible as it gets!

He endorsed an article published on his website (WND) just two days after 9-11 that stated “it was God punishing America for it's moral depravity”. He encouraged a re-instituting of the "Hollywood Blacklist" of the 50's for anyone speaking out against President Bush. He literally advocates the killing of adulterers!

Though you folks take his unsourced, unsubstantiated articles as gospel while disregarding the entirety of the rest of available information as “Left Leaning liberal MSM”

WND, Israelli Insider, Corsi... you gobble down this drivel with a spoon.

Apparently reality has a Liberal, Left wing Bias.

Obama has not responded to these inquiries as if they are legitimate, because those asking have proven consistently and repeatedly that they do not care about the truth. He has provided as much as if not more proof of his citizenship than any other candidate he ran against and any other candidate in history.

NEVER has a presidential candidate in history been treated with such utter disdain masked as patriotism. Never has a presidential candidate endured such a vile campaign of insuation and character attacks.

If anyone wants to examine a conspiracy...google the sources of this garbage that you consume so readily. Look closer at WND, Israelli Insider and Corsi and there owners and backers...uncredible, vile folks who would claim anything for the sake of agenda.

I have watched so many noble posters respond calmly and rationally to these attacks...all disregarded and debased by those with Agenda.

In the grand tradition of McCarthy you folks don the mask of patriotism while quietly indulging your basest prejudices and agenda.

Best wishes on your which hunt.

My respect for ATS as a place for legitimate and credible debate has eroded to a critical level and I wish you folks the best that life has to offer.

Originally posted by NGC2736
This is not a matter of guilt or innocence. This is a matter of keeping the faith between the elected and those casting votes. It is the about loving our nation, and wanting to ensure that the honor that is due to her people remain in the forefront. It is the duty, stated or not, that the presidency ought not be gained by any form of chicanery.

And the first thing he did when this came up was to post his Certification (the information on which comes directly from the vault Certificate) on the web for the entire world to see.

We have a member here on ATS, born in Hawaii, who sent away for a birth certificate and received a Certification EXACTLY like the one Obama posted.

How many times does he have to prove it? How far does he have to reach to prove it to the doubters and detractors? If he DID get an actual photocopy of his vault Certificate and posted it, how many "Polariks" would insist it'a a fake?

Why is it that HE must "keep the faith", when the people are not willing to have faith in him? He has proven to be a man of integrity. He has shown his Certification to the world, in the only way that he could, but we simply refuse to believe it.

Why don't you believe it?

If there is any doubt, then it behooves Mr. Obama to take every possible step, to assure the public to have confidence in his coming administration.

There will ALWAYS be doubt. How far should he go BEYOND what any other presidential candidate has ever been required or even asked to do to prove to us that he is eligible?

Yes, there's no requirement that a president elect prove this to we the people. But in a failure to do so, the seeds of discontent are sown.

Failure? He can show the people his documentation, but he cannot make them believe... There is NO credible evidence that his certification is fake, but people swarm like vultures to cast aspersions on his character and integrity. He has not failed to prove anything. It is the people who have failed to believe what is right in front of their eyes.

Hey Danx, good to see you here again.

Thanks for keeping it REAL-ly logical.

A cool level head is always appreciated.

exactly what ive been pulling my hair out for........This whole thing smells worse than Dick Cheney's thrown. Why do people take the "good word" of a state government? This is going to destroy our country if it gets out and hes still in office....thats why i want it resolved NOW!

Thanks for the great content!

***KUDOS***

reply to post by speaknoevil07

I understand your frustration, but we’d be in the very same situation if McCain had won.

As I’ve said before, this isn’t something to be blamed on the candidates, it’s the system that is flawed, that allows non-“natural born” citizens to run for Office.

I will quote you a passage from Wrotnowski’s case (the next to be distributed for conference in the Supreme Court):

On approximately October 16, Applicant contacted the Respondent-Secretary of State's office and inquired as to what steps the Secretary of State had or had not taken to determine the eligibility of the Presidential candidates. On Oct. 17, a counselor from the Respondent's office, Mr. Ramos, phoned Applicant back and said, "It's not our job" to examine the eligibility of the candidates.

edit: typo



[edit on 10-12-2008 by danx]

He has paid his taxes all his life, what more do you want? That alone should qualify him as a citizen!Next you will want to know what pain killer's, if any his Mother used in childbirth?
Just let him get on with the job! Your constitution is what is stringing it out until january as it is!

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
I understand your point. But do you think the SCOTUS will see it that way? This will be about interpretation of the wording and I would be willing to put money on them determining that one can be either.

If it’d be any other way then Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madeleine Albright and others, who are US citizens, could run for President and they can’t.



[edit on 10-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
I understand your point. But do you think the SCOTUS will see it that way? This will be about interpretation of the wording and I would be willing to put money on them determining that one can be either.

If it’d be any other way then Arnold Schwarzenegger, Madeleine Albright and others, who are US citizens, could run for President and they can’t.



[edit on 10-12-2008 by danx]

Not yet.

How about a new conspiracy? That this whole debacle was smoke to allow such a determination to be made, that Obama will be declared a Natural Born Citizen but that either is eligable.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Originally posted by happinness
That alone should qualify him as a citizen!

No one is disputing that Obama, or McCain, are US citizens. Well, some crazies are contesting it, but we can disregard them.

What some people are questioning is if they are “natural born” citizens. Being a citizen and a “natural born” citizen are not the same thing.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Not yet.

Because no Constitutional Amendment has been approved, but yes there were attempts to do so.

But just the mere fact that Constitutional Amendment would be required, should tell you that the Constitution as is doesn’t allow naturalized US citizens to hold Office.

edit: added link



[edit on 10-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Not yet.

Because no Constitutional Amendment has been approved, but yes there were attempts to do so.

But just the mere fact that Constitutional Amendment would be required, should tell you that the Constitution as is doesn’t allow naturalized US citizens to hold Office.

I think you missed my point. There doesn't need to be an amendment if the Supreme Court determines that the wording already allows for such by interpretation. My whole point is that this will boil down to interpretation. Much like other Constitutional challenges.

They didn't write an amendment for Larry Flynt, but rather determined that it was within the interpretation of the First Amendment already.

But I have no reason to argue this. I made my point and time will tell if it bears out.

Besides, I could be wrong. It just looks clear to me.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
I think you missed my point. There doesn't need to be an amendment if the Supreme Court determines that the wording already allows for such by interpretation.

AH! I thought you were still talking about the “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.

Yes, if the Supreme Court would hear one of these cases, they would have to at least indirectly say what “natural born” means by ruling if it applied to Obama or McCain’s situation, and hopefully, addressing it directly and reveal what (their) definition is, setting a precedent by doing so.

Please define 'Natural born'? My defination meant he was born on US soil as oppossed to Kenyan, hence 'natural born'. His first breath being American air?

The first tuely international citizen, now President. How cool is that?
I would worry if Arnie got anywhere!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by happinness]