Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

[Pastor Larry]

The issue is not dragging on for him.

Then why is it in the news? If he had provided the proof, this would have been over a long time ago. It is a tremendous failure of leadership.

He is running the nation which is what the president does.

He is doing a pretty poor job of that too.

No, it doesn't.

But it should.

I guess we're just lucky the ones you site are not on the supreme court or they would violate Obama civil rights by forcing him to adhere to a different standard than the other 42.

That you continue to make this a civil rights/race issue is embarrassing even by the low standards of this forum. Stop it. It has nothing to do with race which has been objectively proven by the fact that Jackson and Keyes were not challenge, and McCain was.

That would be sad day for America and would mean anytime someone doubts any legal document you provide, it would then become your burden to prove them wrong instead of their burden to prove what you provided is not valid.

There were substantial arguments that the document provided to the public was not authentic. That should have been answered clearly, and it wasn't.

Again, I don't think his citizenship is a valid issue. But he has been extremely poor in addressing the matter, and that lies on him.

Stop making it a race issue. That's silly.

 

[LeBuick]

There were substantial arguments that the document provided to the public was not authentic. That should have been answered clearly, and it wasn't.

Again, I don't think his citizenship is a valid issue. But he has been extremely poor in addressing the matter, and that lies on him..

Now you peeled back the layers and got to the root of the problem, the question is why were the documents he provided questioned? He provided a standard certified copy from the state of HI which was also validated by HI officials.

Ok, I will take the warning and layoff race but Keys and Jackson were not viable threats and McCain BC was not questioned. His was a matter of technicality which caused him to have to prove nothing, just courts to render a decision regarding constitutional law.

 

[EdSutton]

FTR. the "proof needed to get on the ballot" is an undefinable phrase, simply because the requirements "to get on the ballot" actually vary from state to state.

Secondly, more than one major and serious candidate and/or realistically potential electee in the past have been questioned as to whether or not they actually "fulfilled" this constitutional mandate, including Sens. McCain, Goldwater, Weicker and Gov. George Romney, in my own lifetime, and VP and President Chester A. Arthur, and Pres. Andrew Jackson in the 19th Century, I believe.

Finally, the so-called "dual-citizenship" objection is completely bogus, on the face. What does that have to do with anything? One born in the United States is automatically a citizen, unless the families expressly refuse this designation, if I recall correctly. One can certainly hold "dual citizenship, or perhaps more than that, even, but that does not mean holding to only "partial citizenship' in the sense of 'national citizenship', anywhere.

There is no such thing as partial citizenship, anywhere - well, that is apart from our own US mongrel designation of "US Nationals" for those born "on American soil" in the territory of American Samoa and Swains Island, which designation I personally believe ought to be permanently "ash-canned" as the Neanderthalic idea that it is.

If those born in the 50 states, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, the former US Canal Zone, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands, or to a resident of an embassy of the United States, all of which locations are (or were) rightly considered as "American soil" and that is not to even mention those born to the families of the American Military when stationed outside the United States, or those who for whatever reason are otherwise citizens but are located outside the United States are citizens, then it's far beyond high time that the US Congress repealed this last vestige of colonialism once and for all, and the American Samoans are given full citizenship, just as anyone else who is born on "US soil"!

FTR, to my knowledge, I have never met, let alone know, the first resident of or one born in the Territory of American Samoa, so in every possible known sense, "I do not have any dog in this particular fight!"

Ed

 

[targus]

What is the difference between required proof and same proof when the outcome is the same? He provided what was required to get his name on the ballot. That is the same as the other 42 provided, the required proof to get their name on the ballot.

So you have decided to change your statement have you?

You are no longer saying that Obama provided exactly the same as the other 42.

Now you have changed it to he provided what was required to get his name on the ballot.

What was required of him by the election committee?

Since you do not know what was required you do not know that Obama was required to show proof of citizenship.

Citizenship is a Constitutional requirement.

Why doesn't the election committee submit their documentation and end the speculation?

 

[LeBuick]

So you have decided to change your statement have you?

You are no longer saying that Obama provided exactly the same as the other 42.

No, I was trying to see how the hair was split because same and required. I didn't change anything.

Since you do not know what was required you do not know that Obama was required to show proof of citizenship.

Citizenship is a Constitutional requirement.

Why doesn't the election committee submit their documentation and end the speculation?

So since we feel so strongly about citizenship and its constitutional requirement, shouldn't we have felt this way with the other 42 presidents or do we suddenly worry about this part of the constitution when the president looks different than the rest? What makes us question his citizenship and not worry this much about the citizenship of the other 42?

 

[targus]

No, I was trying to see how the hair was split because same and required. I didn't change anything.

No hair splitting of hairs here at all. You were the one that changed the words - not me.

"Same" and "required" could be equivalent if the "same" was "required" of both Obama and the other 42.

But then you can't show that can you?

Since we feel so strongly about citizenship and its constitutional requirement, shouldn't we have felt this way with the other 42 presidents

What is your evidence that meeting the constitutional requirement of citizenship was ignored with the other 42 Presidents?

or do we suddenly worry about this part of the constitution when the president looks different than the rest?

So much for laying off race.

Please show your evidence that this is a product of Obama's race.

BTW - the race card is a very weak response made in the place of an authentic response.

[QUOTEWhat makes us question his citizenship and not worry this much about the citizenship of the other 42?[/QUOTE]

Please show proof of this.

Throwing around empty accusations is not much of debate technique.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Now you peeled back the layers and got to the root of the problem, the question is why were the documents he provided questioned? He provided a standard certified copy from the state of HI which was also validated by HI officials.

Because the way that he went about it led to increased suspicion that it was photoshopped, or as one person puts it, fauxtographed.

Again, it is a simple matter to fix. It is a serious lack of leadership that he hasn't fixed it. It shows he doesn't have the judgment to wisely pick battles to fight. This wasn't a battle he should have picked to fight.

Sometimes, even when people are stupid, you answer them to shut them up. Particularly when you have all the staff he does. He could have staffed this out to some minimum wage flunkie to handle.