How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Any Topic Goes Thread   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Any Topic Goes Thread

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


125 posted 12-06-2008 01:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It has been conjectured that that would only happen after the inauguration. If he is disqualified prior to that then the entire ticket would be disqualified.

It has also been conjectued that the candidate with the next highest electoral votes would have to be voted in by the electoral college, but only if they consider him qualified as 'natural born', which there seems to be some disagreement on that issue as well.

There may even have to be a new election entirely if neither candidate is deemed to meet the requirements of the Constitution.

The Constitution seems clear regarding the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge, a written challenge must be presented to Congress, the Supreme Court would only get involved if the process laid out in the Constitution wasnít followed.

Can you point me to that section of the Constitution, Grinch? I can't seem to locate it.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


126 posted 12-06-2008 02:10 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise, I think your concerns for Obama's eligibility for the office of President are valid. I don't share them, but I respect them. Your concerns for our Constitution, however, seem to rest on an unspoken assumption that "natural born citizen" has been definitively defined. It hasn't. The Constitution certainly doesn't tell us what the term entails. And so far, the Supreme Court --  who is solely responsible for interpreting the Constitution -- has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born citizen," either.

Without a  legally binding interpretation of the phrase, I think it is perfectly acceptable to both respect and uphold the Constitution while simultaneously arguing its meaning and intent.

In 1787, John Jay (who, coincidentally, later became our first Chief Justice) wrote a letter to Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, and said, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to expressly declare that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born Citizen." Now, I know you don't sit on the Supreme Court, Denise, and neither do I, but I would nonetheless ask you: Does it sound like the intent of the requirement was meant to preclude leaders like McCain and Obama? Neither man was a naturalized citizen, or as Jay put it, "Foreigners," but rather inherited their citizenship at the moment of their birth. Which, ironically, is more than can be said for George Washington.

Interpreting the Constitution, in my opinion, is NOT a sign of contempt. If it was, anyone who believed in our legal Right to Privacy, something never directly mentioned in the Constitution, would be guilty of gross disrespect. Our country has survived and thrived not just on the words of the Founding Fathers, but rather on their intent as interpreted by the courts. The ability to argue the Constitution makes us stronger, not weaker.

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


127 posted 12-06-2008 03:21 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Grinch,

As Denise states: That's only if Obama has been sworn in as President. Obama is still President Elect. The Obama-Biden ticket will be "nullified," and McCain-Palin gets a toss in the Electoral College vote.

But the Dems might appeal for a fair election and re-nominate a new candidate/s. AND they would no doubt drag out McCain's eligibility issues to insanity, which could result in Palin being president if McCain is sworn in and gets ousted. Or Pelosi! Ha. Our first female President by default.

Here's where I verified most of my info, which I hope is legit, but who knows these days. The political process nearly requires a degree to peel away the layers on legal sites.

TCW

I agree with Ron. The U.S. Supreme Court does decide, just like they decided Bush/Gore...which means during all this crazy stuff, Bush's term will be extended...arghhh.

sighs...

This is crazy, this is crazy

I have to be honest. I'm for Obama. And I also agree with Ron about the Constitution. I feel there is a great need for clarification/amendment so this will not come into play in the future. We the people, are not so easy to define, anymore.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


128 posted 12-06-2008 04:08 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I was going to do some homework on this, but I haven't had time.

Two points:

1. Ron brings up 'naturalized' versus 'native' citizens and that's what was bothering me as well. My two children didn't become Americans because I went to the Embassy and filled out some forms. They were already Americans and I just formalized it. This is a middle ground that will come up again and again.

(My children will be Americans for the rest of their lives. If they do not move to America and live there for at least five years, they cannot pass on that citizenship to their children. This makes sense to me.)

2. I am told that this loophole has been closed but I honestly don't know if it has or hasn't:

A few years ago, one of the rumors going around was that pregnant Korean women were jumping on a plane, landing within American borders, having their children become American citizens, then jumping right around, and returning to Korea.

Don't know anybody who actually did this.

It is ridiculous to think that the children of (2) should have a shot at the Presidency whereas my kids do not. In reality, of course, people will vote for people who they feel 'akin' to.

Shouldn't that be enough?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


129 posted 12-06-2008 04:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
That's only if Obama has been sworn in as President


Are you sure, I thought the process was pretty clear:


quote:
AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.


Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


130 posted 12-06-2008 04:38 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

George Washington was covered, Ron! The Framers grandfathered themselves in with the phrase or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

And yes, I agree that it is the Supreme Court who is soley responsible to interpret the Constitution, and they should officially determine the meaning of natural born citizen and issue a ruling on it. I doubt that they will though. But in any event, it isn't the right of individual candidates to interpret the meaning of the requirement for themselves, either, when they know the circumstances of their birth could be considered disqualifying by a reasonable and common understanding of the requirement. I think that is contempt, just as I think intentionally violating provisions that they don't like, as with Hillary's appointment as Secretary of State, is contempt.

I believe that the definition can be deduced from the distinction being drawn between natural born citizen and citizen in the section, and the Founders concerns that the President should only be someone who did not have dual national allegiances at birth, and by extension, later in life.

I tend to believe that McCain qualifies even though born in Panama since both his parents were U.S. citizens and he was born on a military base. There was no dual citizenship or allegiance issue involved at the time of his birth.

The problem in Obama's situation is that he, whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, became a subject of the British Crown through his father, at birth, and subsequently a citizen of Kenya after its independence, along with American citizenship through his mother. Add to that his subsequent Indonesian citizenship after his mother married an Indonesian citizen, a country that did not allow for dual citizenship. So his mother effectively renounced her and her son's American citizenship at that time, which he also would have had to renounce at the age of 21 if he renewed his Indonesian passport to be able to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Also, his recent involvement in the Kenyan elections on behalf of his uncle, Raila Odinga, and Odinga's claim to have helped Obama win the U.S. election, and his expectations of reward for that from Obama, has certainly raised suspicions that Obama just may have divided national loyalties.

Odinga is a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government.

Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in December 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

When Odinga lost the December 2007 presidential election by approximately 233,000 votes, Odinga called for protests which led his Luo tribesmen to murder approximately 1,000 Kikuyu tribesman, displace another 350,000 Kikuyu tribesmen and destroy 800 churches, while not a single mosque was destroyed. Obama helped negotiate a settlement in which Odinga was appointed co-head-of-state and appointed prime minister to end the violence, even after it became publicly disclosed Odinga signed a letter of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya in return for their votes.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80564

There are some serious concerns by many people who believe that Obama is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief, given his background.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified


Well, there you go. Biden would be President until someone was found who qualified. Thanks Grinch.
Have you been able to find the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge in the Constitution, that a written challenge must be presented to Congress, and that the Supreme Court can only get involved if that process isn't followed?

[This message has been edited by Denise (12-06-2008 05:10 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


131 posted 12-06-2008 05:39 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Have you been able to find the process for determining eligibility and the procedure for any challenge in the Constitution, that a written challenge must be presented to Congress, and that the Supreme Court can only get involved if that process isn't followed?


Yes.

A challenge should be made during the count of the votes of the electoral college as per - 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15

This was referenced in Robinson v. Sec. of State, et al (the second 2008 McCain Case) and used to justify the claim that the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring a case - that there was already a process in place to deal with such a claim.

The Supreme Court will probably reject the representation theyíre considering at the moment for exactly the same reason. Itís likely that theyíll only get involved if Congress decides that Obama isnít eligible and Obama petitions them to verify the decision of Congress at which point the question falls squarely within their jurisdiction.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


132 posted 12-06-2008 05:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?


quote:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    * Anyone born inside the United States
    * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


Ha, I can say, "You can be POTUS if you want," to my kids!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


133 posted 12-06-2008 05:59 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Brad,

You need to check when each of the definitions became legal - that was McCains problem - he was born a year or so before a change in the law.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


134 posted 12-06-2008 06:46 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hmmm, perhaps, but unless the above were specifically prohibited and reversed, I suspect the date of legalization would be irrelevant.

It's a matter of clarifying the law, not of changing it.

This doesn't mean that people won't bring lawsuits to challenge it, it's just that those challenges become frivolous.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


135 posted 12-06-2008 06:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Isnít the date of legislation very important Brad? Especially if, as in the case of McCain, the law isnít retrospective.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


136 posted 12-06-2008 07:13 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

This was last updated by Congress in 2007.

This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.  (?)

lol, what's that about? On or after Dec. 24th 1952 it was either parent was required to be a U.S. Citizen, but prior to noon on May 24th 1934 it had to be the mother that was the U.S. citizen?  And all those born between those two dates are excluded?  

Is this the section that possibly excluded McCain, because he was born prior to 1952, so he wasn't covered under that section, and the only provision for those born prior to 1934 was to those born of an alien father and U.S. citizen mother, and not for those born where both parents were U.S. Citizens, and within the limits of U.S. Jurisdiction (a military base)?

How do they come up with this stuff?

I'm not sure though if being declared a "citizen at birth" is necessarily the same as "natural born citizen". I definitely think the Supreme Court needs to define the term.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


137 posted 12-06-2008 07:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

3.USC 15. Section 15

The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.


This reads to me that this option of objection to the certifying of the electoral college votes is only available to the members of Congress, and not to the average citizen. So I guess citizens don't have standing before the courts because of this option for objection, but they don't have standing even in this option, either, if it's only open to members of Congress.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


138 posted 12-07-2008 07:19 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
So I guess citizens don't have standing before the courts because of this option for objection,


It sure looks that way Denise.

Citizens had an opportunity to object when they voted and they have another opportunity through their representatives in Congress when the electoral college votes. Itís part of your Constitution and the checks and balances of your electoral process.

The Supreme Court should only get involved if the process isnít followed or where a decision returned through that process may be un-constitutional.

Asking the Supreme Court to interpret the validity of a constitutional process before the completion of that process is like asking a judge to sentence someone without waiting for the due process of a trial. Youíre asking the Supreme Court to do something that, in itself, is unconstitutional.

I may be wrong of course, this is only my interpretation, Iím not an expert on your legal process or Constitution so feel free to correct any errors.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


139 posted 12-07-2008 10:51 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The above law in the U.S. Code isn't dealing with the Electoral vote, though, Grinch. It is dealing with the procedures of the Congressional ratification of the Electoral College vote, State by State. The electors meet on Dec. 15th to cast their ballots, and Congress ratifies the Electoral College vote on January 6th.

I think the previous lawsuits that were brought should not have been thrown out in the lower courts for lack of standing, though. They were brought by individuals against the Secretary of State of the various States petitioning the courts to have the Secretary of State investigate and validate or invalidate the Constitutional qualifications of the candidate/candidates prior to their being placed on the ballot, and then after the election prior to their certifying the popular vote to their members on the Electoral College.

So I suppose the options left to citizens is to let their concerns be made known to the individual electors prior to their voting, and to raise their concerns with their Congressional Senators and Representatives prior to their ratification process.

But I suppose the odds are good that the courts, Lower, Superior and Supreme, would all say that their is lack of standing now because the issue should have been taken up with the Secretaries of State prior to this stage in the process! The Electors in the Electoral College, after all, are only working with the votes certified to them by their Secretary of State as being valid, so they can't be faulted, and then Congress is only working with the votes certified to them from the Electoral College as being valid, so they can't be faulted!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


140 posted 12-07-2008 11:47 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Congress ratifies the Electoral College vote.


Only if no objections or challenges have been raised, if one Senator and one member of he house of representatives object to the first vote in favour of Obama in writing on the grounds that Obama is ineligible Congress has to rule on the matter.

The state is responsible for entering legitimate candidates names on the ballot but that responsibility isnít to you as a citizen, their responsibility is to Congress and the Constitution. So individual citizens have no standing if the State fails in that regard.

Think of it as a shopkeeper selling you faulty goods, I canít sue the shopkeeper on your behalf - I have no standing because the implicit contract was between you and the shopkeeper.

Hereís what I think should happen.

The state official should refuse to add Obamaís name to the Ballot if he or she thinks heís ineligable
Obama would then seek redress in the courts and the Supreme court would probably be asked to clarify his status by interpreting the Constitution. If they rule him eligible he gets to stand, if not he doesnít.

If his name gets added to the ballot by accident or incompetence you get to voice your opinion by voting for him, or not, what you donít get is the right to sue the state for their mistake - you have no standing. Congress has the right to sue but only after heís deemed ineligible and that wonít be decided until the electoral college meets and a written challenge is presented.

Once Congress gets a challenge they will appoint Biden as President until Obamaís qualification can be decided. If hey decide heís ineligible they can sue the States that added him to the ballot. Meanwhile Obama would be seeking redress in the courts and the Supreme court would eventually be asked to clarify his status by interpreting the Constitution. If they rule him eligible he gets to be President, if not he doesnít.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


141 posted 12-08-2008 06:08 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks Grinch. That's sounds likely to be the procedure. With all the red flags that have raised questions as to his eligiblilty, I would like to believe that at least one Senator and Representative would review all of the issues raised and lodge an objection if they believe his qualifications need clarification.

But that's probably as likely as Congress or the FEC instituting a requirment that candidates, in the future, actually show their documentation as oppossed to just taking their word for it that they meet all the requirements.

It's kind of scary to realize just how easy it is for someone who isn't eligible to actually win election and take office anyway.

Oh, and Jim, that tape of Obama's grandmother has been released by Philip Berg. It is on his web site at
http://www.obamacrimes.com/


  
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


142 posted 12-08-2008 10:05 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Born in the USA
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/3094552680_4f6b174053_o.jpg

Just because I love the pic.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


143 posted 12-09-2008 06:36 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And all he's being asked to do is to verify it, Jen, in light of all the doubts that have arisen as to his eligibility under the Constitution. A picture isn't always worth a thousand words, no matter how dramatic.

He has three law firms, not lawyers, but firms fighting to keep his records out of the public eye. That seems like an extreme measure to take when he could simply submit his original birth certificate to one of the controlling authorities for validation.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


144 posted 12-09-2008 08:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That pic could have the caption, "What kind of dog SHOULD I get for the kids???"
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


145 posted 12-09-2008 01:32 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I think it's UNPATRIOTIC and UN-AMERICAN to imply the President-elect is lying about where he was born unless you have credible evidence disproving his sworn statement, that he was born in Hawaii.

God Bless America and God Bless Barack Hussein Obama!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2748139098_60f55d7d22.jpg

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


146 posted 12-09-2008 04:50 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Actually, Jennifer, it would be unpatriotic and un-American to NOT question our leaders at every turn. What you are suggesting is much more akin to the old Soviet Union, I think, than to the United States.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


147 posted 12-09-2008 06:04 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Will someone please tell me that this:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/08/whew-obama-c an-still-be-president-supreme-court-declines-case/

means Denise can now relax.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


148 posted 12-09-2008 06:24 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Jennifer, your statement might also hold more weight if no American president had ever lied to us.

I'm hopeful of positive results concerning Obama, but the truth is definitely a concern of many. I wouldn't want Obama's eligibility issues swept under the rug no more than any other fact check and requirement necessary for public office. Even school teachers have to face extensive background checks before they receive a position (or I hope they do.)
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


149 posted 12-09-2008 06:47 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Actually, Ron, thereís a vast difference between questioning and implying a person is lying. But you probably already knew that.

Indeed itís fair to question Obama about where he was born, but to suggest that he posted a forged certified birth certificate is implying that the President Elect is not only a liar but a criminal.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Any Topic Goes Thread   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors