- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,285
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I disagree. No one with authority has asked to see his BC, so he has no reason to show it to him. How is he not answering to the constitution if no one has asked to see it? Furthermore, we know he's a valid citizen because his home state has confirmed it. He has in no way shape or form flounced the constitution!
I do find it funny that you, who always decries how immature and petty the left is, is finding any and every excuse to attack Obama's character, especially on non-issues like this. It seems just a bit hypocritical.
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf
Yeah I saw that too, makes you go, as Arsenio would say "hmmmmm"I think one of his cronies is trying to tell us something here....
We should call this ignorant bitch and raise hell with her!:lol:
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.
You haven't done ANY looking into this have you?
Go look it up.
Here is a fine example of a liberal debate response. Please study it closely, notice its sophisticated nuances and wealth of thoughful wisdom.No thanks. I'll give your unsupported assertions the weight unsupported assertions usually deserve.
No thanks. I'll give your unsupported assertions the weight unsupported assertions usually deserve.
That's not what I asked, please answer accordingly firstJfuh, at the time the COLB was issued, back in the 60's, anyone could get a COLB... it isn't a Birth Certificate.
That has the actual hospital, and doctors name... and yet you ignore this fact.
A COLB is almost worthless for proving citizenship.
Indeed. Perhaps it may be that the SC is trying to establish a precedent for future instances since the lower court said there were no grounds for the guy who was suing.So, does anyone have any detailed info from an official source in re the SC's agenda and/or activities? It'd be nice to see what it is the SC thinks it will be doing.
To be fair, the burden of proof does rest with Obama - which he has already provided.Simon W. Moon said:As a side note, what is the evidence that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen?
So, does anyone have any detailed info from an official source in re the SC's agenda and/or activities? It'd be nice to see what it is the SC thinks it will be doing.
As a side note, what is the evidence that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen?
Apparently, they won't even be doing that. This particular suit concedes as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. So Obama's BC is not relevant to this caseThis is just a hunch but I imagine they'll be taking a look at a birth certificate and saying, "Next?"
Apparently, they won't even be doing that. This particular suit concedes as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. So Obama's BC is not relevant to this case
I have mine, and my childrens.
Here is a fine example of a liberal debate response. Please study it closely, notice its sophisticated nuances and wealth of thoughful wisdom.
I was talking about the way Hawaii worked in the 1960's. Maybe you're afraid of facts? Eh.. I dunno, sure seems like it.
It's not so much that I'm comparing women's panties to a government issued document, it's that I'm hoping to see her panties. What part of this don't you understand? If I have to bend semantics for that, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take.
You really think the Supreme Court would "ignore" a case re: the man elected our next president? :doh Damn man, it didn't bother SCOTUS, or that other idiot Scalia, to insert themselves into Bush's election and steal it for him...
I'll decline to take your say so as fact, since you are apparently unable to back up what you claim as fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?