- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 12:15 pm
You last visited
April 19, 2024, 10:46 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.
Published:
Barack Obama's birthday is tomorrow (or is it?)and in the spirit of gift giving, I've got something for the 28% ofRepublicans who don't believe Obama was born in America: An invitationto common ground.
Here's the first place we can agree: It would be nice if thepresident would ask Hawaii to release his original, long form birthcertificate.
There are all kinds of perfectly good moral, legal and politicalreasons why he shouldn't, but, frankly, I'm still tuckered out from allthe perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons Hillary Clintonwouldn't release the Rose Law Firm billing records.
I'm not going through that hell again.
Here's the second place we can agree: The rule of law is a good thing.
Lincoln said:
As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of theDeclaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution andLaws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacredhonor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample onthe blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and hischildren's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by everyAmerican mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap - let itbe taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges - let it bewritten in primers, spelling books, and almanacs - let it be preachedfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced incourts of justice.
That goes double for me. Can't get enough of that Constitution andLaws. When it comes to the Constitution and Laws I'm right there,lisping and prattling like Glenn Beck.
My children may not have primers, spelling books or almanacs --because they go to school in California -- but they understand that wecan't pick and chose which laws we obey and which we don't. If we actedlike that, we'd be no better than wild animals in the jungle or DickCheney.
Here's the third place we can agree: If the Constitutionsays Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he's ineligible to bepresident.
The Constitution is always right because the Framers wereinfallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote.The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, not unlike Horton Hatches an Egg, if it had been written 230 years ago by 55 guys.
The Constitution says:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen ofthe United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Personbe eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the UnitedStates.
And that's what it means.
I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get Obama on the "natural born"part. I don't know what it means and neither do you, and neither didthe Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not lettingLouis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as goodas mine. And guesses don't count.
The only person I'm absolutely certain is a natural born man is Bo Diddley.
Luckily, we don't have to interpret what they were getting at. That's why God created Originalism and sent us Antonin Scalia.
Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead tothinking.) It says the document is what it is. We'll never know whatthe Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.
So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matterhow oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president whoviolates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail,and our sons start playing with dolls.
Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. Accordingto the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution,Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, becauseHawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.
In 1788.
For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, theFramers made a rule that says you can only be president if you wereborn in one of the original 13 colonies.
Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford,Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant,William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman,Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.
What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.
Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2,Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what itliterally says?
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of theUnited States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shallbe eligible to the Office of President..."
Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.
That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.
I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying wecan't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can'tinterpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one ofthose horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.
Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.
Chris kelly,
Comments
Just like the right to bear arms. It specifically said a "Militia" not individuals. Yet despite over whelming evidence, special interest groups manage to stupify millions. Incredible !.
I'm sure you can agree that when it comes to any agenda's need to justify itself, laws are broken every single day of the week.
One is the government no longer needing a warrant to search your home......all under the guise of"' Homeland Security".
If one wants to break hairs, I can easily point out a laundry list from both sides. The gestapo elite wouldn't like it too much though...lol
Just like the right to bear arms. It specifically said a "Militia" not individuals. Yet despite over whelming evidence, special interest groups manage to stupify millions. Incredible !.
I'm sure you can agree that when it comes to any agenda's need to justify itself, laws are broken every single day of the week.
One is the government no longer needing a warrant to search your home......all under the guise of"' Homeland Security".
If one wants to break hairs, I can easily point out a laundry list from both sides. The gestapo elite wouldn't like it too much though...lol
•choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans; "She followed the feminist movement"; "The candidate espouses Republican ...
•take up and practice as one's own
•assume: take on titles, offices, duties, responsibilities; "When will the new President assume office?"
It means adopt from this day foward. Once it becomes our set of rules, this is how the game goes.
OK, I get your point.
Do you happen to have any explanation on the "Right to bear arms" law? I'm not trying to be cute. I like learning and welcome new ideas. So far I've learned that I don't know everything..lol, and I'm just curious to see some explanation because to this day I haven't read anything satisfactorily.
I think my point is that the mere fact that we're even debating the issue of interpretation leads me to believe that if it was so cut and dry, we wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The same argument revolved the net for years with religion. If it was so obvious that a God was in existence, why the centuries of debates?
Both parties have had at it in the past 30 years undoing perfectly good laws .... one example Glass-Steagall Act of 1939 .... so that greed could run behind the scenes ponzi schemes unimpeded which are responsible for tanking our economy. Multiply the above actions a thousand fold and you have an unprecedented world economic crisis.
All of them were holding it when it broke!!!!!
Look, even you say in your reply above that both parties are at fault.
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Not what the f'ing congress and president want. This the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Does that logic apply to slavery too?
We no longer have the need for militias. We have the National Guard.
Why should the constitution be exempt from adapting?
Times change. Laws should change without making the basic principles compromised. But quirks and ideology morph throughout time. A set of events may or may not be applicable 200 plus years into the future.
But the issue here is not semantics, at least through my eyes. To me it implies that even though I'm aware that the law, no matter how much I disagree with, needs to be the the rule of the land, somewhere deep inside of me says that these nit picks are just distractions to the plethora of similar events going on multiple times everyday in govt. Some that make this event miniscule in comparison.
I'm was independent voter when voting for Perot both times because he told the truth and I do believe has the best interest of the nation at heart. Am lots more politically savvy now and ready for new people to be elected.
We may have evolved past needing militias but definitely need self protection given an increase in home break ins, carjacking, home invasions, murders, armed robberies. Perps don't acknowledge or obey gun control laws in case our genius government hasn't noticed.
Do we really have to take everything to the letter of the law no matter how out of date it is? Should we still stone folks for crimes commited, since the founding fathers took credence in the Bible?
http://books.google.com/books?id=K6dIvTFsDMkC&dq=gun+rights+books&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=E7R3StGYH8eltgfLitSWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false
copy/paste read the intro
Understand when applying for a carry permit you have to be fingerprinted and those prints are sent off to the FBI for screening, background check before that permit is issued. Also understand it's legal to keep a shotgun or rifle in ones home to be used to counter deadly force if necessary.
Going to hit a perp over the head with a tire iron, fire poker or stab him with Jarasan's butter knife if they kick in your door brandishing an assault weapon or Glock full auto hot off the black market??????? Am sure it would work like a charm.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=glock+full+auto&search_type=&aq=0&oq=glock+f
And yes, even though some of the fathers were agnostic or whatever, the mind set back then was supported with christian beliefs and idealisms.
@ Konane, I didn't mean the victim having a tire iron, I was referring to a criminal using any kind of weapon if all the weapons including ones in the black market were to magically disappear. Criminals would still find other ways to overcome the victim. They can use a can of hairspray and a lighter.
Anyways, the debate wasn't so much whether I agree or disagree with the right to bear arms but was just making a point about interpretations that can be skewed, which was the premise of this to begin with. I totally support a business owner having a gun to protect him or herself. It's just that the conversation was going off track from the original premise. But i did read that in general, it was much safer to let the robbers take what they wanted rather risk a shoot out, which the study claimed to promote more deaths in the process.
Here's one bizarre example:
Indiana has never ratified the Fourteenth Amendment so, even though Indiana is what's called a "Shall Issue" or "Must Issue" state (when speaking of handgun licensing), the courts here have long held that the Second Amendment cannot be implemented by individuals desiring to own and/ or carry firearms. Therefore, State, County or Local police can take our weapons (and our civil rights) any time they want to, and they're NOT required to justify their actions. All that's required is that the officer or department allege that they believe the gun owner MIGHT be capable of committing a crime at some point in the future (even if that individual has NEVER been arrested before in his life).
Face it folks; if you're going to debate constitutional issues in America, the argument is essentially over before it begins. We, the people have precious little to say about the actions of an all-powerful government that has segregated itself from those they purport to represent, and one whose mantra has become, "There's Nothing You Can Do About It!" You can gain some comfort by telling yourselves, "Well, we'll just vote them out of office!" Ha! Think again; congress has made it perfectly legal for lobbyists, special-interest groups and industry leaders to effectively "buy" electoral votes and those delegates who control them. Just one of their votes can be worth tens of thousands of ours, so "voting them out of office" as a viable means of controlling your government is an empty and pointless effort, like trying to remove pee from a public swimming pool.
But I digest ...
Fascinating discussion. Please continue; I promise I won't interrupt again.
Jim
Post a Comment
Please Log In
To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.
Not a member yet?
If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.
Register