I had a discussion with a few persons who were angry over the fact that Sen. Obama has refused to present a birth certificate to prove he is a naturalized citizen. They hold to an anger that has lead them to declare that if Obama is inaugurated as the next president of this nation that they will refuse to acknowledge him as their president.
I may be very ignorant on the ways of government and have been told this on numerous occasions. I also can read and I know that in reading the Constitution that being a naturally born citizen is a criterion of the office of the Presidency. It is quite clear on this matter. In recognition of this I have also been taught that this nation is a nation under the rule of law not a nation under the rule of men.
Being a nation under the rule of law means that no man needs to abide by the demands of another man. He only needs to abide by the demands of the laws of this nation. The problem here is that laws can not be self-enforced. Man must enforce them. Only those persons as authorized by the law have the authority to enforce the laws of this nation.
As private citizens of this nation, we do not have the authorized standing of the law to demand that Sen. Obama provide us with the proper documents of proof of citizenship. As to who has the authorized standing to challenge the citizenship of Sen. Obama, only the law, as well as the court that will interpret that law, will determine that.
Therefore, unless someone with legal standing can successfully challenge the qualification of Sen. Obama to be the President of the United States we must accept that he is qualified. We, the citizens of this nation, can do no less if we are to accept rule by law as is the foundational premise of our government.
Does this mean that we have no say in the matter? The answer is no. As citizens of this nation, we were given the right to elect those who would govern over us. Thus, we could have expressed our concerns in the voting booth by voting for one other than Sen. Obama. If another candidate had gotten the majority of the vote then this matter would be considered as irrelevant. We must also remember that we will have this same recourse in four years if the matter has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the concerned citizens.
We, as citizens, can protest the inauguration seeking that we be satisfied that he is qualified to be the leader of this nation. We can also back such bills such as the one in the Ohio legislature sponsored by Representative Fessler. That bill, HJR 9, calls upon the delegates to the Electoral College to exercise due diligence to ensure that the candidates that they cast their vote for are qualified.
What it does not allow me to do, boy, is to deny that Sen. Obama is our President, once inaugurated, if I wish to present myself as being an American citizen. Being an American citizen means the acceptance of and the respect for the rule of law. A man dares not allow himself to be over-zealous in regards to his convictions. Once he does, he is allowing his emotions to rule over his principles That is the last form of government anyone should want.
18 comments:
Voters allowing their emotions to rule over their principals is what got Obama elected, and he played on people's emotions like an old pro, Griper.
You're right. Unless a Court of Law declares Obama unfit to be our president, he will be the president of every American, whether they acknowledge him or not. He will have the power of the office, like it or not. It's something we will have to live with unless those who are part of the laws of the land make an effort to see that he is qualified... or not.
Whether conciously or not, I note a bit of a common thread in your last three posts; American citizens and their rights to their opinions. David Spade, whose body of work is a type of slapstick and whose personal love life is a little iffy, donates needed police equipment. He also donated $2000 to the Kerry campaign. Thus we ponder his political view. But that is his protected right. Eartha Kitt, whose voice and appearance never seemed to age,
insulted Mrs Lyndon Johnson about
her husband's conduct of the VN
war. In her case, that was also a protected right, but she was effectively 'blacklisted' by the entertainment media of the time and had to work in Europe for many years. It is interesting that we as citizens can complain freely, in fact it is a duty. Entertainers also have the right, but need be responsible to their
careers as well, as indeed those
with private power relationships, as office and workplace environments need be thoughtful
in their criticisms. Opinion, as you note, is some times based on emotion; thus it triggers emotional response: even devolving into that type of argument known as Godwin's Rule
Now us bloggers, we can say any doggone thing (and do) Our only responsibility is to avoid being victims and perpetrators of that doggone rule. :)
I love that he is pissing off a few democrats that voted for him! Bush more of the same still will be in place! However I still look forward to 2012!
BB,
yes i like that rule. it is used too often in political argument. i also like the solution presented to cut it short. nice find, my friend.
that rule could be applicable in other instances too.
then with a chuckle he adds, that common thread was not conscious, i'll clue you. this was an actual discussion i had on another blog.
the very first comment to my comment on the issue was "Griper, may i be the first to call you an idiot." lol
gayle,
he is an old pro at it. community organizers use that tactic to gain sympathy or pity. that is their primary weapon.
dcat,
He just grins. "come on now,girl, he was elected to bring unity back to this nation not to divide even more." lol
ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.
Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” -- dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth -- albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will -- rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)
very well written Ted. now that brings up the question of what is the States responsibility in a case like this, since it is they that are sending the delegates to the Electoral College?
We need to also remember that while it may be the Supreme Court that is responsible for interpreting the Constitution it would seem to me that it is the States responsibility to protect it. for it is the only thing that binds the states into an union.
Voters allowing their emotions to rule over their principals [sic] is what got Obama elected, and he played on people's emotions like an old pro, Griper.Gayle
That's an interesting opinion. You've made a blanket statement to describe the substantial electoral win by Barack Hussein Obama:
National Results 52.9 45.6 Obama +7.3
Final RCP Average 52.1 44.5 Obama +7.6
Electoral College 365 173
Source: Real Clear Politics
You've decided, based on absolutely no evidence, that the millions and millions of American citizens who voted for and elected Obama did so with no thought, consideration, or understanding of the serious nature of what they were doing.
Because you dislike Obama, Gayle, you suppose that your fellow Americans who voted for him are incapable of making that choice except through emotion? My family members who have served in all 4 branches of the military, and some of whom were wounded in that service AND were very much enthused by Obama's candidacy, will be interested to know how Gayle determined they voted out of "emotion."
Perhaps you could enlighten people like me who want to know how you have the ability to read my thoughts as well as the thoughts of the majority of Americans who voted to have Barack Obama as our president.
I am not being sarcastic. I truly would like to explore how you can be so certain of your allegation.
PS. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. He is an American-born citizen. Those who continue down the path of trying to delegitimatize Mr. Obama's substantial win do so to legitimatize their hatred of him and their resistance to his governance over the next four years. It's a loser mentality. Judge him on what he does. I know you can and will.
he just chuckles as he reads shaw's response to gayle. you left yourself wide open, shaw. you shouldn't accuse someone of doing something then turn tight around and do it yourself. :)
What a mind you have griper :D :+:
Shaw, your entire paragraph under "p.s." is your opinion, not fact. I happen to disagree with it. Obama has never produced his actual birth certificate. There has to be some kind of reason for that. The states and or the Supreme Court should be carrying out the wishes of many Americans and insisting that he does--BEFORE Jan 20th! We have every right to have this matter settled! Any thing less is certainly not in keeping with what is in the best interests of the United States of America!
That's an interesting opinion, Shaw. You made a blanket statement to describe what I said, but you jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
As you yourself pointed out, I said "Voters allowing their emotions to rule over their principals is what got Obama elected, and he played on people's emotions like an old pro." Yes, that's what I said. I did not say Everyone who voted for Obama allowed their emotions to rule over their principals.... I would never say that, because I know it's not true. There are many people in this country who would love America to go socialist, and quite naturally those people did vote for him because of what they perceive to be his politics. I'm not sure anyone knows what his politics are yet. He chanted "change" but never clarified what he meant by it.
Shaw, you decided, based on absolutely no evidence, that I said something I clearly did not say. You've also decided that I dislike Obama. What evidence is that based on? I don't know Obama. He may very well be a very nice man. I know many wonderful people I wouldn't want as president. There is an extremely far-left lawyer who attends my church whom I consider a dear friend, but I don't want him for president either.
I stand by what I said. Many people did vote for Obama based on their emotions, people who never voted before in their lives went to the polls to vote for him because of the promise of change. Obama is no fool and he knows that. Why is it that you don't?
He has been elected as our president, and because he has, I decided not to post on him until after I see what he does as our president. My mentality is just fine, but thanks for worrying about it.
Incidentally, my New Year's resolution is to be more fair to Obama than the liberals have been to President Bush. That should be a piece of cake. :)
Dear Average American,
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has wisely decided not to get involved in a state matter.
The state of Hawaii has verified that President-elect Obama's birth certificate is authentic and that he was born there. This is not an opinion, but a fact.
There will always be a small minority of conspiracy theorists who will not accept these facts. We just have to live with that.
Also, there are not "many Americans" insisting on seeing his birth certificate--just a small minority--a great majority of Americans are satisfied that he is American born and will be the 44th president of the United States.
(Griper, why did you not publish my previous comment? I did not break any etiquette rules.
It's difficult to carry on a discussion when my responses are censored.
You can explain it if you wish in an email: shawkenawe@yahoo.com
I know this is your blog, I'm just wondering why you're censoring me.)
shaw,
my apologies if one of your comments was not published. the only ones i have of yours for this thread have been published. i checked my email plus comment edits and see no other comment from you. and yes, i agree you have been very respectful of the rules. and it saddens me to find that a comment from you was lost somewhere.
I must have messed up on sending it. So, my apologies to you.
Blogger eats comments every once-in-awhile, as does Halo Scan, which I use. I've also been accused of deleting comments, Griper, when I've done no such thing.
Since I have lost a couple of comments on occasion, was glad to hear Gayle's explanation that halo
scan and blogger "eat them". Here's to indigestion!
Post a Comment