New Gun Laws signed by Constitutionally Unqualified "President"?

Ditto. Like him or hate him, Hawaii is in the U.S.

IF he was actually born in Hawaii. So far he has refused to produce a certified birth certificate.

Do you really think the other guy's camp hasn't already chased down and ruled out any issue with the man's place of birth?

Click to expand...

do you really think the the Machiavellian hopes of all these politicians couldn't possibly combine to overlook such a thing. either way. we, the American people are the prospective employer. we want an answer

This should clear things up:


http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

The claim that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. is absurd. The Hawaii Department of Health has released a copy of his birth certificate. It's all over the web for everyone to see. There was also an announcement that was run in a Hawaii newspaper a day or two after the birth. Does anyone seriously believe that his grandparents bribed some official in 1961 to issue a fake birth certificate because they thought their grandson might run for president 47 years later. Please take your tin foil hats off people. John McCain is the only candidate who wasn't born in the U.S.

Please post a link to his "Birth Certificate".

Here it is.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.sh...categorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I just read about this on usconstitution.net a couple days ago.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The problem with that site is that it's easy to see that it includes commentary along with fact, never distinguishing between the two, and relies a lot on US code to fill in gaps.
One of those gaps is the "natural born" thing.

Apparently McCain is what can be termed a "statutory citizen", in that he is not a natural born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen, but is nevertheless a citizen based on the statute.
However, people like me who take a narrow reading of the constitution notice that congress is not given the explicit power to define citizenship, that the 10th Amendment is still on the books, and that this seems to be a legal black hole.
IANAL, but it certainly looks like there is room to make some further definitions here....

Of course, there are people who think the 17th Amendment was fraudulently ratified, and if that's so, then none of the federal gun laws we've gotten since 1913 is applicable.... so maybe that's a better use of our time....

Here it is.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.sha...ertificate.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Click to expand...

Shopped!

This is useless to argue. The fact is Obama seems to be a citizen.
But whatever the truth is, unfortunatly he's going to be the next president and the sheeple who'll vote for him don't care about this tinfoil hat stuff.
They're too attached to their own tinfoil hats.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that no matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, the believers find some way to discredit the evidence or its sources.

K

Of course, there are people who think the 17th Amendment was fraudulently ratified, and if that's so, then none of the federal gun laws we've gotten since 1913 is applicable.... so maybe that's a better use of our time....

Click to expand...

And, of course, there would be no body of judges who would be qualified to make such a ruling, since the very act of so ruling would defeat their legitamacy.

Would this have to go the SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the likely result, unless its adjudicated by a circuit appellate court, and then cert refused. There is currently a court case filed in September. If the winner of the election is indeed the person of questionable citizenship/legitimacy to be POTUS (Mr. Obama), then this case will continue on and work its way through the courts, coming to a conclusion sometime in 2 or 3 years. (otherwise will be dismissed as irrelevant/unripe).

But to answer your question directly, my guess is that *IFF* the POTUS is found to be ineligible, then all laws signed by him to date at that point will most certainly be stricken as constitutionally invalid, and will have to be introduced & passed again.

We cannot go into the question of the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's citizenship here, as that is political, but it should be noted that both sides have pretty good arguments, and it could go either way. It WILL be interesting/entertaining, and may be a constitutional crisis.

Seen elsewhere: can't vouch for its veracity

In a strange turn of events, the governor of Hawaii has sealed the birth record of BHO. Ditto the government of Kenya.

If he has nothing to hide why is he acting like he does. Produce a real birth certificate and get over it.

And why would Kenya seal its records on him if he was not born there?

Just downright wierd.

There is no candidate running for president who is Constitutionally unqualified to be president. It doesn't even matter if the one candidate was born in Hawaii or not.

Someone not born in the U.S.(Exceptions are made for diplomat's kids born while the diplomats were overseas on the job.)

Click to expand...

That is not quite right. And for those who worried based on this if being born overseas to military parents made them ineligible, don't worry.

The Constitution says you have to be a "natural born" citizen with 14 years residence in the U.S. to be president. Longstanding U.S. law defines natural born citizen as someone born in the U.S. (regardless of what country their parents are citizens of) or someone born overseas with a parent who is a U.S. citizen. There is no doubt that both candidates have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. If you were born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent the only possible problem for you is you have to have lived here for 14 years. Again, there is no candidate running now who doesn't meet that requirement.

Chaim (a special ed and social studies/government teacher who doesn't really support either of the 2 major parties' candidates)

Although the OP does bring up an interesting question. What if a non-native American were forced by rules of succession to the office of President? After all, there's no reason a non-native born American citizen couldn't serve as a congressman, is there?

Then just as we had in the Nixon administration if there were no seated vice president and the president resigned, or died would a non-native born speaker of the house succeed to the office of President?

Interesting question, but not gun related.

The "he's not a citizen" argument is a non-starter. If it were a potentially useful angle don't you think the Republicans would have pushed to disqualify him? If BHO and GunBanBiden get in we will have a massive fight on our hands to stop anti-gun legislation.

NRA anyone?


gp911

Be prepared for the worst. Obama has already stated that he wants to ban ALL semi automatic handguns and rifles. With Polosi and the rest of the majority of liberals on his side, it could turn out to be a reality. This is serious business. It can and probably will happen, and I don't believe that anyone will be grandfathered in. Who ever thought he would be president? Having said that, down the road, we might be saying "who ever thought it would be illegal to own a semi automatic firearm"! A lot of guys are going out and buying up all the semi autos they can afford, but I don't think it will make a difference. His ban on firearms will include ALL semi autos regardless of how long you had them.
We're in BIG trouble.

What if a non-native American were forced by rules of succession to the office of President? After all, there's no reason a non-native born American citizen couldn't serve as a congressman, is there?

Click to expand...

That person would be Constitutionally unqualified to serve as President and it would go to the next person in the line of succession.

There is no way around the Constitution. If you fail to meet all three requirements you cannot be President. Period.

In addition, Bill Clinton cannot be President ever again, nor can George W. Bush. They are Constitutionally unqualified due to the 22nd Amendment, no matter what sort of contrived scenario you want to engineer.

This is such a simple point of law that I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with it.

The "he's not a citizen" argument is a non-starter. If it were a potentially useful angle don't you think the Republicans would have pushed to disqualify him?

Click to expand...

Republicans have not shown much intestinal fortitude of late. They don't like the rough and tumble side of politics much.

It would not surprise me even if they had absolute proof BHO was not born in the US that McCain would not use it.

How did we ever let this happen? Of all the candidates. Even Hillary would have been better. Something really dirty is going on within the Obama political machine. If Hillary, with all her power and contacts could not beat him, something really dirty is going on. With all the negative baggage that Obama carries on his back, how can any sane person vote for him? It's unreal.
Maybe it's our fault. Perhaps we should have been out there in force supporting McCain, the way Obama supporters were out their. Maybe we dug our own grave?

In addition, Bill Clinton cannot be President ever again, nor can George W. Bush. They are Constitutionally unqualified due to the 22nd Amendment, no matter what sort of contrived scenario you want to engineer.

Click to expand...

Not quite, and not that contrived. The 22nd amendment only prohibits one from being elected president more than twice. There's at least one other way to become president (does LBJ ring any bells?).

Good questions and comments, all. My coworker and I were just discussing this today. My retorical question is...

How can a man place his hand on the book of his choice [bible, koran, carl marx communist manifesto...] and swear to uphold/support/defend the constitution, then the very next day, draw up, support or sign into law something which completely opposes, negates, or betrays the constitution?

Isnt that treason? ...or does our government now practice semantics?

...you say "shall not be infringed", i say..."SHALL?"

If our forefathers were suddenly brought forth from the dead, they would take a good, long, hard look around... and vomit.