Birther files suit, says minorities can't be president

[GolightlyGrrl]

Speaking of "birthers", Andrew Breitbart died yesterday.

Yea, I'm upset. :roll:

[fakepigtails73]

Yea, I'm upset. :roll:

Oh, I'm not upset at all, just thought that it fit the subject.

Of course, a lot of weirdoes think he was murdered! :roll:

[Austin]

Yeah, I heard that. No great loss.

[TXDuck]

There has to be more to this story. Even the most ardent skinhead knows you can't successfully sue to remove a president because the president is biracial. They may think and say you should be able to. But they know you can't legally. I mean, what century are we in?

[Austin]

There has to be more to this story. Even the most ardent skinhead knows you can't successfully sue to remove a president because the president is biracial. They may think and say you should be able to. But they know you can't legally. I mean, what century are we in?

I get how you feel and wonder the same thing. But then again, the senate just voted today (March 1, 2012) on a bill to decide if employers get to make decisions about what type of health care women (and men) get. :shock:

[Buzzard]

Having read the complaint the bulk of it is a challenge to the certification of nomination. Apparently the one that every state except Hawaii used lacks the required language stating that the person nominated is eligible to hold office. He gets hung up on subsection 9 - the citizenship information.

To be honest, the form he attaches is distinctly different than the one Hawaii uses and I do not care enough to research election law to determine if this is of any substance. My guess is that its an internal document with absolutely no value other than on ebay. Its the vote of the people that matters in the end.

From there he launches into his typical stuff about a question if Obama is a citizen blah blah... and the racial stuff, which is a very small part of the complaint.

The funny thing about the law is that there will ALWAYS be a loophole or some distinction that can be made to make a point regardless of how Krazy it is. He is correct, Dred Scott was never distinguished because it was overturned. So yes, there is no law or supreme court case that says the magic words "racial minorities are eligible for the presidency", but that most certainly doesnt make them inelligible.

Its cases like this that allow opinions to be written that will have those words in it, to settle the matter once and for all. Our law is a living, breathing, creature. As much as you object to what he's saying he has the right to say it and allow the law to cement itself in a clear stance. Let him have his day in court (and I do think the long form birth certificate should be released).

[TXDuck]

I don't believe any one has said he doesn't have the right to say whatever damn fool thing he likes. We, at least me and a few other people, can't believe he's actually saying it.

[Burris]

Wow - I guess he'd enough of that "dog whistle" bullshit.

This jackass has just "de-pantsed" half the Rebublican Party by revealing their racism for what it is.