Obama is not lawfully qualified to be President

lolumad?

We're not hearing about this through the main stream media. We're not seeing FoxNews (the only fair and balanced news outlet) cover this. It seems everyone is so eager to ignore the Constitution. Why?

Everyone seems to think that if someone was born on U.S. soil they are “natural born citizens”.
This is far from the real meaning. After more research it appears Obama may not even be a legal U.S. citizen even if he was born in the United States.
This is a compelling argument though updated now it was written before Obama began to run for office.
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_ jurisdiction.html
Obama had to be born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to be a U. S. citizen.
If you read this you will understand that Obama even if born on U.S. Soil was not subject only to U.S. jurisdiction.

Perhaps there is NATIONAL CONCENSUS on the following;

A. There ARE eligibility requirements to be President IAW the Constitution.

B. Someone (or many someones) has (have) the responsibility to ENSURE eligibility requirements are met.

C. An ineligible candidate should NOT hold the office of the President.

OK, here's the rub;

1. What are the requirements for POTUS? Why are they what they are?

2. Who was obligated to ensure only valid Presidential candidates were put before the voting citizenry?

3. Here's the zinger, what do you do after an election and prior to inauguration to ensure a candidate has met the requirements?

My take-

1. Natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of 14 years. I support the framers’ contention "natural" born meaning born on US territory to parents (plural) of American citizenship. The contention ensures against ANY questions regarding foreign loyalties. "Natural" is founder language specifically addressing unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to this Nation.

2. Candidate is obligated upon demand to provide proof of eligibility to political national committee and State Election Officers (those responsible for setting the ballot).

3. Candidate that is seeking office (and taxpayer salary) is obligated to prove without doubt his/her eligibility to assume office (especially in cases of where questions indicate otherwise), the US congress can refuse to accept the votes from the electoral college until such undeniable proof is given, and lastly, the courts can compel relevant parties to submit to said obligations or duties.

As far as the birth certificate questions, natural born, and whatever else is bugging you about Mr. Obama’s candidacy...it's the courts or nothing (ambiguity).

Additional thoughts from a dumb active duty American Soldier-

1. We live in a constitutional republic. Period. Republics derive their validity based on the rule of law. Folks who cry “will of the people” and pick and choose which rules are to be obeyed or ignored are treading a path of potential tyranny (at the very least an illegitimate government). Ask yourself if you want President Bush to hold a third term contrary to the 22nd Amendment.

2. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate issue is a clever ploy to obfuscate the true measure of his eligibility to be President. He is/was a constitutional lawyer; he’s stated that he is a “native” born American with dual citizenship; There should be no doubt he understood ambiguity existed as to his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President regarding Article II. The obligation is upon those that SEEK public office to prove eligibility beyond a shadow of a doubt (to self and constituency). To swear an oath to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution to hold that office with knowing that ambiguity existed is criminal and disingenuous.


3. Who should care that candidates meet eligibility requirements to hold office? Why is it important that requirements are created, expected, and complied? What are the consequences in this situation for malfeasance / misfeasance regarding the highest guiding document of our Nation? What would our founding fathers say about this current situation? What are we doing for the future of our Nation when we shirk the responsibilities of the present? Can an ineligible candidate that has assumed office give a “lawful order” to the United States Armed Forces?