Oh, come on now, the anti-Christ don’t need no birth certificate now does he? Pulleeze. 
You should know, you’re in here with us! 
The failure of the Supreme Court to act now allows naturalized Citizens to run for the Office of President.
Failure to act revises the US Constitution. What is the problem?
Is Panama Red back in town? The only way to change the Constitution is through a ratification process by the states, there is no other way.
So you obamites do not consider the Constitution worthy of being protected, it is O.K. with you if it is violated, as long as it is done so, in your favor. If the Supreme Court does not hear this case, then they are criminals, who are not doing their job. I fhe wasnot guilty, he would have cleared this up long ago, and you know it. You don’t care as long as your leftist agenda goes forth. So please, quit trying ti kid us with your arguments for rights and free speech. It rings hollow. This election was stolen in the worst way, by a left leaning Communist, who is going to destroy the American way, if he is allowed too! :roll:
Not upholding it, is another way.
This recent election, opens the door for anyone regardless of experience, or lack of, or legal status to become President.
**Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy **
**Stunning Break with Last Eight Years **
http://www.borowitzreport.com/Uploads/14f7b449-a9c3-4463-bc3b-693d4a2a88e2.jpg
In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” on Sunday witnessed the president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tic, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.
But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it “alienating” to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.
“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, “Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off.”
The President-elect’s stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
“Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can’t really do there, I think needing to do that isn’t tapping into what Americans are needing also,” she said. :mrgreen:
Here we go again with Krazy Kenny Lott’s Black Helicopter fables …
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_138.gif
I think that the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Obama did it for one reason and one reason only…We did it to impress Jodie Foster.
You too? If it wasn’t for the fact that she is a lesbian… and that damn restraining order, I’d be at her house right now.
Unless of course you find rights in the emanations and penumbras of the text itself.:roll::roll::roll:
Pulleeze… Provide an example where it was changed by the emanations and penumbras of the text itself? 
Roe v. Wade in effect if not letter changed the constitution by finding explicit rights that were not in the document.
I was crushed to find out she is a Lesbian.
Of course if I was a woman ,I would be one too.
So… then the Constitution was never really changed, I mean there is no Rowe Vs. Wade amendment, right? The court simply reiterated a (women’s) right that was always in effect but was simply being denied by state law. The court merely refused to allow states to determine who owns a women’s body and how that women can pursue her own particular happiness guaranteed under the Constitution, good call if you ask me.
But apparently had no issue with the ownership of the unborn infant.
That unborn infant has more rights to live than gays have to marry their own sex.
I guess the right to pursue happiness does not extend to the unborn infant.:roll:
If a women can be denied the ownership and control of her body by the state, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights can the state simply assume they own & control? Marriage for instance?
You have never once in my recollection admitted that the unborn infant has rights until it has been delivered.
I will ask you point blank.
Does the unborn infant have any right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Apparently not. One time, back when John Ashcroft was Governor of the Great State of Missouri, he made a public statement that life begins at conception, and a fetus had those rights of life, liberty and it was the obligation of the State to protect those rights. This was at the time when the Missouri courts ruled that a pregnant woman’s fetus was murdered as a result of an assault on the woman. Her attacker was charged and convicted of murder of the fetus.
The next day, dozens of pregnant inmates in the Missouri Dept of Corrections filed charges against the State of Missouri, claiming assault, kidnapping, and illegal detention of their unborn children!
Their cases were summarily dismissed as frivolous, but the definition of murder of an unborn fetus remains.
I guess it matters whose unborn infant it is, but to my knowledge, Gov (later US Atty-General) Ashcroft never made that statement again.