What if Ron secretly wasn't a natural born citizen and was running for President?
Submitted by atrickpay on Sat, 08/01/2009 - 21:47
Myself, I couldn't care less--I know he would be good for the Presidency as he would expand liberty. "Big deal," I say if he would be violating the Constitution by doing this. Why? Because liberty is more important to me than the Constitution.
Note: This is a hypothetical question. We know that he wouldn't do this in reality...
»
Excellent question.
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
Entertaining the hypothetical
After reading through a lot of these posts it sounds like your true question is whether or not we worship Ron Paul. If he became president like Obama, and it turned out he was not eligible, would we be willing to turn a blind eye to the constitution in order to keep him in office, because he's just such a great guy, or would we demand that he step down regardless of the good he's done?
Well I would hope the obvious answer is no, we don't worship him and he is subject to the constitution as we all are. If it turned out he was ineligible to be president I'm sure he would step down of his own accord if he had not known previously of his ineligibility. If he had known previously but persisted anyway, charges of treason for usurping the presidency should be brought up and ensuing consequences should follow.
Ron Paul is great and we owe a lot to him but we don't and should not worship him or any politician. Like he reminds the press all the time, it's not him, its the message. It would be sad but he would have to step down, and continue the fight from the sidelines or we would force him to. I think from our perspective upholding the constitution in this situation is a no brainer.
Its entirely different from the perspective of Obama supporters. The constitution means entirely jack squat to them. Even if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a fraud, even if Obama comes out on national television teary-eyed and admits it was all a big lie, he really wasn't a natural born citizen, I'm sure his supporters would see to it, that day even, that the constitution be changed or scrapped altogether. He is dear leader. He is their second amendment and you can pry him from their cold dead fingers.
From our perspective the situation doesn't change by placing Ron in Barack's place. The constitution is clear. We are not attached to man, but to principles.
No it's not
about worship; but to deny credit that Dr. Paul is a BIG (if not The Biggest) PLAYER in getting the message out would by overlooking a Huge piece of the Liberty puzzle.
Generalizing the posts is dangerous. Generalizing is what got the people of the USA in trouble. Like your last sentence states, 'We are not attached to man, but to principles,' - and Ron Paul is all about following the Constitution & it's written word.
It can be simultaneously about both man & principle.
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
No denying credit, he deserves it
but the question was essentially, when it comes down to it, do we follow man or principle? It just happens to be our happy circumstance that Dr. Paul is a principled man and we can proudly follow him and sing his song of liberty. That said, it is my hope that should the man ever stray from the principle I'll be waving to him not following him.
What site do you think this is??.
"should the man ever stray from the principle?"
Are you mentally challenged or just ignorant? To question that Dr. Ron Paul would sway from his beliefs & platform that he's been fighting since the 70's is just pure fallacy.
Wait a minute here - You actually posted this:
"It just happens to be our happy circumstance that Dr. Paul is a principled man and we can proudly follow him and sing his song of liberty."
WHOSE "HAPPY CIRCUMSTANCE" do you claim to speak for??? It sure as hell is not the majority of us who have been here for A LOT LONGER THAN YOU!!! It is not "circumstance" jeevzy. This site is called the DAILY PAUL for a reason, 16 weeker.
If you researched his political history & service to His Country back to the 1960's, you'd KNOW IT. Do you even know his record in Congress? His M.D. record of delivering 4000+ babies? From the ignorance of your post, I'd say not.
Case Closed.
You're new here. Do some research on Dr. Paul & his platform before you post. Stop embarassing yourself.
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Good Post
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
If he was not a natural born
If he was not a natural born citizen then he would not run.
Ron follows the Constitution, others do NOT.
~~
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life.
Teach a man to phish and he'll clean out your bank account.
~~
What if you didn't write such a stupid post?
I mean really, this doesn't change anything and we know Ron wouldn't run.
Kinda like how I wouldn't run to be Emperor of Japan or Czar of Russia--you know because I actually respect other people and their culture--oh yes and their LAWS.
============================
Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90198
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86643
============================
Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90198
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86643
So What Really is the True Point of Your Post Atrickpay?
You answered your own question. Ron Paul wouldn't Run.
So the motive for your post is?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
W.T.F. atrickpay?!?
SHAME. ON. YOU.
Like our job here isn't hard enough without your stupid "hypothetical" question?!?!??
That question is beyond hurtful to those fighting for liberty. This is a hard, tough, gut-wrenching, thankless job we do. Stupid, moronic crap like this is unnecessary. You should know better. We all know that those 150+ "guests" that visit here each day are Neo-Cons looking to see what we know, are researching, & believe in. Why would you TRY to add fuel to their evil fire??
Go get a grip, get a hobby & try to be HELPFUL.
BTW - It's Dr. Paul or Congressman Paul, or Ron Paul --- not Ron.
Show some respect.
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
As long as it remained secret, it wouldn't harm the Constitution
It is only when we establish a PRECEDENT of KNOWINGLY and PUBLICLY ignoring or subverting the Constitution that it is damaged.
I know a lot of people are going to have trouble understanding this, but raising the question of Obama's eligibility only HURTS the Constitution because they are NEVER going to be able to get him out of office on these grounds.
All it does is make people question the relevance of such clauses in the Constitution and reaffirms in the minds of many that it is an outdated document.
******************************
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Now
if I did not know better, I would say this is a poor attempt to run cover for Obama.
Simple answer? No I would not vote for him (RP) and yes, natural born status matters, not to mention fraud. I have a hard time imagining the media covering up for Ron Paul, though.
"Natural born citizen" requires a definition!
I understand it to mean that both parents of a future president are American citizens. By this standard a child destined to become president would not be raised with divided loyalties. This is what I believe the Founders intended. It is unfortunate that they were not more explicit.
Most people believe mistakenly that all that is meant by the expression, natural born citizen, is that the person was born in this country.
I suggest that you google the phrase: natural born citizen
here is part of one finding there:
>>>"Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:
A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.
The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only.
Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth."<<<
Wm
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731
What if????
the sky was purple, and people shit pink twinkies. This has got to be one of the dumbest posts on DP that I have ever seen. Are we that bored?
glad some else said it..
can't believe that i lived this long to see something like this.
or unintentionally bump it because of these words!
ROFLMAO lolololololololol
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
Ron who? Ron Howard? Ron
Ron who?
Ron Howard? Ron White?
To your question,I would vote no.
The premise it sets would lead to world government.
If you ignore that clause,then it leads to another being abandoned,and another,and so on until...
------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
????
Now I know what Glenn means when he says "quick get the duct tape my head is exploding."
That is the difference between Dr. Paul and McCain/Obama.
Dr. Paul would follow the letter of the Constitution and not run for President. So your question is fallacious.
strange post
This question is kinda like, "Would you still go to church if you knew your preacher was having gay sex and doing intravenous drugs?"
Like my father always said: "Ask a stupid question and you'll get some stupid answers!"
Well, if it's like that,
then the answer (to me anywyays) should be obviously clear....meaning a simple yes, or no answer should suffice. (ie. "No, I wouldn't go to a church where the preacher is gay and doing IV"). But people seem to have trouble giving a simple yes or no answer for some reason...me thinks it's people returning from the bar. ;-)
Couldn't resist
Well the answers aren't so stupid but the question sho nuff is LOL
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
I've posed a question to your comment
below Ms. Davenport.
This is a counter-factual hypothetical, First
Second, presuming he would run as a hypocrite is outrageous!
------
Libera me......from this dark dream, to the life-stream! --Leslie Phillips
The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"-- Ronald Reagan
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Counter factual?
In what sense?
Exactly. That's why I noted that in the thread post, lol.
In the sense that 1) I'm sure that the media would have had...
a field day with such information and would ensure that it were broadcast night and day.-( Just look what they did with the remarks made by others in his newsletters!)
2) This would force him to do as John McCain did, and release all information.
-----
Libera me......from this dark dream, to the life-stream! --Leslie Phillips
The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"-- Ronald Reagan
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
OK,
that is assuming more than I intended into this hypothetical question, lol. I meant for it to be an exact parallel to the Barry Soetoro thing going on these days. Therefore, since it's supposed to be exact, the media would be helping in covering it up.
Pointless Post!
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always"
Gandhi
"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"
LearnRonPaul
It's a subjective thing
I myself thought it was an interesting experiment, as it points out to you which of the two you support more--the Constitution or liberty?
How could you trust someone who ignores the constitution
to defend liberty?
Explore Orthodox Christianity