Keith Olbermann Interviews Constitutional Lawyer on Bush's Impeachment, page 1

Originally posted by jetxnet
This Moron should be interviewing a Lawyer on Obama's non-Birth Certificate requested by the State Dept., but Obama refuses to disclose the information.

This is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Hmmm...Let's see...Here it is:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Yep...If he can't (or refuses to) prove it, he's not eligible.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Basic interpretation and manipulation of the law is why some lawyers are paid much more than others.

Good point...However, were you aware that lawyers who pass the International BAR are given foreign titles of state, such as Esquire? How many such lawyers go on to "serve" in the US Government?

Source from quoted post: Duke lacrosse prosecutor disbarred:
"We had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class."

How many such government "servants" could be harboring similar "conflicting loyalties" between the nation that bestowed such title & their US government "service?" There is a specific reason why the Founding Forefathers included Article 1,Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Their reason being that no one in any Government Office should be forced to "choose between two masters." The Forefathers had already learned from history that no one is capable of effectively serving any interests if they posses divided loyalties. My point here is that, such divided loyalties existing in US Offices now have been violating Constitutional Law from the moment they took their Oath of Office...Not really "manipulating law," as you put it, but outright violating it.

So the People are better served by Constitutional Lawyers providing answers rather than trust the word of any "politician" in any Office of Trust...Because divided loyalties can never be trusted in Office.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]