Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
First, why could the SCOTUS not have taken the case because they felt it had no merit? Why do you have to assume it is because of some obligation they feel to Obama or some other reason that justifies your suspicions? Couldn't it just be them saying, "Meh, this case has no ground to stand on"?
Second, I think if you dig deeper, you'll find that your "he's still a dual citizen with Kenya" argument is incorrect due to his being under 18.
Last, when considering the founder's thoughts, do you honestly think that in todays times, they could would want a person like Obama impeached on a technicality?
Those rules were set up for a reason, and that reason most certainly was not to keep good Americans out of office, but rather to ensure the integrity of the POTUS position.
[edit on 12/30/2008 by Irish M1ck]
First, because they said that they were denied because of "Lack of Standing".
Second, according to Kenyan law, he was and still is a Kenyan citizen. He didn't need to renounce his American citizenship because in Kenya, they don't recognize dual citizenship in the first place.
Third, I don't see it as a technicality. They didn't want any divided loyalities involved with the president. I don't either. Really, if he is hiding something, that is extremely bad because it gives whoever gets the proof of it first the ability to blackmail the POTUS.
The only reason anyone is questioning this is because he's refused blatently to give his original birth certificate (not a picture). He should just give it - everyone else has including John McCain (he even let people see his medical records).



