Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

Hobby Lobby: Where the real war is

Bonnie Willis's picture

I am thankful for last week’s 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision that rejected the federal government case against Hobby Lobby. At issue was Hobby Lobby’s ability to eliminate certain birth control options covered by their healthcare plan due to its religious beliefs.

Prior to the decision, and subsequent to the passage of the healthcare law (ACA or Obamacare), Hobby Lobby was faced with essentially four options.

The first was to simply comply with the federal government, avoid all penalties, fees, and legal costs, but betray their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The second option was to drop healthcare coverage for its employees, assume over $20 million in penalties annually, and have their female employees pay for their own healthcare coverage.

Third, Hobby Lobby could have continued to cover only 16 of the 20 birth control methods that were mandated by the department of Health and Human Services (HHS), remain true to its religious convictions, but pay over $400 million annually in penalties. This third option, more than likely, would have put them out of business.

But the fourth and final option was to do what they did: fight judicial challenges by the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court, and hopefully win, and option four was what came to a dramatic conclusion last week.

While I was not surprised by the outcome, I was surprised by the reaction of those who characterized the decision as allowing businesses to use religion to oppress and deny the rights of women.

From the very beginning it seemed opponents of Hobby Lobby were positioning this case as “big corporations” versus women rights in an attempt to further a “war on women” narrative.

However, anyone who read the decision, or listened to an objective summary of it, would have observed how the Court stipulated that their decision only applied to businesses that were “closely held” (i.e., owned by an individual or small group like a family) and not any “big corporation.”

Additionally, Hobby Lobby did not violate the twenty-thousand-page ACA law. Rather, they were objecting to one of the mandates written by HHS within the tens of thousands of regulations intended to enforce the healthcare law.

I was also surprised to learn that this case was not filed by Hobby Lobby against the federal government. Nor was it filed by the female employees against Hobby Lobby. Rather, it was HHS who went after Hobby Lobby all the way to Supreme Court.

The HHS characterized the owners of Hobby Lobby as religious extremists who did not care about the health needs of their female employees and denied them birth control options.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that, not only does Hobby Lobby pay its employees twice the minimum wage, but even before the healthcare law was passed, Hobby Lobby’s healthcare plans made available all 20 birth control options.

However, when the ACA law was passed, and because of the possible abortive nature of four of the 20 birth control methods provided by its healthcare plans, the company declined to pay for the four contraceptives in question, but continued to cover the remaining 16.

The opponents of Hobby Lobby insinuated that not only was the arts and craft store chain restricting birth control from female employees, but they were also inflicting undue economic burden on them.

They made these claims all the while knowing that the chain still provided full coverage of the remaining 16 birth control methods. And the four that were not covered included two “morning after” pills ranging in cost of $20-60, and two intrauterine devices (IUDs) ranging in costs of $500 to $1000 — all of which are considered to be abortive in nature, and therefore contrary to their sincerely held religious convictions.

Interestingly, and somewhat disturbing, none of the objectors of the decision insinuated that Hobby Lobby was asserting phony religious objections to the regulation or question their religious convictions. Rather, they inherently asserted that Hobby Lobby’s religious convictions were irrelevant at best, and at worst (and more insidiously), their convictions were oppressive and dangerous.

At the end of the day, this case really wasn’t about the women of Hobby Lobby. It wasn’t about unfair treatment and forcing economic hardships onto women nor was it about denying healthcare access given the many affordable alternatives. So, what was it about?

Logic tells me that this case was really about a federal government using women and our sensitivities to impose regulations on anyone who opposes them based on religious grounds.

The real war being perpetuated here is by the federal government (and like-minded individuals and entities) against religion, particularly Christianity. They seem to be against those who would think and act based on religious conviction when it does not comport to their notion of a progressive morality.

How else could one rationally justify allowing thousands of women to lose their health coverage and more than likely their jobs, yet saying it was worth it in order to force a private company to pay for a 50-cent pill?

Thankfully, Hobby Lobby had the resources to fight the goliath of the federal government, but I shudder to think how different the outcome would have been if it had been a small business like my own.

[Bonnie B. Willis is co-founder of The Willis Group, LLC, a Learning, Development, and Life Coaching company here in Fayette County and lives in Fayetteville along with her husband and their five children.]


Gort's picture

Sorry Bonnie but I think you're missing the point. IMHO it comes down to this.

Corporations are artificial entities chartered by the State, people were created by God.

First the Supreme Court says Corporations are people and nobody gets too worried about it.

Now the Supreme Court says Corporations have religion and everyone shouts, "Hooray for our side!"

What's next, is the Supreme Court going to declare Corporations as Gods?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

tgarlock's picture

. . . because you most often are not anywhere close to serious. In this case I think there is one thing you might - seriously - be missing.

In the law, a corporation is a legal person. I think that had a lot to do with the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United vs FEC case wherein the Supremes ruled there can be no limits placed on corporate political contributions. I'm not a lawyer, and do not even play one on TV, but I do know the corporate personhood concept dates back to 1886 in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person.

Having said that, I will take the risk of your ridicule to disclose that my personal point of view of what SHOULD be the law is that politicians should be able to accept contributions ONLY from individuals, not corporations, not PACs, and ONLY up to a modest limit, i.e. $2,000. That would help to fend off corruption and buying elections.

Of course what the Supremes are SUPPOSED to do is interpret the law, not what SHOULD BE the law, and in the Citizens United case maybe they did that, unlike so many cases where the justices each vote their politics. But I could be wrong.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock, PTC

[quote]Having said that, I will take the risk of your ridicule to disclose that my personal point of view of what SHOULD be the law is that politicians should be able to accept contributions ONLY from individuals, not corporations, not PACs, and ONLY up to a modest limit, i.e. $2,000. That would help to fend off corruption and buying elections.[/quote]

There are areas where people who claim different ideologies can agree on some aspects of implementation of FAIR law.

Implementation of Mr. Garlock's belief would fend off corruption IMHO.

Gort's picture

Garlock, I heckle you for the same reasons you don't usually reply to me!

I don't remember what happened in 1886 but in 2014 the Georgia Secretary of State still refers to a corporation as an 'entity.' You can read it for yourself, I'm not making it up.

I can agree with you on the need of campaign reform. Unfortunately, whenever a legislature tries to put something together, for some reason, every loophole that's closed, another is opened. Why don't you consider writing a column in 'The Citizen' about it and let everyone in on the chat?

I have no doubt Supreme Court Justices believe they are interpreting the law. The squabbling starts when they make a split decision that is against your point of view. As a practical matter, taking politics out of the Supreme Court would be like trying to take tomato juice out of V8, when you consider the process of how they become justices. It's politics all the way up the ladder. What you put in one end of the pipe is exactly what you'll get out of the other end, is it not?

That being said, speaking for myself, the current make up on the Supreme Court is no friend of ordinary working people.

Before we stray too far, what did you think about the Hobby Lobby decision?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

politicians but as long as they are the ones making the decision I am afraid there will never be a real change. Just like the amount they can accept as gifts (tickets, dinners, etc) they will bray about it and make it look like they are doing something about it but always manage to leave loop holes you could push an elephant through (no pun intended). Sad, but I think the day of honorable politicians who care about the country and their constituents are a thing of the past. They are all so greedy. They should not be able to accept any gifts or contributions and there should be no PACS. Every politician should be granted the same amount of tv coverage, print coverage, etc., at least then it might make it a more even playing field for everyone. If this was the case the politicians would owe no favors to their rich backers. This will never happen either as long as our elected reps get to make the laws governing these things. Until the general population put their collective foot down and demand change we will have the status quo.

The real war is the ongoing effort to chip away at American's religious freedoms, in this case by allowing a corporation's owners to force their religious beliefs on their employees.

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person with all rights and privileges of that status needs to be changed, and a corporation absolutely should not have the right to discriminate in this manner.

Although the Hobby Lobby decision is supposed to have a narrow application legal scholars have warned that the implications may be farther reaching. I am truly concerned about this.

As I have said elsewhere, Hobby Lobby is now added to Chik-Fil-A as businesses I will no longer patronize.

NUK_1's picture

First off, you blatantly lied by posting that Chik-Fil-A "lost market share" after the gay issue. Now, you're calling a restriction of providing certain types of birth control with Obamacare "discrimination." Get a life and start thinking for yourself or lean on others who may have a better clue.

Here, I'll help you on this:




Oh....wait....the government and Sandra Fluke thinks you should get it for FREE? Wow, what a sad story.

G35 Dude's picture

Unlike the pill and some other contraceptives, I don't believe that emergency contraceptives have any uses beyond that of ending/preventing a pregnancy. Sex in and of itself is either for pro-creation or recreation. I don't think any company should have to provide for any medical treatment that is simply there for the pleasure of a person. Yet Hobby Lobby does cover the majority of contraceptives. To me it's like these people are saying, "we want to go to the movies and we want you Hobby Lobby to pay for it." So Hobby Lobby says OK We'll pay for any movie that's not porn. And then being told that is not good enough. You pay and we'll go see whatever we want. If you refuse we'll claim that you're violating our rights. And some will believe it.

Gort's picture

I just don't believe Hobby Lobby, (the corporation,) has a religious conviction when it comes to birth control, (or anything else for that matter.)

For example, China has about 13 million abortions a year, (if you can believe what you read,) but that doesn't offend Hobby Lobby's religious sensitivities enough to prevent them from filling their shelves with products manufactured in China. Does it?

Religious convictions? Baloney! It's just another Republican attack on ordinary working people using their hand picked appointments at the Supreme Court.

The Republican Party has never done anything for ordinary working people and never will. They will never be satisfied until all working people are reduced to nothing more than a substandard wage-slave.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

I don't understand the argument that health insurance should not cover birth control for woman's "recreational sex". The contraceptives that Hobby Lobby opposed are prescribed for other reasons then just "emergency birth control". They are also used to deal with endometriosis and other female reproductive problems. But if we oppose coverage for reacreational sex, why does my major health insurance cover Viagra? Our insurance has never covered my daughters hearing aids since she was a toddler, but they will cover a prescription for an aging male who deludes himself that he can perform like in his twenties. Is his sex not recreational? Hopefully these men aren't reproducing at their advanced age.

G35 Dude's picture

While your insurance company may cover Viagra it is not required by law. Most insurance companies do not cover it. Hobby Lobby only objected to 4 contraceptives out of 20. The morning after pill and some IUD's. I'm not aware of any benefits, other than birth control, that these contraceptives provide. I am aware that other contraceptives can provide other medical benefits and Hobby Lobby does continue to cover those.

<cite>According to a Gallup poll released Friday that tracked responses for the first six months of 2014, 72 percent of Muslims said they approve of the president, compared with just 20 percent who disapprove.</cite>

<a href=" approval high with Muslims</a>

Of course they approve of him. Muslims love tyrants and despots like Obama.

Okay, this is straight out bigotry.

The poll was of Americans, not people in the Middle East, and not surprisingly Obama fared well.

Fred, there is a Mosque in Fayetteville and hard working American Muslims right here in this community. Think how they would feel reading that incredibly insensitive comment about an entire religion.

Imagine if someone posted saying, "Of course Christians approve of G.W. Bush. They love war mongering homophobes like him."

I bet you would take offense.

I would urge to try to examine and rid yourself of such attitudes, and if you can't do that, then at least

Please, think before you post in a public forum.

That is why they love butt-munch obama. It's a fact.

G35 Dude's picture

At a meeting to discuss the events of Benghazi and how to hold our government accountable a young muslim woman attempted to divert the subject to Islam. I believe Brigitte Gabriel's response captures the feelings of most non-muslim Americans.

Until moderate muslims are willing to condemn and become active in stopping the radicals they will continue to be, at least in my opinion, irrelevant.

mudcat's picture

Why can't average Americans grasp this idea and push back against these savages who are very much a minority in the Muslim community. And to Brigitte's point - why don't the peace loving Muslims condemn these radicals as well.

Of course you could ask the same question of the black leaders in our country about the violence in our cities and probably get the same non answer.

You must read more than The Citizen and listen to other than Fox News. Black leaders, black communities are daily speaking out against the violence in urban areas. Can you hear? The goal of most Americans in 2014 is to become educated or educate their children; have a job that takes them out of the poverty column; live in an area where their family is safe and there are police, fire protection, and available health services. Skin color / religion has very little to do with these desired goals. Any obstruction to educational or economic progress affects all.

The obstacle in urban /poor areas is gang/gun violence - and there have been numerous marches/ vigils for victims led by blacks and browns and suburb dwellers. There is no silence by the parents of dead children!

In the short clip we don't see the excellent question raised by the young Muslim woman that led to Ms. Gabriel's tirade, but she cautioned against tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

In her ranting response Gabriel states , "Sure only a minority of Germans under Hitler were violent, only a minority of Japanese, only a minority of Russians under Stalin were violent..but the majority weren't running the show.'

She's confusing national governments with religions but it does illustrate a good point. After Pearl Harbor the US government did take the position that anyone of Japanese ethnicity was a potential enemy and a threat and it led to one of the most shameful episodes in US history with the imprisonment of thousands of innocent people.

Although internment seems unlikely at present, the attitudes that she displays can lead to discrimination and hatred against innocent people. That is the real concern here.

For a more in-depth deconstruction of the views of Brigitte Gabriel here is a CNN interview of her by Elliott Spitzer. Its quite illuminating.

G35 Dude's picture

My original point was simply focusing on the words of Ms Gabriel in the original video. Not necessarily her views as a whole. Specifically the issue of how silent the "moderate" muslims are. If they don't want to be considered irrelevant they need to be more vocal in condemning the actions of the radicals. The young muslim woman in the video that I referenced took the podium at a panel that was discussing the deaths of 4 Americans and tried to hijack the topic and make it about muslims. We Christians have our radical element also. But when a radical Christian group kills you have no problem finding Christian leaders that condemn their actions. I don't remember suggesting internment of anybody. I was simply stating that if these people (moderate muslims) don't want to be viewed with suspicion they need to do a better job of making their views known. They can't remain silent and by their silence provide cover for the radicals and expect not to be viewed with suspicion.

And as the KKK pass out recruitment flyers in parts of our country, I know that the moderate Americans will step up and let the Klan know that in 2014, they are irrelevant. Until ALL Americans stand for what is morally right rather than what is polically correct, we will be ripe for divisiveness . Yea Bridgett! Americans are united against the radical minority, I hope.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]And as the KKK pass out recruitment flyers in parts of our country, I know that the moderate Americans will step up and let the Klan know that in 2014, they are irrelevant. [/quote]

Are you trying to say that there is a silence of white Americans speaking out against the KKK?

[quote]I know that the moderate Americans will step up and let the Klan know that in 2014, they are irrelevant.[/quote]

G35 Dude's picture

OK, My bad. I just wasn't sure why you went there comparing the KKK to the radical muslims. But I did watch the news tonight and saw the story on the Klan and recent recruiting efforts. I really thought they had faded away.

<a href="">... It's Lonely Doing All The Work</a>

How childish. This coming from a despot that can't even get a budget passed because he has no idea what he is doing. Hard working Americans don't want more of our tax dollars wasted by this imbecile. barry and his little henchman Harry Reid are the ones that won't work with Rebublicans. They made that evident from day one.

obama is not capable of leading and has no business holding such office. It's way over his head. He just doesn't have the intellect for it.

The video you post above was made in Austin, Tx. the day after Barry went to Colorado. Look closely at Barry's eyes as he speaks. His whole demeanor. Holy, moly, is this prezbo buzzed or what?

Here's another look:

The President can't gets a budget passed because he's dealing with obstructionists who are far more invested in defeating his goals than in moving the country forward.

In the midst of a major recession Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate said that his party's number one priority is making sure Obama is a one term president. Not repairing the economy, not helping families, not dealing with the previous administrations disastrous foreign policy mistakes, but beating Obama. They failed in that goal but the hatred and extremism remain as a huge obstacle in this Congress.

I would match the President's intellect against that of his dim predecessor any day, G.W. Bush LIED to the American people to justify an immoral war that cost over 100,000 lives and billions of dollars. He then tanked our economy and brought on the worst recession since the 1930's and did NOTHING on his watch to combat it.

Must be from all the cocaine he snorted and pot he smoked in his younger days. His own party won't even pass his budget- obstructionism has nothing to do with it.

Obama is a retard and I'm sure that you match his intellect. Now go wet your bed like a good little lib.

Its not nice to call people names.

These posts:

"Must be from all the cocaine he snorted and pot he smoked in his younger days. His own party won't even pass his budget- obstructionism has nothing to do with it.

Obama is a retard and I'm sure that you match his intellect. Now go wet your bed like a good little lib."


"That is why they love butt-munch obama. It's a fact."

make it clear who I'm dealing with here.

Okay Fred, sorry for the harsh response. I didn't realize you were a middle school student. I don't mistreat children.

But Isn't it past your bedtime?

Nighty night?_?and don't have bad dreams about those scary Walking Muslims coming to get you.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote] I would match the President's intellect against that of his dim predecessor any day [/quote]

How can we do that when nowhere on the Internet can anyone locate Obama's IQ score, nor his college transcripts, nor his college GPA. It seems strange that President Obama was forthcoming in regards to his history of drug use, and yet he is not so willing to reveal his college transcripts nor his college GPA.

What are the requirements for graduating Magna Cum Laude from college? What are the requirements for Law Review in Law School? Criticizing minds need to know.

Interesting article:

Interesting answers.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]What are the requirements for graduating Magna Cum Laude from college? What are the requirements for Law Review in Law School? Criticizing minds need to know.[/quote]

Please provide the link to his grades and transcripts.

After you sir. I know you think the posts that I share are beneath your intelligence level, but when one is honored with Magna cum laude recognition, the GPA is what is honored. (3.5+). It might be interesting to note what a distinguished Harvard professor said about President' Obama's performance at Harvard. (I shared the link - and information on Magna cum laude as well as Summa cum laude. But you can 'google' it.

[quote]He became a research assistant to Laurence Tribe, a renowned professor working on an article applying physics to the law. (Title: "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.") By the end of his first year, Obama had won a position on the Harvard Law Review, widely considered the most influential and prestigious law publication in the nation. In 1990, Obama earned national recognition for the first time when he was elected the Review?__s first black president. Obama graduated magna cum laude and moved back to Chicago to direct Project Vote, a grassroots voter-registration program. "I thought ?_? his talents are such that there's no ceiling to what he could achieve ?__ and that included becoming president of the United States," Tribe told New York. "He's the only student about whom I've ever had that thought.[/quote]

obama didn't build that. He didn't' earn those grades. Somebody else before him made it possible. obama only made it through because of affirmative action.

My mother , a proud black women, graduated from UCLA in 1932. There was no affirmative action then. Harvard, Yale, and other outstanding universities did / do not accept 'minority' students who do not have the skill to pass their rigorous academic program.

[quote] He didn't build that[/quote]

Please tell us that you are not a product of Fayette County schools!!!

"?__If you?__ve got a business ?__ you didn?__t build that. Somebody else made that happen.?_?

You are obviously a product of the government edumication system. It shows, and it's nothing to be proud of.

Subject: business/ build

Subject: grades/build?

Subject: Garvin/????????

Mr. Garvin, thank you for your transparent contributions.

bless your heart. Your messiah barry doesn't believe in individual achievement. He believes in the collective because that's what socialist, despot, dictators do. He statement was a poke in the eye to individual achievement because he thinks that everyone should make the same amount of money. He said that to Joe The Plumber and it still holds true today.

<a href=" College Classmate: ?__The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia?__</a>

<cite>Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I?__m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama?__s Columbia University records I believe you?__d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I?__m ?__fishing?_? then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?</cite>

obama is a liar and a fraud

Hawaii is a state of the United States. Obama's mother was in Hawaii the day of his birth. He qualified for membership in the US Senate and President of the United States under the requirements of The Constitution.

Where was your mother the day you were born? No paper or 'lie' can alter the fact that you were with your mother on that day! If you have proof that Obama's mother was not in Hawaii on the president's birthday, please share with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. I think those who challenge this 'citizenship' issue will need more than the suspicions of a fellow classmate' who asked 400 of his classmates if they had seen 'Barry '. Being educated in another country does not change or alter an American citizens citizenship. Thank you and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my point of view and information. Bless your heart.

MajorMike's picture

Obama IS an American citizen due to the fact that both of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. He was however not born in Hawaii and all three of the "birth certificates" that he has released have been proven by reputable authorities both here and in Great Britain to be frauds. The last one was shown to have nine Photoshop layers. Kenyan birth certificate from the British Colonial Office: As usual DM you would rather lie when the truth would really serve better. Would you like to provide us with his SS number next.

As with so many of these proofs, they are reported as 'alleged' to protect the 'journalist' from a law suit. It is interesting that creditable witnesses have stated under oath that they visited/attended Obama's mother in the hospital on the day of his birth. . . , in Hawaii ! It has been documented that Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya. Look it up! (That is what makes him a certified African-American.) Enjoy lunch with Donald Trump! The alleged 'paper' games at this point are a waste of everyone's time - stick with discrediting his policies - the citizenship 'thingy ' is dead in the water. Thanks for adding your creditable opinion.,_Sr.

Birthers -attention! His mama and grandparents were American citizens. Read the law!!

G35 Dude's picture

I'm not saying that Obama is or isn't eligible to be POTUS but imagine this. If he were to be found ineligible who would be President for the remainder of this term? Most would answer well Biden because he's the VP. But under this scenario Biden would have assumed office by running on an illegal ticket. So if that were the case you have 3 options.

1. Bush would reassume office as the last legally elected President.

2. Romney would assume office as the highest vote getter from the last election.

3. Boehner would assume office as the highest ranking official currently in office.

Talk about a headache.

And what about all the bills that he signed into law? I don't think they could tell the people even if he were to be found ineligible.

G35 Dude's picture

Actually Mike I think Obama's father at the time of his birth was a citizen of Kenya. His mother was a citizen of the US. There is no doubt that he is a citizen. The problem is does he carry the status of natural born citizen required to be President? You see Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen. But he isn't a natural born citizen so he can't run for President. And the definition of natural born citizen is vague. By most definitions if he (Obama) was born in the United States to a citizen of the US then he would be. However, if he were born in Kenya he would by Kenyan law receive his citizenship from his father. This would not in and of itself prohibit Obama from being a citizen of the US, but by most definitions you can not carry dual citizenship and hold the natural born status. I.E. A president can not hold or have in the past held dual citizenship. This would also include any citizenship that he may have obtained later in life. So if he ever became a citizen of Indonesia, this too would be a problem. Exceptions were of course made for those Presidents that were here when the Revolution was fought. They were grandfathered in. In my opinion one reason the the SCOTUS refuses to hear birther cases is the fact that the definition of natural born is not clear. This is an area of law that needs to cleared up for future candidates.

[quote]The problem is does he carry the status of natural born citizen required to be President? [/quote]


<cite>Some people are already U.S. citizens and don't know it. Most of these people fall into one of three groups:

People born in the United States who have lived most of their lives in other countries. If you fall into this category, you may mistakenly believe that your long absence from the country, plus voting or military activities elsewhere, have stripped you of U.S. citizenship. This is not the case.

People who have U.S. citizens in their direct line of ancestry. If your parents or grandparents were U.S. citizens, you may not realize that U.S. citizenship has been passed down the line, even if you were born elsewhere and your parents or grandparents haven't lived in the United States for a long time.</cite>

Check it out.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]Check it out.[/quote]

I did. But I must have missed the paragraph that explains the difference between citizen and natural born citizen as required to be president. Maybe you can point it out for me.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

<cite>The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to foreign parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]</cite>

By the interpretation of the Congressional Research Service, our president meets the citizenship requirement to hold this office. What do you think and why? Thanks.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]By the interpretation of the Congressional Research Service, our president meets the citizenship requirement to hold this office. What do you think and why? Thanks.[/quote]

So by your definition my previous statement that if he were born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen is correct. However if he were born in Kenya then Kenyan law would define him as Kenyan based on his fathers citizenship. He could still be an American citizen but would not be eligible to be president. This is why place of birth is so important. Do I think he is a citizen? Yes. Is he natural born? I don't know. You will accept anything he says as truth. Based on his history I don't. The man hides a lot of personal information that most people would not. Another potential glitch would be if he ever held citizenship in Indonesia. The president can not hold dual citizenship.

Now having said that I'll also add that even if he were found not to have been eligible to be president we, the people, will never be told. Who would serve out his term? What about about all the bills he signed into law? The damage that would cause could not be undone.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

G35 Dude's picture

I didn't think that the number was this high........

G35 Dude's picture

You tend to read a post and interpret it to mean what you want it to mean. Maybe he did graduate Magna cum laude. All I said in my response to danz57 was that we couldn't compare him to Bush as he was not willing to release his transcripts. I can Google and find pages that back up what you say. I can also find pages that challenge what you say. He may have graduated Magna cum laude. But if he did why will he not release his grades? Without them all we have is his word. For some that is enough. I mean we all know that he never lies huh? He is hiding something. The question is what?

If Harvard did not honor Obama at the time of his graduation with Magna cum laude, then you and Sarah Palin have grounds for impeachment. Obama may have falsely represented himself to the Bar Association, etc., etc,, Make your case! Are there others who question a persons GPA when that person has been honored with the designation of a Magna Cum Laude graduate? Those parents of Magna Cum Laude college graduates would be perplexed at why anyone would question their child's achievement.

What were your findings on the requirement for Magna Cum Laude designation from Harvard? Where did you find Bush, Romney's , and Reagan's transcripts?

[quote]He may have graduated Magna cum laude. But if he did why will he not release his grades?[/quote]

The designation Magna Cum Laude tells the world what your GPA had to be!



Ad space area 4 internal