Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

Originally posted by StevenDye
Lets go back to World war 2, just to have a nice example. You have a German born person living in America, he is an America citizen. Everyone thinks he is American born.

He is elected president, and then you find out he is German, born in the country you are fighting...can you say you would still fully trust him.

And which "country" are we fighting that Obama is born in? Is Hawaii a country? If he were born in Kenya, can you tell me which of the current wars we are fighting with the Kenyans?

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by jam321

The "Supreme law of the land," also says the government cannot endorse/favor one religion over the other, and to keep separation of church and state,

Thats not what the Constitution says, Its the veryfirst statement in the 1st Amendment;

"Congress shall make no law respectiing an established religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof"
This means the Government can't establish their own religion but must respect any others and any practices of those religions. Mearly prayers before any event is not ESTABLISHING a religion. It is the free excercizing of this right. Anyone can pray anyway they want or not! If your ofended by it ...then don't listen or turn on your Ipod, but leave me and my or your prayers alone.

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by riggs2099

 

Obviously you didn't learn anything about our Constitution. Only the POTUS must be natural born. Folks who immigrated to the US and have taken citizenship may hoild any office BUT the POTUS!
Zindo

How many times do you think you will have to repeat that, Zindo?

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by Memysabu
Because its in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Without the Constitution we are not the USA. Its what this country
was founded on and I for one completely back it.

So what happens when there is an Amendment to the Constitution?

Do we cease to exist?

The point is, that there is no such amendment. If there were this would not be an issue. Such an ordeal of defensive thrashing! What's the big mystery.

Let's for a moment say he isn't a 'natural' born citizen; then legislature would have to amend the constitution to allow such persons to qualify to be the chief executive officer of the nation (unless of course they make it pertinent to this particular candidate.)

But the prevailing wisdom has to be that the reason for such a restriction is not to be taken lightly. Why people always think it's about their petty political fantasies I'll never know!

I have seen copies of Obama's Birth Certificate. What's the problem with it? I am seriously asking. I haven't followed this story.

Originally posted by Tinkabit



Apparantly the fat lady has not yet sung.

Potential for Consititutional Crisis Exists.

Can this discusson occur without the polarization of politically extreme emotionalism?? It is not settled, and as such, we in this country of still free speech should be able to discuss without ad hominem attacts. Enter only if you can keep it positive.

news.aol .com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Should we also have a requirement that those who speak out against ATTACKS should know how to spell the word?

Just sayin...

reply to post by Maxmars


I think the defensive thrashing comes from the fact that the people propogating this argument have successively changed their reasoning and logic behind the argument several times.

First he's born in Kenya, and that's why he loses citizenship, then he's adopted in Indonesia so he loses his citizenship, then he somehow renounces his citizenship, or he didn't live in the states long enough to remain a natural born citizen, or his mom didn't live long enough to be one, etc. etc.

Nothing put forward in any of these lawsuits is more than circumstantial, hearsay, or wild speculation made with huge leaps in logic.

I know many of us are willing to take blogs and websites with an agenda at face value; however, our court system will not. That is why the previous suits have been dismissed (not just because of lack of standing).

Some proponents of this scream up and down about that sanctity and absoluteness of the Constitution, but when an individual's rights become protected by it (and our courts - Conservative and Liberal - uphold that the Bill of Rights and the guarantee of liberty in the 14th amendment is our right to privacy), they throw their arms up in the air and scream foul. This really confuses me.

So, which is it? Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land and Obama's right to privacy upheld by it, or is the Constitution only applicable when it conveniently fits your political position? I understand the "He's going to be President" line but does it really matter in the eyes of the Constitution? If the DNC, RNC, State of Illinois, his rivals, the State of Hawaii, FBI, CIA, NSA, and every single court that has ruled on this case so far believes he is Constitutionally eligible, then why should he deny his own rights in the Constitution to please a few attack dogs?

Edited to remove emotion. Didn't want to seem like I was attacking when that is not my intention.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Avenginggecko]

reply to post by DJMessiah


None...I used it as an example.

3 years in the future. Huge natural disaster in Kenya and America. Your country can only fully support one disaster, the other will have some short comings. Can you fully count on a man who will still feel a connection to his country of birth, to give America the full support insead of Kenya under the guise of foreign relation or something?

Not a brilliant reson, but use your mind...it's just an example...

reply to post by Avenginggecko


I don't know about him being "good enough for the DNC, RNC, State of Illinois, his rivals, the State of Hawaii, FBI, CIA, NSA"

But each court petitioned has refused to 'rule' on this case at all. In fact, some dismissals have been authored by people other than the judges who penned their names to them.

Just let one court actually hear the case and rule, and it will all be over.

By the way, the special security clearance background check he underwent ended in him not meeting the criteria for a security clearance. But that doesn't mean much. Bush didn't either. Neither did Clinton. They all get it anyway, 'rubber stamp'.

What aspect of privacy violation do you contend is being foisted upon the president elect? I thought this was about meeting the criteria set forth in the law. "Natural born" requires certification. That's all that's required. Nothing more. Or am I missing something larger that's being requested.

All we need to know is whether or not he is a natural born American citizen, that's it. No bells, no whistles, no other circumstantial crap. It really isn't that hard to produce - and if it is, for whatever reason, I'm sure the courts can determine the proper legal course of action.

reply to post by DJMessiah


The government doesn't endorse any religion by praying or swearing in, a Law requiring one Bible or Religion would violate our Rights. Congress has the Right to pray and they do it in at least 4 religions that I know of. Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist. The presidents choose the Bible and usually supply it for their swearing in. Johnson was not sworn in on a Bible. Some in Congress have used the Koran for their swearing in like that congressman from Minnesota did 2 years ago.

Point is that these are personal decisions by people in Government, I know you wouldn't suggest that to serve in government you must be atheistic or give up your Right to Religion of your choice would you?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Can anyone tell me why is it so important that the US President has to be born in the US, rather than just be a citizen?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by DJMessiah]

Because it is a law and part of the constitution. That means that until if and when it is changed, that all candidates for office of POTUS have to follow it.

It's not something you can ignore just because it is "inconvenient" for your chosen candidate.

Simple as that - really.

May I point out that this argument is moot?
Though I'm more curious than the average Joe, I know when I'll find my answers and when to give up; the man has already been elected and is a month away from being one of the most powerful men in the world. Do any of you really think that a man in such a position would let something slip out which would render his right to office void? Even if he were so careless, I'd like to think our government would be competent enough to keep it from getting out to the public; at the very least, such documentation would be discredited.
Those who voted for Obama - You clearly have good intentions and are good listeners. Unfortunately, you've listened to the charismatic banter of the new millenium's most skilled orator, who, sadly, possesses little skill anywhere else. By the way, once you've read through Mein Kampf by Hitler, or Capitol Vol I., by Karl Marx, I will listen to your adamant denials of his socialistic nature. Read the books and look at his policy.
Those who voted for McCain - While your actions were admirable, you just should've let go of Joe the Plumber. Now that its over, I hope you can admit that using Joe was possibly the dumbest camaigning idea in history. But who is judging? You tried to keep the red democrat out of office. On the bright side, if a man is to be judged by his campaign, we just dodged another Bush; it almost makes me glad of the election's results. Almost.
Now, I could write pages upon pages of this jargon, but it would be off-topic, so I'll get to the point.
If you think that you'll bring about some great change or revelation by posting half-baked ideas about the government on a forum which is, in all probability, under government surveillance, you're just another pawn on a fourth-dimensional chessboard. This is directed exclusively to those who have posted here and everywhere else, those people who take things straight to heart and can't seem to have an intelligent, let alone civil, conversation. If you truly desire action in or from the government, get off the bloody computer and do something; otherwise, leave the rest of us alone to discuss things in peace. This is a forum, not a war-council. Currently, anyway.

A brief synapsis for the reading-impaired: No proof, no chance, no truth, no future, no action, plenty of words, and undercover trolls cause cancer.
The End.

p.s. Undercover Troll - One with basic grammatical skills who appears, at surface level, to be genuinely interested in a topic, but in actuality has the intelligence of box and is only venting its menial frustrations.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Let's for a moment say he isn't a 'natural' born citizen; then legislature would have to amend the constitution to allow such persons to qualify to be the chief executive officer of the nation (unless of course they make it pertinent to this particular candidate.)

You need to learn how a constitutional amendment happens. It is a very long process that could not be accomplished in time to help obama.

amendment process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

And before anyone starts in on Bush ...

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by centurion1211]

If Obama would just release his original Birth Certificate then most of the noise about this would just go away. Unless of course there is a problem with it. Prehaps that's why it's taking so long for something so simple to happen - he has his forgers working hard on a 'original' birth certificate.

reply to post by Maxmars


Yes, natural born does mean certification. And government officials have certified his certification is legit. No credible sources have provided any evidence that is not circumstantial or hearsay or wild speculation.

Can you provide me any evidence that a court of law will not deem circumstantial, hearsay, or speculation?

I did not say he passed/failed his security clearance, I said he was good enough for the agencies. Did he fail to legitimately qualify because the FBI found out he was a Kenyan native/Indonesian citizen/usurper whatever?

As far as the right to privacy - state officials, national parties, and lower courts have determined Obama is eligible and/or these cases have no merit. State and Federal law stipulates his documents, and his right to have them public or private, are protected documents under the right to privacy.

I see it this way - he just got hired to be CEO of a major, multi-billion dollar company. HR accepted him, the board accepted him, he aced his interviews, and got the job.

Should he be required to visit every cubicle or circulate a copy of his college transcripts because a few people believe (with no real evidence to support the fact) that he never went to Harvard? Even after HR says they have his Harvard transcripts? Even after the board says they've looked into it and he did go to Harvard? Even after mid-level Managers refuse to forward the complaints to the Executives because they see them as frivolous?

That's what it seems like to me, at least.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


I just want ONE court to state that he is a natural born citizen. I don't know about the rest. As far as I know of, no court HAS made that assertion. And the only governmental official with enough courage to make the claim (the health official in the state of Hawaii) only went as far as to say they had a sealed copy of the certificate in question.

Somehow, I think that should have sufficed legally. But apparently, legally, it doesn't. Otherwise no case could be brought. Perhaps that is why the Supreme Justices are to confer on the matter (next week?).

I am patient, and I suspect this will amount to nothing in the way of keeping him from assuming the Presidency. Those who have invested so much of their efforts, time, and money would not tolerate anything else.

It makes no difference to me if he gets in or not, because the president is just a face man. It's all marketing in my opinion. If this administration proves me wrong I will be among the first to rejoice. If he is more of the same, I won't be too surprised.

reply to post by Maxmars


I believe it's implied that the courts believe he is a natural born citizen when they refuse to hear the case. Courts have ruled that some of the cases don't have standing, but they've also included in their summaries that the evidence is either circumstantial, hearsay, or speculation mainly from the internet.

A case must either have a party that has standing (directly hurt by the defendant), or action at law (a wrong has occured, or will occur, or a right was infringed upon by the defendant)

The only situation that is even closely applying is Action at law: A wrong will occur when Obama becomes President if he is ineligible.

Since that is the only plausible reason for an action at law suit, the plaintiffs are required to submit evidence to the court that will determine a wrong will be comitted by the defendant. There is no court-admissable evidence that will prove the plaintiff's case.

It doesn't matter how good circumstantial evidence or hearsay seems to be. If it is either, it doesn't cut it. I have yet to see any real evidence in this case, whatesoever.

It doesn't matter to the courts whether or not the VBC is real and valid, the courts are going to rule on whether or not the plaintiff has the right to access the records, and since state officials have already verified that they have a valid VBC, I see the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff as just as likely as Obama morphing into Bowser and taking Sarah Palin to his castle for McCain to rescue.

Originally posted by Memysabu
He could stop paying all these fees for the price of what 25 bucks for another copy? Im pretty sure the cost of all these cases has exceeded 100k.

It's reported to be above $800,000 at this point. It costs $10 to get a copy of the long BC.

It's completely illogical. If you got a parking ticket, would you spend $50,000 fighting it in court so you wouldn't have to pay the $10?

Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline
Solicitor general's office dodges questions about birth certificate complaint

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 01, 2008
10:35 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



Attorney Philip J. Berg


President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg's petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office.

While the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond to the complaint on Nov. 18, the solicitor general's office is refusing to say whether the waiver was also filed on behalf of Obama and the DNC.

Berg filed his petition on Oct. 30, and according to procedure, a response from the defendants was due today. But when WND contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and the solicitor general's office, officials referenced the FEC's waiver and dodged any questions about Barack Obama and the DNC filing separate responses.

America's Right blogger and legal writer Jeff Schreiber has followed the case closely.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond," Schreiber speculated. "First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response."

But one thing that is not clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents, he added.

(Story continues below)




FEC attorney Gregory G. Garre is listed as the only name under "Attorneys for Respondents." There are no additional attorneys listed for Obama or the DNC – and the waiver was filed by "respondents Federal Election Commission, et. al," suggesting the response was on behalf of other defendants as well.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

"As it were, the FEC's attorney, Gregory Garre, is with the Solicitor General's office, and does not represent Obama or the DNC," Schreiber wrote. "While attorneys acting on behalf of a group of defendants or respondents is not necessarily rare, the difference here is the involvement of the Solicitor General's office, a federal office."



www.worldnetdaily.com...


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I believe it's implied that the courts believe he is a natural born citizen when they refuse to hear the case.

I can't accept the implication. I think it is not unreasonable (given the circumstance) to demand a declaration - not an implied acceptance.

Courts have ruled that some of the cases don't have standing, but they've also included in their summaries that the evidence is either circumstantial, hearsay, or speculation mainly from the internet.

A case must either have a party that has standing (directly hurt by the defendant), or action at law (a wrong has occured, or will occur, or a right was infringed upon by the defendant)

The only situation that is even closely applying is Action at law: A wrong will occur when Obama becomes President if he is ineligible.

But leaving it at that means the only recourse would be having to prove a negative. At some point the subject has to prove positively that he did meet the requirement. If the court has ruled he did, there would be no case.

It's interesting academically, but we are referring to a would be leader of the nation. Is it so obtuse to expect satisfaction in a direct way, rather than accept it because "it must be OK or someone would have found out by now."

Also, we are not treating this as a crime (at least I'm not), just as a breach of protocols which were thoughtfully established and accepted as part of our system. Surely this can be directly confirmed. I keep hearing that it has been - second hand - by those who are offended at the inquiry. I have seen no individual (save the aforementioned Hawaiin official) who will put their career on the line and say "By the duties and responsibilities vested in me by the government I can and will attest that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and is therefor free to assume the Presidency.

A lot of implied "it's OK" and much "here's a copy of the document you are asking for" but no official declaration.