Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:21 PM by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, so I am speculating when I assume that a case needs to have some merit before it is referred to conference? WTF?

I would have loved for this case to be heard, simply so I could put it to rest in my mind, not all of yours. And BH, I don't know why you'd say that about me that you don't think I'd believe it even if the SCOTUS took the case? Come on now, I am not that shallow. I have said many times that I'd be completely satisfied if:

1) The SCOTUS court ordered his vault copy.

2) They had it analyzed by forgery experts to assure its validity.

3) They wrote a formal request to the government of Kenya asking for verification that they have no record whatsoever of Obama's birth in Kenya.

4) The forgery analysis came back clean

5) SCOTUS proclaims Obama eligible.

Done. End of story for me. That would be enough.

You do realize that is by far the most any president elect has ever, ever had to do to show his eligibility?

This is ridiculous. There is not one shred of credible evidence he not was born in Hawaii. I'm not talking about this from a partisan view, but a legalistic view. There is absolutley no evidence that could come close to proving he was born in Kenya or Indonesia.

* The discredited "Obama's Grandma" tape won't work.
* It's been established that Obama never and couldn't have renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
* A box check-marked that he was an Indonesian citizen (same form says he is from Hawaii) is not proof of his Indonesian citizenship.
* Hawaii verified they have is original, legitimitate BC.
* If the VBC said he was born anywhere other than Hawaii, the COLB would reflect that.
* Obama has all the rights and priveladges of a citizen; therefore,
* He is entitled to the same right of privacy every American has. His detractors do not have the right to violate the Constitution and centuries of case law establishing a citizen's right to privacy in order feed their fear/paranoia/self-righteousness/whatever

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Avenginggecko]

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:32 PM by danx

Originally posted by nsaeyes
reply to post by danx

yes, and section E of that qualifies him as a natural U.S. citizen. Point well taken, though.

I would agree with you if it weren’t for a minor detail.

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that:

The Congress shall have Power To (...)
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The 14th Amendment only contemplates birth and naturalization as sources for citizenship.

If Congress only has power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, since US Code is federal law, people born outside the US who are granted citizenship at birth through it, might fall under the category of (automatically) ‘naturalized’.

Is that being a “natural born” person? Personally, I don’t think so, but since the SCOTUS never addressed it specifically, I don’t know.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by danx]

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:36 PM by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by redhatty
You asked a question, I gave an honest answer, and you negate it as though it doesn't matter.

No, I didn't negate it. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning. You stated:

I for one, would like an authoritative, impartial party - like a judge - to request both the long version of the BC certified as true by the state of Hawaii - and look to the dual-citizenship at birth issue and decide if that still constitutes a "natural-born citizen.

I pointed out, quite correctly, that an authoritative, impartial party-specifically, not just A judge, but the SCOTUS-has decided not to pursue this line of investigation. You can demand all you want that they change their minds, look it over, and certify the "long version of the BC" but they have no obligation to do a damn thing you say. SCOTUS justices aren't elected, they're appointed for life and they don't answer to YOU. Tough s&*t. I don't always agree with them either but they're the highest court in the land, AND the final arbiter of Constitutional law. "The buck stops with them", as it were.

If I still have doubts they are mine and I own them. I am not afraid to express them - and apparently many others have similar doubts.

Negating other people's doubts/feelings/opinions will only feed the division that is already forming in this country.

And you fell right into that trap by falling for the lies of the very people who seek to divide us. This whole issue has been trumped up to discredit Obama and cripple his Presidency.

I believe Obama is 100% legit. I believe the HI Dept. of Health when they say the BC is legit. If you don't trust Obama try and trust them. But I forget, they're "in on it".

Why not try to help heal the division instead of widening it?

I would ask you the same question.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:37 PM by Raustin

reply to post by Avenginggecko

You do realize that is by far the most any president elect has ever, ever had to do to show his eligibility?

So what? There has never been this much controversy over the eligibility. I think those five little steps are very appropriate in ending the questions. I highly doubt Obama was not properly vetted, but I also cannot understand why he won't man up and give proof he is eligible.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:42 PM by robotically

reply to post by ConservativeJack

If we have elected a president who has based his image and his campaign solely on lies, God help us. You Jack are so convinced of your stance that I give you credit, your intentions are good. I honestly think that if more people were as passionate as you are then we might be better off. However you can't ignore the fact that Mr Obama has ridden this plane to fame under false pretenses. He is not African American as US law defines it. He is more Arab American than anything else. I believe as much as you do that we need "change" and want it more than anything. However I fear that we as a people have so quickly and haphazardly grabbed the first thing that was presented to us as the icon of "change".

I fear that the people of this country are so superficial and shallow that we chose to elect somebody who just looks different. Would it be different if he were of Hispanic origin? Who knows, I believe the elitists have played us like a fiddle. Now they have somebody in power that can make radical and extreme changes and you know what, people will cheer him on. Why? Because anything he does now represents "change". We wanted to believe it so badly that we are oblivious to the anything he does that would normally raise a red flag. Yeah, we got exactly who we wanted for president... but... its exactly who we were setup to pick anyway.

Its all in the name of "change" right...

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:45 PM by nsaeyes

reply to post by danx

interesting...although I'm not sure why there would be a need to "naturalize" a individual at birth if he already fits into one of the subsets of Federal Law...I guess it's a case of symantics....

with that thought in mind, does one work with the letter of the law if SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed the issue, or does one follow the spirit of the law...which might be different than the letter of the law.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:45 PM by danx

Originally posted by robotically
However you can't ignore the fact that Mr Obama has ridden this plane to fame under false pretenses. He is not African American as US law defines it. He is more Arab American than anything else.

I’m sorry but that’s one of the most ignorant comments I’ve heard lately.

His mother was white, his father was black. How is he an “Arab American”? Not to mention that US law doesn’t define people’s race...

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:50 PM by thing fish

reply to post by danx

i too would like to know how the above poster arrives at arab american and what the hell it has to do with anything.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:52 PM by danx

Originally posted by nsaeyes
interesting...although I'm not sure why there would be a need to "naturalize" a individual at birth if he already fits into one of the subsets of Federal Law...I guess it's a case of symantics....

Here’s the thing: What’s the only situation in where you’re born a US citizen without the need of legislation? Being born in the United States.

Federal law does indeed contemplate people born outside the US, but certain requirements are needed, while if you are born in the United States, even if your parents are illegal immigrants (something that wouldn’t qualify you for US citizenship at birth outside the US), you are a US citizen at birth.

This is why I believe that federal law can grant US citizenship at birth outside the US, but only through naturalization.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by danx]

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:53 PM by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by redhatty
Here is the official statement from Hawaii

Please point out where in this statement is specifically says that the BC posted on Obama's site, or the daily Kos, or factcheck is the same as what they have on file.

That's the whole problem with using this statement - it really says NOTHING regarding whether or not what we have been shown is the same as what they have

You're right--it DOES NOT say specifically that the BC on the websites is the same as what they have on file.

But it doesn't even have to:

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

"I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statuatory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."(emphasis added)

This is a direct statement from the Hawaii State Department of Health.

Are you calling Dr. Fukino a liar?

Because unless you are, your link directly proves Obama's status as a natural-born US Citizen.

Or is that still not enough?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:53 PM by JoshNorton

Originally posted by kozmo
Yet he has spent over $1M retaining law firms, THREE to be exact, to represent him on this matter... why?

Can you name the law firms and cite your sources within those firms who have somehow managed to violate client privilege without being disbarred?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:56 PM by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by kozmo
To say that there is nothing to look into is both short-sighted and outright stupid!

I am looking forward to the SCOTUS being challenged on every single document that he signs as President of the US until this question is answered.

Yeah well answered to whos satisfaction is what is now at issue. And for whos gain.

If that happens enough though, and people serious about this follow through with suit after suit, it can only be ignored in the SCOTUS for so long. Max critical mass: 50% to 60%, I would guess. But that would take years, if even possible. And by then Obama will be in his retreat home in Northern Paraguay, etc.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:58 PM by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by robotically
Yeah, we got exactly who we wanted for president... but... its exactly who we were setup to pick anyway.

It's really, REALLY hard to try and take people seriously when faced with this level of paranoia.

This is why I get angry. Because I keep hearing this kind of crap, that it's all a NWO plot, etc.

If you believe this why are you even here? Why do you stay in the US? Why not find another home? I mean seriously, do you really believe this?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:59 PM by nsaeyes

reply to post by danx

gotcha..interesting "grey" area......the fact that SCOTUS won't hear it is pretty telling as to their position on the issue as a whole...wonder if the topic will be revisited at a later date during his term to clear up context?

good speaking wth you...intelligent without provocation....we need more of this on here.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 02:59 PM by robotically

reply to post by danx

Well lets see, he was the first "Arab American" to be the president of the Harvard Law Review. However you know as well as I do that the American people based a vote on racist presumptions of ethnic identity and tied it to physical appearance as you are clearly demonstrating now. Do your homework please, if you are going to debate me on this, you had better be prepared. For instance, You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government. Like I said do your homework then we'll talk.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 03:02 PM by thing fish

reply to post by The Nighthawk

thats good enough for me.
i really can't believe that people are even questioning this. seems like they are reaching pretty far

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 03:03 PM by nsaeyes

reply to post by robotically

let's say that is true...i have no idea because I never have researched the issue....

why is it important one way or the other? What if he was white and the message was the same? would your arguement still be the same?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 03:04 PM by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
Doesn't matter where Os^hbama was born at this point, unless you're one of the kool-aid drinkers, his credibility is swirling down the toilet, his trustability is degrading by the day.

Really? How so? I thought his credibility and trustability (whatever that means) was increasing by the day.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 03:04 PM by robotically

reply to post by The Nighthawk

Listen ConservativeFreak, I am a US Marine, don't talk to me about patriotism. I have show with blood sweat and tears that I love this country just as much as the next guy. You understand that you are basically condemning those who seek the truth. I just don't buy everything that is spoon fed to me, get it? Now, if you have something constructive to say then speak, otherwise can it!

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 03:07 PM by robotically

reply to post by nsaeyes

My argument is his claim to fame. He has thrown aside his own heritage to win a vote. That doesn't say something about a person? Well it does to me.