Originally posted by NGC2736
But when any issue grows to the level this one has, then for the good of our nation, it needs to be addressed in depth, by the President Elect. Such an act, while not likely to quell the howling of everyone, would go far in preserving a sense of right for our elected leadership.

NGC, I respect and understand your position, however, I hope you understand that what Obama has already done has “preserved a sense of right for our elected leadership” for some people.

People will be satisfied with different levels of ‘evidence’, and as you acknowledge, some will never be satisfied no matter what. But where does it stop?

What you are arguing is that you personally are not comfortable with the evidence Obama has presented. Even if you would be satisfied with the Supreme Court verifying his birth records, some would not, and they would claim the very same thing you are.

This seems to be, to me, a matter of personal comfort with the evidence that has been presented, and I’m sorry to say this but you will have to deal with it, since as you acknowledge Obama isn’t (at least right now) under any legal obligation to release his birth records.

Originally posted by happinness
Please define 'Natural born'? My defination meant he was born on US soil as oppossed to Kenyan, hence 'natural born'. His first breath being American air?

I share the view of those who argue that anyone born in United States soil is a “natural born” citizen.

But there are those who argue that one is only a “natural born” citizen when he is born without conflicting allegiances, or in other words, only one nationality, citizenship.

Obama was born with dual citizenship, thus in the eyes of the people who agree with this definition, Obama can’t be a “natural born” citizen, but McCain would.

There’s also those who have a more strict interpretation, that only those born in US soil and with only one citizenship at birth can be considered “natural born” citizens.

This is why Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases argue that neither Obama or McCain qualify as “natural born” citizens.

Originally posted by NGC2736
BH, I think I am being reasonable here. I have supported, and voted for, Mr. Obama.

I think you are being totally reasonable in putting forth your view. That's why I responded to you. And I think I understand your position. And who you are or who you voted for makes no difference to my position on the issue. But you have neglected to answer my direct questions to you, so it's kind of hard to have a discussion.

I'll try one more time.

Why don't you believe the proof he has ALREADY put forth?

But when any issue grows to the level this one has, then for the good of our nation, it needs to be addressed in depth, by the President Elect.

I think he has addressed it. I guess that's where we differ. You still haven't said why you don't believe that the proof he has already shown to the world (his certification) is valid.

Originally posted by NGC2736
But it is the rational majority which will need to be assured that there is no moral barrier to an Obama presidency that matters.

I think on this point, you would also find conflicting opinions on whether the people pursuing these lawsuits, crying ‘foul’ or concerned about this are 1) a majority, and 2) rational.

Any examination of history will show that there is nothing more likely to tear apart a nation than the claim, rightly or wrongly, that someone is a "Pretender to the Crown".

I agree with you.. and we don’t have to look too much into the past to see an example of this, do we

As Commander-In-Chief he has no moral right to ask any soldier to lay down his life, on his authority, when he refuses to settle in the minds of the people, perhaps even that very soldier, his complete and utter right to make such a request.

As some people (BH and others, I believe) have pointed out, many of the people crying ‘foul’ now had no trouble accepting the last 8 years and weren’t up in arms then. I know this is not your case, as I’ve read and enjoyed many of your posts.

But no matter what Obama does, these people that will never be convinced, will not stop the lawsuits. Even if Obama would release his records, someone would find, or make up something, to sue him. Should he give in to some people’s demands then? Should he give in every time someone is not comfortable with something about him?

Originally posted by maybereal11
What on earth has become of ATS?? When Factcheck.org is derided as a “Pro-Obama research site” ...

Look it up. It's there. ANNENBERGs Factcheck.org - the same Annenberg of Obama's Annenberg Challenge and the same Annenberg that Obama gained millions of $$$ in earmarks for.

So to answer your 'what on earth has become of ATS' - it is DIGGING past the candy coated covering and uncovering the truth - and the TRUTH is that there is too much of an Obama/Annenberg connection, complete with millions of $$$ exchanging hands, for the site to be considered unbiased and/or totally reliable.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Now, what rights of the American people am I ignoring again?

[edit on 10-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

The very same rights that you claim are being ignored by demanding Obama provide sufficient documentation proving where he was born, other than the documentation that he has already provided. I believe you called it a double standard.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I'll try one more time.

Why don't you believe the proof he has ALREADY put forth?

Because there are unanswered questions and sufficient reason to believe that the proof provided is not legitimate.

What part of that do you not understand?

Mr. Obama,

"Please" direct the Hawaiian officials to release a copy of your long-form, doctor-signed birth certificate, and to answer any and all questions about it.

Thank you.

(I think he has been waiting for someone to say 'please'.)

If Obama has intentionally lied about his birth then he is guilty of serious crimes and should be impeached and locked up for a long time.

But, we can never really know in all likelyhood, because the evidence has had plentiful chance of being tainted by Hawaii government, Kenyan government, and British government. All three of those governments could have falsified his records in his favor, and could even to this day be tainted against him. For example, if MI6 was against him, they could for example could conceivably fake a British birth document.

Originally posted by NGC2736
BH, I think I am being reasonable here. I have supported, and voted for, Mr. Obama. (And the poster who called anyone who has questions reverting to McCarthyism, all I can say is that you are wrong.)

....

Closed door acceptance of his eligibility by some distant committee is no longer acceptable. The trust in our government is at such a low that there is no recourse. It is needed for the good of the nation as a whole.

Just to clarify NG... Questioning this issue is not akin to McCarthyism. Refusing to be satisfied with legitimate evidence and answers while continuing to pursue an apparent agenda of delegitimizing (or more specifically de-americanizing) an American Citizen and our President Elect all the while claiming it is in the spirit of patriotism...well if that is not McCarthyism it is a close relative.

Okay to ask...but be open to the answers.

Secondly..."Closed door acceptance" by some "distant comitttee"?
He has PUBLICALLY produced his COB which clearly uindicates his place of birth as Hawaii...down to the time, city, island and county. This document has been further validated multiple times by authorities at the Hawaii Department of health as legitimate.

When was the last time a Presidential Candidate publically presented his COB and the given state publically validated it? NEVER.

How is this some "closed door acceptance" by a "distant comittee?"

So given the State of Hawaii has publically vouched for the COB, any questions about the legitimacy of this document are premised on the Government of Hawaii being involved in a conspiracy. In this view wouldn't they simply forge a vault copy? How would them producing the original document effect this line of inquirey? They are already presumed to be conspirators.

Do you have any doubts that releasing the original document would not result in a further firestorm of claims of forgery? Or do you think those propagating this would simply say...oh, well that looks legit? Case closed?

He has produced the most valid proof of citizenship afforded ANY OF US and even more so than any of us will ever get...officials from Hawaii have vocally and publically declared it valid and accurate.

If the question is whether someone born on American soil, to an American Mother and a British subject is in fact a Natural Born Citizen...thus far the courts, SCOTUS included, have made it clear that they have no reason to believe that it would disqualify them and the research I have done suggests the same...but I will say that I find that argument more valid than the mountain of disinformation concerning the legitimacy of his COB.

It might be noted if we were to require both parents to be American Citizens in order for a given child born on American soil to be termed "Natural Born American Citizen" then we can expect DNA and Paternity tests to be part of the future presidential screening process. Exhume any parents that are deceased and burried for DNA samples. What if they were creamated? And the slope get more slippery. WHAT IS ENOUGH? Obviously our President elect has the assumption that it will NEVER be enough and he is not interested in offering further evidence for those who have proven themselves unconcerned with the evidence...Only Agenda.

Redhatty, Danx and others have had some intelligent and enlightening discussion concerning the "Natural Born" defintion and that issue, but I have yet to see a case made that I would expect the supreme court to hear with regards to this.

If anyone wants a absolute defintion of Natural Born citizen...email your State Represenitive and encourage the courts to define it, but leave Obama out of it, he has met the requirement as the courts currently view it and is our President elect. The SCOTUS will rightly continue to refuse to hear cases with regards to this until someone makes a case worth hearing...and I have followed it closely and don't see it anywhere on the horizon.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by maybereal11]

I find it very strange that Obama does not say: Hey I hear you, I understand your confusion, but please let me put this straight. I will have experts check out my original paper birth certificate. I hope we can straighten this out once for ever, so that now as a nation we can all focus on important things.

So let's say that he is not eligible. And it gets found out. The later it becomes clear the WORSE! Say the truth gets out after 20 years from now than what about all legislation that has taken place since him being a president? Whatever he did/undid becomes unvalid but also all actions done be later administrations that worked with what he did/undid.

Furthermore if indeed he is not born as a US citizen, then he knows and he must be horribly fraudulent! Why would he put himself in such a position? But then again why doesn't he produce the evidence and have it checked by experts (who will not disclose any private information regarding him or his mother?)

I do not like the fact that he has used all those different names, if indeed he did.

Anyway, if indeed he was not to be elected in the first place something must be very wrong with the Democrats!

Come on, let us be genuine in our debate. The COLB furnished has been accused of being faked and tampered with. A COLB, in and of itself, proves nothing with respect to the "Natural Born" requirement put forth in Article II, Section2 of the US Constitution. Anyone, born anywhere, can receive a COLB in the state of Hawaii and many other states.

Mr. Obama seemed genuinely interested in putting the issue to rest when he released the COLB with nary a blink. However, when many pundits stepped forth and unveiled the problems with using a COLB to settle the issue, rather than simply releasing the vault version BC, he went out and hired not one , but THREE lawfirms to address this issue and supress it's release.

Now I ask... does it seem logical that he would willingly put forth a COLB to settle the issue and then rush to such extremes to supress the release of his vault version BC if he met the requirements as defined by the Constitution? I think not and many logical, thinking persons agree with me. He is hiding something as evidenced by his change of "heart" in settling the matter.

Again, I have NO issues with his color, political or religious persuasions as some would like to cloud the issue by asserting. I am merely a Constitutionalist who is interested in having the letter and spirit of the document adhered to as intended by our founding fathers. Until then I am going to be very suspicious of his every action.

Originally posted by kozmo
Anyone, born anywhere, can receive a COLB in the state of Hawaii and many other states.

You are lieing. I would say you were confused, but you have already been disproven, shown the precise statutes and laws on this front in other threads yet here you are saying it again.

Don't lie. You are the reason people dismiss those that are pushing this issue.

Originally posted by kozmo
A COLB, in and of itself, proves nothing with respect to the "Natural Born" requirement put forth in Article II, Section2 of the US Constitution. .

The Supreme Court of The United States in recently dismissing the Leo case disagrees with you..so at best this is your singular opinion and a gross exagerration. I believe the SCOTUS to be better educated on the legalities of the issue than yourself.

I am banning Mozilla/Firefox after seeing that!

How about someone set up a White Supremacy web browser?

I bet that would go over well


[edit on 10-12-2008 by arizonascott]

While we have had some very good discussions on this issue, We have also done lots of research. I have come to the conclusion that there is NO COURT IN THE USA that has jurisdiction over this issue, and therefor NO COURT will hear it on the Merits or rule on it. However...

The people have voted. The next steps in the process of selecting a President are: (i) for the Electoral College to vote, and then (ii) for Congress to count those votes. The Twelfth Amendment provides (in pertinent part) as follows:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The Amendment specifies no grounds, procedure, or standards on or by which any elector’s vote may be challenged for any cause, by either the Electors or Members of Congress. But Congress has enacted a statute that partially addresses this matter:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. [Title 3, United States Code, Section 15 (emphasis added)]

So you see, no court will end up making a ruling on this, because it is not in their jurisdiction. It is within the jurisdiction of Congress and Congress alone at this point.

Without an objection “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives” At the reading of the votes of the Electors, no inquiry at all can go forward.


Edit to fix tags

[edit on 12/10/08 by redhatty]