Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I still am not seeing how

Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt
of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist
shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President,
and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate con-
cerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former
President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records
notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section
3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent
President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to
the former President’s claim of privilege.
makes your case that "he has barred release of his birth certificate.

Please explain this to me




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 



This story is a fake

Here you can find all of Obama's executive orders. There is nothing about barring his birth certificate



On your own link -- Executive order # 13489.

An excerpt from that same EO:

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt
of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General
(directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate
the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the
Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning
whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise
of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection
(a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive
privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any
such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes
that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue
shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and
the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel
to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the
Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential
records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist
shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an
incumbent President or by a final court order.
EO13489

As always, this isn't proof of anything, as proof is determined [or not] in a court of law. A court of law that has determined that noone except Congress has standing to present evidence.

Good find, OP. Interesting. Another item to store in the file and study.



[edit on 19/7/09 by argentus]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JipStix
 

Well when he applied for student aide in the past he did so as
a foreign student, so that should tell you something right there.

They just want the long form as it is harder to forge it.

Also if we don't get Obama we just get another marionette.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Can you underline where it says he has banned releasing his birth certificate?

I still don't see it. All I see is a bunch of jargon about executive priviledge, which has been fought over since our founding fathers. Nothing new, there.

Specifically, what part of that is saying nobody can release the president's birth certificate? Please underline where you think this is being stated, or explain why you think this is so.

Edit to change "executive discretion" to "executive privilege"

Example:

In the context of privilege assertions by US Presidents, "In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Pinckney's Treaty with Spain.


This has been around since George Washington. Hardly anything new.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Kaytagg]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel
to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the
Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential
records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist
shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an
incumbent President or by a final court order.


From the Executive Order quoted above.

Am I misreading something or doesn't this mean that a court of law could compel the President to release his long form in a trial situation? How exactly does this "seal the birth certificate" when a) it's already a sealed document since it's personal, and b) a trial could compel its release.

Aren't the conspiracy theorists behind Obama's birthplace trying to go after him in court? How does this order further "protect" him from releasing it? If Congress did impeach Obama and the SCOTUS demanded the long form, wouldn't this very EO mean he would have to show it?

Maybe I'm misreading something, so if someone could clarify the legalese, that would be appreciated.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It doesn't mater if this is true or not. I want to know what he has to hide?

If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't be hiding anything. Doesn't he have any pride in being a American born citizen?

Show it off Obama!


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


That's the first time I heard that,care to provide a link?thanks



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Just one question- Do you REALLY want Biden as President?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
When I first looked into the "Obama Birth Certificate" issue, I took the perspective of an individual with some court room and legalese experience. One simple issue struck me as mind blowing, and completely illogical, and that was the fact that when suits were brought against Obama in order to make him publicize the aforementioned document, instead of procuring and filing into evidence the exonerating proof, he simply filed for injunctions of stay and dismissal. These are truly not the actions of a defendant with exonerating documentation, to the contrary, they are the actions of someone who knows that they are facing the fire per say, and they need to attempt every tactic in the book so as to prevent the opposition from obtaining an indictment or finding of guilt.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Obama sucks. If he has nothing to hide he just release the damn thing. BTW I dont think any of you are racist (unless you actually are racist, but I see no racism here), Im half black and hate Obama too and wish for pretty much the same as you guys.

People who pull the race card over this stuff are rediculous. This has nothing to do with race, it has to do if this a hole can legally be pres!

BTW I dont go one way or another on this, I just wanna see if this dude can legally be pres! If he can, then fine, but PROVE it!

Peace!


[edit on 19-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by js331975
Just one question- Do you REALLY want Biden as President?

Joe Biden? Sure. I like Joe Biden.


Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
When I first looked into the "Obama Birth Certificate" issue, I took the perspective of an individual with some court room and legalese experience. One simple issue struck me as mind blowing, and completely illogical, and that was the fact that when suits were brought against Obama in order to make him publicize the aforementioned document, instead of procuring and filing into evidence the exonerating proof, he simply filed for injunctions of stay and dismissal. These are truly not the actions of a defendant with exonerating documentation, to the contrary, they are the actions of someone who knows that they are facing the fire per say, and they need to attempt every tactic in the book so as to prevent the opposition from obtaining an indictment or finding of guilt.

Bold for emphasis.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by js331975
 

It's not about that,it's about lying.How do you trust a liar?Why does somebody lie?Because their doing something wrong.look at what he's already lied about;transparency,lobbyists,etc,



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
It's not about that,it's about lying.


And what has he lied about? You accuse the man of not being american born, you have nothing to back up for it, and then for seem reason his liar because well... in your view he isnt a natural born citizen, with nothing to back up for it.

Whos the liar here?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Sorry America, you voted for him and he won. You did this to yourself.

Oh well.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
When I first looked into the "Obama Birth Certificate" issue


He looked at it "from a courtroom perspective" he says
Nineteen I find that rather funny coming from you.

If you had looked at it from a courtroom perspective you have recognized the rights of both the plaintiff and the defendant under the constitution. You would have recognized the innocence until proven guilty. You my friend, and the rest of birthers are yet to prove anything. Thus far all Iv seeing are wild speculations and thats it. Maybe if you were really looking at this in a court of law you would see where you fall short.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I just had a realization. If this is possible

Orly has to re-file her case in florida federal court. After probably two years it will hit the supreme court where Sotomayor will get the case. She will rule in favor of obama and you will then see an all out civil war against the government, congress, senate and the media for treason and corruption. Obama will call out martial law which he will then use the military on the American people. After the military has performed atrocities against its own people the military will become divided and then........

This is why he picked the racist Sotomayor because she does not believe in the constitution or the bill of rights or our rule of law.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Here is the evidence buddy boy.

edocket.access.gpo.gov...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Try again.

That executive order doesn't grant Obama any new rights to restrict access to records. The President already has the right to restrict access to some records up until they have been out of office for 12 years.

In fact, that order is a re-issuance of essentially the same order that Reagan issued in 1989. That order (Reagan's) had been revoked by Bush in 2001, and replaced with one that would make it MORE difficult for someone to gain access to the records of former Presidents. Bush's order gave former Presidents (or the current President) the right to deny access to some of that former President's records, even after the 12 year period in which access to those records can be restricted per Title 44 of U.S. Code.

By revoking that 2001 executive order, and replacing it with essentially the same wording as Reagan's 1989 order, Obama actually made it easier to gain access to some former Presidential records after the 12 year period.

One might interpret that as a jab at Bush, but it wasn't an attempt to give himself more power to hide records. If you read Chapter 22 of Title 44, Reagan's executive order 12667, Bush's executive order 13233, and section 1270 of the NARA regulations, that becomes clear.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Doesn't the order have to do with Presidential records, i.e., records of activities while he was President? Does it have anything to do, at all, with personal records from times when he was not the President?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
One possibility is that the USA does not exist anymore. What if TPTB secretly made deals to install a secret new government that has not to abide by any of the original laws of the USA. And the USA constitution is now null and void.

That would explain why he has no long form birth certificate to share with us ,and he is still president ....(of the new USA).





new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join