Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate

page: 5
63
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angus123
That EO had nothing to do with his birth certificate. Only presidential records... meaning certain government documents.

One need only follow the links in the article to read the actual body of the order.

Claiming it's about his birth certificate is all the author needed to do to get the birthers to buy it.
But, truth be told, reading isn't one of their priorities. Much like Dubya, they seem to look at intellect as a vice instead of a virtue.


I hope you were not speaking to me, sir. I pointed out the right executive order in my previous post.




Are we talking about this executive order, number 13489? Isn't this counter acting a certain executive order that a certain president altered? Really, if it was this simple for me, I hope I'm missing something here.


freedomedium.com...


On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.


There we are on the same page, I researched it outside of the link provided and came to the same executive order sited from the news article. It basically says that they can choose which documents they can provide to the National Archive.




the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.


What is executive privilege?

en.wikipedia.org...


In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns. Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.


This seems to be a broad measure on all documents released by the President. While this isn't specific to just a birth certificate but all documents released.

I still hold my original question when it pertains to the release of the long birth certificate, why not release it? When it pertains to his long birth certificate would it qualify as a proper privilege that the law states?

Angus123, if you were speaking to me I find your generalization of my politics insulting. I did not vote for Obama or McCain, but nice try throwing me into a box.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by oconnection]




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


you are so confident that every anti obama statement is untrue & can not be backed up with evidence & to a point you are correct.
so now since you are so confident about obama, lets reverse the tables here & ask you to provide proof that obama was born in the usa.
provide us with obama`s long birth cerificate........oh wait.................you cant can you ?.
so your confident self has no proof that obama is american.
but obama is spending huge amounts of money making sure your confident self can not prove obama has a long birth certificate or is born in america.
since obama will not give you proof that he is a usa born citizen why are you so convinced that he was born in america ?.
most of the threads ive read on this subject are from people that can see obama spending huge amounts of money keeping this secret...........why ?
whats the big deal if there is no secret ?
wouldnt it be better for obama to show the long birth certificate & instead give the huge expence money keeping this none secret to some charity ?
surley even your confident self can see the obama secret doesnt make any sence uness he is hiding what lots of people already think is true.
perhaps you are one of obamas payed trolls to keep the secret after all obama has spent how much keeping the secret ?.
my self i dont know if obama was born in the usa, but common sence tells me that he sure is going out of his way to hide some thing smelly
any way im looking forwards to seeing the proof presented by such a confident obamarite as your self



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I honestly think this is asinine however, just my opinion.



even if he is illegal, everyone knows nothing is going to happen. 9/11 truth is so clear cut and precise and yet no one who contributed to killing so many innocent people besides a few "terrorists" have been charged with anything. don't kid yourselves.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States



US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.




Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

*Anyone born inside the United States
*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
*A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.




No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States



Above are sources concerning our Constitution and requirements to be President.....personally, I could care less rather the title of this thread is correct, misleading, whatever!! That is not what is important.

What is important is.......that EVERY President follow these guidelines!! IMO, any President who has a problem with providing legit documentation showing they, indeed, do qualify - according to the Constitution - to hold the office.....has no business being our President!

To me this is simple enough! So, why all the questions about the birth certificate?? Provide the damn thing or you are not qualified to be the President of the USA!

Why on earth is there a problem with this?? I am confused by the actions, of any President, who may have a problem providing said documents. Concerning Presidential requirements, there is no room for anything other than what our Constitution states!

Enough said! All other arguements will fall on my deaf ears......and have NO merit at all.





posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by oconnection

Originally posted by Angus123
That EO had nothing to do with his birth certificate. Only presidential records... meaning certain government documents.

One need only follow the links in the article to read the actual body of the order.

Claiming it's about his birth certificate is all the author needed to do to get the birthers to buy it.
But, truth be told, reading isn't one of their priorities. Much like Dubya, they seem to look at intellect as a vice instead of a virtue.


I hope you were not speaking to me, sir. I pointed out the right executive order in my previous post.




Are we talking about this executive order, number 13489? Isn't this counter acting a certain executive order that a certain president altered? Really, if it was this simple for me, I hope I'm missing something here.


freedomedium.com...


On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.


There we are on the same page, I researched it outside of the link provided and came to the same executive order sited from the news article. It basically says that they can choose which documents they can provide to the National Archive.




the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.


What is executive privilege?

en.wikipedia.org...


In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns. Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.


This seems to be a broad measure on all documents released by the President. While this isn't specific to just a birth certificate but all documents released.

I still hold my original question when it pertains to the release of the long birth certificate, why not release it? When it pertains to his long birth certificate would it qualify as a proper privilege that the law states?

Angus123, if you were speaking to me I find your generalization of my politics insulting. I did not vote for Obama or McCain, but nice try throwing me into a box.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by oconnection]


Actually no, I wasn't... but you get offended a little too easily.
BTW... birth certificates are public records. Anyone can see them.
Now if the State of Hawaii claims he ordered it sealed I might change my view.

But for the most part this whole affair is mindless shrieking from people that are still mad they lost the election.
With Clinton, it was his philandering that served as an excuse for the right wing to hound him.
With Obama it's his heritage.

The repubs claims of patriotism are usually just cover for their true agenda.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Another thread about Obama's birth certificate! You know, it does not matter which side of the fence you are on with this issue. The number of people who believe he is hiding something in his past is kind of scary. Whether one feels he is hiding something or those that feel this issue is nonsensical and outrageous, there is a simple solution.

Mr. Obama, please release your long version birth certificate immediately.

If anyone wants closure on this issue once and for all this is the only way it will happen.

P.S. To those referring to the "Hawaii Newspaper Article" at first I thought that was legitimate proof. Then upon reflection I was like wait a moment, why is HIS name emphasised in that article and where are the names of other average people who would have been born on the same day? It is almost as though that article was made FOR him, at the time his family would have been ordinary civilians I imagine, so why the special bold mention of his birth?


[edit on 20/7/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I can't even get a copy of the long form birth certificate from my own birth and can only get a birth certificate in a card form with the pertinent information on it.

I think that the line has to be drawn in the sand.

Most of the people who are anti Obama are not so because of his politics but rather because of the colour of his skin.
racisim is not dead in america by a long shot.

There is a huge segment of the population that simply can't tolerate having a black man as president of the united states.

I was a boy and they were still lynching black people in the southern states.
When I was a young man, the KKK was still getting away with murder of blacks in the US.

I was approaching middle age when I got to witness the riots in LA and the rodney king beating by law enforcement officers.

Believe me when I state that racism and hatred between cultures is strong, alive and well in america and in every country that promotes immigration and multiculturalism. Varying degrees, but it is present.

Seems we have a lot of trouble tolerating each other and these immigration experiments are just that: experiments to see how stressed we can take a social construct before it breaks and eats itself.

no wonder immigrants ghettoize themselves. You wind up with pockets of this culture, pockets of that and walls between them all making what were otherwise stable countries into hotpots of discombobulated un-united peoples.

Divide and conquer comes to mind.

If you have a population that is internally alien to itself, it will not unite and is therefor easier to control as a whole.

anyone forward that idea yet? I believe that this is indeed what is happening in wealthy western countries. We are deliberately mixing our populations in order to better control them at a government level.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


why is HIS name emphasised in that article and where are the names of other average people who would have been born on the same day?

Where is the emphasis?

whatreallyhappened.com...




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 




Mr. Obama, please release your long version birth certificate immediately.


Please see Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution.

While you are at it, please see Article I Section 2, Amendment 12 and Amendment 20.

This ought to clear things up why Obama has no reason to show us the long form Birth Certificate. As it is not us that voted for him (or McCain for that matter) We have no right or standing to question his eligibility.

The Electors Elected him and Congress Confirmed him, then the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swore him in.

No where in that did the people have anything to do with it. We vote for Electors in this country. If you are a part of the Electoral College, you would have standing to see the long form birth certificate. If you are a member of Congress you would have standing to see the long form birth certificate.

This might help too...



[edit on 7/20/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
Most of the people who are anti Obama are not so because of his politics but rather because of the colour of his skin.
racisim is not dead in america by a long shot.

There is a huge segment of the population that simply can't tolerate having a black man as president of the united states.


And you know this because you've personally spoken to most of the people who are anti-Obama and have asked them what they don't like about him right? No? You haven't? You're just assuming that it must be racism simply because he's black? That's what I thought.

It amazes me that to question a black man means I must be racist. To question or disapprove of his policies must mean it's because he's black. It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact he's increased our national debt by over $971.5 billion in the first few months of his term. It can't possibly have anything to do with the policies he is pushing for or that he is setting us on the road to socialism. Nope, can't possibly be any of that. It's just because he's black.


The only people I ever hear making comments about race are the ones who think it's impossible to dislike Obama's policies without being racist. Go figure.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It is reading posts like this that make me reconsider why I visit ATS at all. We are supposed to be combating ignorance, standing up for our civil rights, things that are important. What is going on here?

* People want to have our Consitution torn to shreds to satisfy their illegal requests.
* People are presuming someone is guilty until proven innocent.
* People are ignoring very clear cut evidence spelling out how misleading the original article is. Are they not reading the responses, or just ignornig the truth?
* People are making up their own interpretations of what documents are saying instead of actually reading them.

Do you know why the court cases requesting access to the "long form birth certificate" are being thrown out? Because if the Judge found in case of the plaintiff, it would violate the Constitution, and that judge wouldn't be a judge for very much longer. Why is it you all care so little for our Constitution?

That is what sickens me. So far, I am seeing people (such as the one who wrote the original article this thread is based on) calling for force of numbers with the media to have our Constitutional rights taken away. Remember, the President is bound by, and protected by, the same document all of us are. How little you value it based on your requests.

Add a misleading title to an article, then follow that up with a thread doing the same, and all you are doing is perpetuating the hysteria about... nothing. Read the order. Read the history of the order. Read the Constitution. The entire "news" article was based on lies.

Read the posts explaining what I am talking about. Read the links they are supplying showing you what the truth is. ATS has been slowly devolving to forum of flame wars without any bearing what so ever on the facts. Why have we come to this point?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Champagne
 


He has provided it.

It's a matter of what some people are willing to accept.

Rumors popped up about his eligibility (mainly because the country his father came from claimed Obama to be their "own" - secondary reasons were because he was "Muslim" or "un-patriotic" for not wearing a flag, or just because he was a democrat) and so people wanted proof he was a born in the United States. He provided it with an electronic reproduction (which is perfectly acceptable for any governmental request). This still wasn't accpetable. People wanted to see the original. So a copy of his original short form was released. Of course, it was "fake" and people want to see the long form.

It's my opinion that if this were release, it'd become a "fake" as well and people would ask for something more. And so the story would go on and on.

I'm just about over it. There's plenty of reasons not to like Obama. But, in my opinion, him not being a U.S. native is not one of them.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The guy is a fake and it is scary to me that he can do this and most people don't even question it.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Victoria 1
 


Please read my previous posts before you get too scared about anything that he "did".



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22Of course, it was "fake" and people want to see the long form.


It doesn't matter if it was fake or not. The issue is whether or not he is a natural born citizen. The term "natural born citizen" actually has a legal meaning that goes beyond simply born on American soil.

investigatingobama.blogspot.com...


I am writing that to explain what "natural" means, in law. It means self-evident. E.g., a person demonstrably born to American parents in America is a natural born Citizen of America, but a person born to a foreign father and who thusly takes on his father's citizenship in another nation is not a natural born Citizen of America. That is, his citizenship is not self-evident, rather unclear, in doubt, needs further work, adulterated, etc., since one may be a citizen of only one nation at a time and international law holds that this person is a citizen of his father's nation, by hereditary right. That is what the term, natural born Citizen means, in Article II of the United States Constitution.

Thus, whether the Barack H. Obama II, who is the son of Barack H. Obama I was born in Hawaii, or Kenya, or in Dorothy's house in Kansas, he is manifestly ineligible to be United States President. With a Harvard J.D. in Constitutional (i.e., the American one) Law, BHO II presumably knows this.


So, the problem is much deeper than whether or not he was born in Hawaii (he most likely wasn't).

And besides, any person born anywhere on Earth can have the State of Hawaii give them a "Certification of Live Birth." This document has a space on it asking what country the applicant was born in.

Hawaii has two birth documents.

1. A "Certification" which is given to anyone who asks for it, regardless of what country they were born in.

2. A "Certificate" which is only given to people born in Hawaii.

So as you can see, it only proves that he was born on planet Earth.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Seems redundant. His birth certificate is already protected from public view as is ANYONE else's.

Again, people looking hard enough will find a conspiracy... even if there isn't one....

I need to make that my signature, I'm starting to use it a lot...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
He has provided it..

No he hasn't. And he's spending a whole lotta money and effort to make sure that it doesn't come out. Common sense says he's hiding something.


Originally posted by grahag
His birth certificate is already protected from public view as is ANYONE else's.

That's not exactly true. His position requires that he prove his eligibility to the American people. Obviously he hasn't done that.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



That's not exactly true. His position requires that he prove his eligibility to the American people. Obviously he hasn't done that.


And that's not true either. As the American people don't vote for the President it is not a requirement that the person running for the job qualify himself with people that don't vote for him.

Now the Electoral College and the Congress, that's another matter. The Electoral College actually votes for the President, and Congress confirms the appointment. They are the ones that should know not every Tom Dick and Harry.

Like the DMV argument. you give your ID to the person behind the counter not to the 18 year old in the back of the room screaming that your not qualified.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I'll just contribute a thought I usually add to these birth certificate threads.

Just because he hasn't show you his birth certificate, who's to say that the leaders of the Republican Party haven't seen it when he decided to run. Also, if this were really an issue, do you no thing McCain and Palin would have jumped all over it during the campaign? They didn't, meaning it wasn't an issue.

And if you actually do some research on your own, instead of taking the OP as gospel, you will see this executive order is just reinstating one that Reagan brought in....Bush changed Reagan's order to allow him, Bush, to be more secretive with his records...Obama is just removing Bush's changes to allow for MORE access to presidential records, not to be able to hide anything.

Stop being sheeple, and stop being ignorant.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


Uh, I put my daughters birth in my hometowns' newspaper, just so all our relatives and friends from there could see it. Not sure why you think that is unplausible. My mother in law also had my engagement listed in the newspaper back home. You seem to think that this is unheard of or something.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by KnoxMSP]






top topics



 
63
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join