can another country question Obama's legitimacy as US President??

Great question!

I keep hoping someone will bust him out, he's painfully disqualified, now all law he signed is negated, his Supreme Court justice is negated, and his damned health care bill is null and void.

And then maybe we can line him up against a wall for treason and breach of oath.

I still don't get the whole question. He has provided more proof of his birth than any other president. I've never seen Bush's, Clinton's, or even my own birth certificate. I think the bigger controversy is why now and why him? The only variable I can think of that's not in common with past presidents is that he is not a white dude.

Really... the only birth certificate I've ever seen is Obama's. So, to me, he's the only person I can say is a US citizen with any certainty.

reply to post by howmuch4another

If a Nation in Treaty with the US is unhappy (disgusted) with the policy of the US can they question the legitimacy of the leader entering into said Treaty?

I am no lawyer, but my take is if the UK were to publicly question the legitimacy of Obama, ESPECIALLY since he was born of a British/Kenyan colonial subject father, it could force the US Supreme Court to finally look into the matter. So far the courts have diligently swept the matter under the rug.

Reminds me of Senator from Chappaquiddick

Must be nice to have the money to BUY "justice"

reply to post by Cuervo

I still don't get the whole question. He has provided more proof of his birth than any other president. I've never seen Bush's, Clinton's, or even my own birth certificate. I think the bigger controversy is why now and why him? The only variable I can think of that's not in common with past presidents is that he is not a white dude.

Get of the idiotic racist kick. It is really really getting to sound like a blasted broken record.

My first boy friend was the same as Obama. His mother was an American and his Father was Canadian. Up until he was 18 he had dual citizenship, at the age of 18 he had to make the choice of whether he wanted to be a US citizen or an American citizen. At 17 plus the question was looming and we discussed it at length.



On top of that Obama was raised in another country. We have no real idea of WHAT the man's actual citizenship is!

As far as birth places are concerned McCain's was in Panama while his father was stationed at a US military base and the Canal Zone was under American control. McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign

So yes, Obama is not unique in having his birth and eligibility questioned.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I still don't get the whole question. He has provided more proof of his birth than any other president. I've never seen Bush's, Clinton's, or even my own birth certificate. I think the bigger controversy is why now and why him? The only variable I can think of that's not in common with past presidents is that he is not a white dude.

Get of the idiotic racist kick. It is really really getting to sound like a blasted broken record.

My first boy friend was the same as Obama. His mother was an American and his Father was Canadian. Up until he was 18 he had dual citizenship, at the age of 18 he had to make the choice of whether he wanted to be a US citizen or an American citizen. At 17 plus the question was looming and we discussed it at length.



On top of that Obama was raised in another country. We have no real idea of WHAT the man's actual citizenship is!

As far as birth places are concerned McCain's was in Panama while his father was stationed at a US military base and the Canal Zone was under American control. McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign

So yes, Obama is not unique in having his birth and eligibility questioned.

I just want to clarify: Are you saying that pointing out the silliness of ignoring the evidence is the angle that sounds like a broken record? Really? I mean, it kind of sounds like that's what you mean but that would be ignoring the broken record of "Whurs his birth cirtificumcashun!"

Strictly looking at this from the point of view of a legal challenge -- the foreign national/leader would lack standing to bring any sort of challenge to the eligibility of any U.S. president (or other elected official). Now, the other signatory nation could unilaterally decide to repudiate a treaty or strategically rethink its relationship to America, but that's about it.

Really, at the end of the day, Congress and the Senate are the bodies empowered with removing a sitting president. Some district courts have entertained some complaints seeking Obama's records, but even if a fed court found anything suspicious, neither that court, nor the circuit court above it could render a verdict that would require a president to leave the office. That would only come through the House drafting articles of impeachment.

Originally posted by scottlpool2003
Prince Charles was married and got divorced... Under royal law, this unentitles him to the throne... He then got the 100's of years traditional law changed which again entitled him to the throne

Care to show the act of the British Parliament before and after it was changed? No, of coure you cannot, as it is just not true.

AND the queen is German not British.

More bull# from you, she was born in the UK, as were both her parents....

Originally posted by Cuervo
The only variable I can think of that's not in common with past presidents is that he is not a white dude.

and despite their denial, that is exactly what is behote]

Really... the only birth certificate I've ever seen is Obama's. So, to me, he's the only person I can say is a US citizen with any certainty.

Funny that, but that is also something birthers totally ignore!

reply to post by Cuervo

I just want to clarify: Are you saying that pointing out the silliness of ignoring the evidence is the angle that sounds like a broken record? Really? I mean, it kind of sounds like that's what you mean but that would be ignoring the broken record of "Whurs his birth cirtificumcashun!"

When ever there is criticism of Obama the racist comment is trotted out. I do not give a rat's behind what color Obama is, but I do care that he is trashing this country

As Far as I am concerned Obama has done more to set back race relations than anyone else in the past few decades. His comment on the campaign trail of "it's not my pay grade" certainly does not show to his advantage or add to a good image of the blacks. Worse he has signed into law bills that are going to cause great harm to this country. Like President Clinton, President Reagan and President Bush, history will point to Obama as one of the five presidents that INTENTIONALLY hamstrung the USA and CAUSED world wide hunger and the starvation of millions of children.

2011 - FOOD RIOTS SPREADING
GLOBAL fOOD SUPPLY DWINDLING
FOOD BUBBLE COLLAPSE
PURDUE UNIV - THE GLOBALIZATION OF CORPORATE CRIME: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CARTELS OF THE 1990s - March 1, 2003
LET THEM EAT GRASS
Poverty soars as millions of Americans head to food banks
Food skyrockets to highest prices ever - world wide

Here are the critical moves by each president that will lead to the coming Great Depression:

#1. Reagan - facilitate Leveraged buyouts/Hostile takeovers


#2. Clinton - World Trade Organization, Formation of Mega Banks

1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag and 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, were both written by VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. Amstutz later joined Goldman Sachs who was instrumental in the 2008 world food crisis.


Clinton also set up the consolidation of Mega Banks, AIG Bailout and Foreclosuregate: Quick list of Banking laws


#3 Bush - Wars, Patriot Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007

Wars are costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them. If the "winning" country does not gain appreciable amounts of land and resources to offset the cost of war, the war make absolutely no sense---- UNLESS of course you are a banker. Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution and Bankers and WAR

Patriot Act:
It is very interesting to read the Patriot Act. It addresses border security at the Canadian border but now where in the document does it address the Mexican border despite Radical Islam makes inroads among Latin America's Native peoples

Of course Bush and the bankers see nothing to fear from the Muslims given their "intimate" connections. Therefore the only real reason for the Patriot Act is to oppress "Homegrown Terrorists" On February 14 2008 U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command established new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan allowing Canadian troops to be used to "respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 repealed Posse Comitatus.

The Military Commissions Act, allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

Clinton was not to be out done by Bush in preparing for insurrection: anti-hoarding,seizure and confiscation: Executive Order #12919 released on June 6, 1994 includes:

10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the US;
10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;
10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;
10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;
11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;
11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;
11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US
11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;
11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;
11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;
11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of "National Emergency").
www.millennium-ark.net...

#5 Obama - Bankrupt the American people confiscate land:
Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs The "bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called “resolution authority” that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

Obama loan modification program actually forces foreclosures:
www.suite101.com...

Although the article admits "Homeowners are tired of sending the same paperwork again and again and getting the runaround from their banks.." It neglects to say that after many months of drag the process out, the banks then hand the cash strapped homeowner a colossal bill for back payments, penalties, added interest AND LAWYERS FEES! You are given one month to make the payment or the bank forecloses. IF by some miracle you manage to scrap up the payment you get ANOTHER run around with the bank refusing to name the exact amount need to avoid foreclosure.

It took SIX MONTHS for my lawyer to pin the S.O.B.s down! Here is the reason why

“To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?
 
“Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”

...CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want....
www.realtytrac.com...

50% of the US labor force work for small business. Obamacare makes a change in the tax law governing 1099's that is going to be a NIGHTMARE for ALL businesses and force many small businesses to close their doors. Worse it will greatly impede the start of new small businesses.

The second fiasco is the food safety law. Most American farmers, despite the media's hype, have to work a second job to support their farm. Very few farms actually get tax payer money and those are normally the large corporate farms. The addition of food safety regulation and the new 1099 tax changes are going to push many out of business.

The economic disparity between industrial farms and those that retain locally owned and controlled farms may be due in part, to the degree in which money stays in the community. Locally owned and controlled farms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thus supporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenon is known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimated at approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by the locally owned farm. PEW REPORT

Will the Food Safety Law effect your home garden? It may, if not now then later When the "Commerace Clause" statement is added in an later ammendment.
NOTE: the Tesser Amendment does NOT exempt small farms just suggest different regulations be applied.

...Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” The newspaper probably assumed that was true because the bill, like most federal laws, only purports to reach activities that affect “interstate commerce.” To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” ...

But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines.

...Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, who is not a lawyer (she has a B.A. in advertising), claims the bill doesn’t apply to “that tomato plant in your backyard.” As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim. (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison (2000) — one of only two cases since the 1930s where the Supreme Court limited, rather than rubberstamped, regulation in the name of “interstate commerce”). And it appears that that the proposed law CAN apply to that tomato plant in your backyard (or Michelle Obama’s garden), since Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is almost unlimited in the eyes of the courts... www.openmarket.org...

Another lawyer's comments on Food Safety and the Commerce Clause

reply to post by crimvelvet


Ok, lets suspend my belief in reality for a moment and say I agree with you... it still has nothing to do with his birth certificate.

Originally posted by Cuervo
He has provided more proof of his birth than any other president. I've never seen Bush's, Clinton's, or even my own birth certificate. I think the bigger controversy is why now and why him? The only variable I can think of that's not in common with past presidents is that he is not a white dude.

Really... the only birth certificate I've ever seen is Obama's. So, to me, he's the only person I can say is a US citizen with any certainty.

I am not in agreement that this is all because he's not white. The OP is about whether a foreign country could bring it into question and compel him based on our constitution to prove his legitimacy (yet again in your viewpoint).

The "birthers" (and I do hate labels) obviously weren't satisfied with the "proof" that's out there an that is for them to attack or defend. I was prompted by an outrageous betrayal of our strongest allies and what recourse they may have in challenging his acts as POTUS/CIC

Thanks adding to the debate.

Originally posted by jpkmets
Strictly looking at this from the point of view of a legal challenge -- the foreign national/leader would lack standing to bring any sort of challenge to the eligibility of any U.S. president (or other elected official). Now, the other signatory nation could unilaterally decide to repudiate a treaty or strategically rethink its relationship to America, but that's about it.

Really, at the end of the day, Congress and the Senate are the bodies empowered with removing a sitting president. Some district courts have entertained some complaints seeking Obama's records, but even if a fed court found anything suspicious, neither that court, nor the circuit court above it could render a verdict that would require a president to leave the office. That would only come through the House drafting articles of impeachment.

I think you and Schuyler are both correct. Pragmatically this makes sense and a unilateral denial of agreement from the other party is all that can really be done by another sovereign country.

Thanks for contributing.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Wow a bunch of supporting links in that one crimvelvet. Thanks! It will take me a while to read all of them and then I will comment.
Peace