It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unique Perspective: Obama and the Birth Certificate issue.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Can you think of a democrat that fits the bill? A clean candidate, but one that has enough exposure already that most people would recognize. It would be a late entry, so they couldn't possibly go with an unknown. Actually, an unknown would probably be the best chance now that I think about it.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


To answer your question as to when the Sheriff began his investigation:
www.therightsideoflife.com...


UPDATE: AZ Sheriff: No “Promises” Made on Obama Eligibility
August 19th, 2011
Yesterday, WorldNetDaily reported that Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio “promised” to investigate Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate after it had been allegedly released by the White House on April 27 of this year:



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
The reason for this is because it creates a multitude of problems concerning all of the actions taken by him over the last three and a half years. Every piece of legislation he's signed would become null and void. This simply will not happen.


I take exception to what you stated here. Specifically the notion that the citizenary and the States couldn't possibly bring forth impeachment matters because of the multitude of legislation that any given president has signed into law. This isn't to say that President Obama is worthy of an impeachment battle; it is in contest of which you state, "...creates a multitude of problems concerning all of the actions taken by him...". This simply isn't of any concern when it comes to an impeachment. A president could be the greatest populous president in history. He could garner the support of 99% of the People and it wouldn't matter if he falls under the Constitution's prescribed actions that could lead to impeachment.

Given that, I agree that the pie in the sky hopes of some of the more ardent supporters of the birth certificate issue are hoping that an "ant will move a rubber tree plant" -- to bring a bit of humor to the situation.


Eligibility issues are the purview of the individual states. The respective parties (DNC & GOP) sign a statement attesting to the eligibility of their candidate but the responsibility for either allowing a candidate to be on the ballot is the sole purview of the state's Attorney General. Each states' Attorney General is charged with determining who can be on that state's ballot. Ineligibility claims are brought to the state's Attorney General for determination - and their say is final. Get that? Each state determines who is eligible to be on their ballot.


Excellent! An ATS'er that knows how to research and post information that isn't sensational! I applaud you sir/ma'am!


Oh, and by the way... This is the reason why the Constitution of the United States is such an important document. States have more power over the course of events than the Federal Government ever could if that power is asserted. Not just in this instance but in all instances. Learn what it says!


Absolutely. The impeachment clause was meant to not be an easy process nor does it take into account, as you have suggested, the amount of changes and/or legislation any given president has undertaken during that time.

Of course, this is a basis of a normal impeachment -- not which those that are so feverish about the birth certificate issue are concerned with -- nullification of all presidential action based on the ineligibility of said person from the start.

Either way, I will continue to stick with the issues that I know I can affect; not some hopes that someone can finally make an already flimsy and borderline charge stick in hopes to fulfill their political means.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Thanks for that. It wasn't after the Georgia law suit then.


Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


To answer your question as to when the Sheriff began his investigation:
www.therightsideoflife.com...


UPDATE: AZ Sheriff: No “Promises” Made on Obama Eligibility
August 19th, 2011
Yesterday, WorldNetDaily reported that Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio “promised” to investigate Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate after it had been allegedly released by the White House on April 27 of this year:



edit on 4/3/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


It wouldn't matter. She would still be seen as a member of Obama's cabinet and a s result a portion of the public would see her as complicit in the matter. If he wasn't already running for Senate I could see someone like Tim Kaine being their candidate. While he isn't that well-known on the national level he was briefly considered for the position of VP and his views on such things as abortions could potentially gain some Republican voters.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I was under the impression that if a presidential candidate qualified for a state's primary election they were automatically qualified for the general election. Am I wrong?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
The reason for this is because it creates a multitude of problems concerning all of the actions taken by him over the last three and a half years. Every piece of legislation he's signed would become null and void. This simply will not happen.


I take exception to what you stated here. Specifically the notion that the citizenary and the States couldn't possibly bring forth impeachment matters because of the multitude of legislation that any given president has signed into law. This isn't to say that President Obama is worthy of an impeachment battle; it is in contest of which you state, "...creates a multitude of problems concerning all of the actions taken by him...". This simply isn't of any concern when it comes to an impeachment. A president could be the greatest populous president in history. He could garner the support of 99% of the People and it wouldn't matter if he falls under the Constitution's prescribed actions that could lead to impeachment.


I wasn't clear.. I wasn't talking about impeachment when I was saying that. I was talking about being ousted from office because he was ineligible to begin with. Although, now that I really think about it there isn't another process besides impeachment that could oust a president. This is strange, because back in 2008, I distinctly remember law professors discussing what would be the legal ramifications if he were found to be ineligible.

Thanks. I'm going to have to go and find that now.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


That's a good point but I'm not sure she would carry as much baggage as you think she would. She was very popular in 2008 with Democratic voters at least. I've never heard of Tim Kaine,
they'd have a lot of name recognition work to get him through. But maybe it's just me.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I wasn't clear.. I wasn't talking about impeachment when I was saying that. I was talking about being ousted from office because he was ineligible to begin with. Although, now that I really think about it there isn't another process besides impeachment that could oust a president. This is strange, because back in 2008, I distinctly remember law professors discussing what would be the legal ramifications if he were found to be ineligible.

Thanks. I'm going to have to go and find that now.


Hypothetically -- it presents a Constitutional problem. The only way to remove an Officer of the United States would be impeachment; otherwise prescribed by law. But as we have found -- what if a person committed fraud to obtain the office of the Presidency? Do they still need to be impeached?

Note -- this exercise above isn't solely about President Obama -- though the whole of the OP is.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Interesting theory, and one I'd accept.

I'm still curious though. What would be so damning, that would cause him to obfuscate/hide/lie/blur the original?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Here is an interesting read on the status of the appeal for the Georgia case.

My distinct impression is that the GA court does not want to deal with it.

libertylegalfoundation.org...


The Georgia Superior Court tried to pull a fast one. They initially refused to file our Petition for Appeal. They claimed that our papers lacked two dollars for the two motions that were included along with our petition. We DID include the $213.50 filing fee for the petition, but they were going to sit on our documents and not file any of them, in part because of the missing $2.


and:


They just sat on our petition and emergency motion. Had we not called to verify that our petition was filed we would have missed tomorrow’s filing deadline


I haven't heard that a court date for the appeal has been set.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


The thing is though they're not going to want to run their top contenders. Let's face it if this situation actually came to pass the Dems would have no chance of winning. So why send someone like Clinton, who in a few years would have legitimate chance to win, out to be trounced? That kind of stigma would affect her results during her actual run at the presidency. They'd be better off going with someone who has a little clout in the party but would never really be considered a serious candidate for the presidency at a later date.
edit on 3/4/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


That is exactly what I was thinking, but you stated it better.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You also run into the problem of acquiescence. One could easily argue that the people responsible for vetting candidates should have noticed such things. As a result, since they remained quiet, no charges could actually be brought forward. He certainly wouldn't be allowed to run again but other than that there would be no repercussions.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I can't help but to feel sorry for all these "birther" people, who are pinning so much hope on finding a way to make it so that the last 3 years didn't happen!

If Donald Trump and all his money and lawyers and private investigators in Hawaii couldn't produce anything, what makes anyone think this hick sheriff can?

Anyway, I thought it had already been explained, that the said BC data was inputted into a computer program, years after the fact, as the technology was upgraded. The original hard copy and/or the microfilm from his birth certificate are long gone, as are mine, BTW.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


While I'm not a birther in any regard it actually is an interesting thought exercise to discuss what would happen if he were found ineligible to run this year.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I feel sorry for everyone. We are living a lie.
Our government is a sham.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Riots galore. His supporters would cry foul play. It would be close to Civil War. It just won't happen.

If it did happen the news would be a whole lot more entertaining, not necessarily in a good way.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


It would be chaos. Both parties would run amok. The DNC would loose all credibilty and the GOP would go off the deep end, cutting social programs, breaking unions and instilling religious nonsense. The economy would loose more S&P rating points and the market would tank. It would be as if an assasination had taken place. Not to mention the racial tension that would ensue. IMHO



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Interesting theory, and one I'd accept.

I'm still curious though. What would be so damning, that would cause him to obfuscate/hide/lie/blur the original?


Good question! And one I've thought about a lot to no conclusion.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join