Posted on 09/14/2012 6:03:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Less than two months before Election Day, a group of Kansas Republicans, led by a voter ID law advocate, is moving on a withdrawn challenge which may result in President Obama being removed from the ballot.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has embraced forcing voters to produce ID at the polls, said Sept. 13 that he will preside over a Kansas Board of Objections Sept. 17 meeting where a Manhattan, Kans. veterinary professor Joe Montgomery, questioned Obama’s birthplace and the citizenship of his father.
Kobach said that the board is obligated to do a thorough review of the questions raised by Montgomery about Obama’s birth certificate and not make “a snap decision."
However, Montgomery on Sept 14 withdrew his objections, stating that the Kansas roots of Obama’s mother and grandparents, apparently in his opinion, satisfies the U.S. Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement for the presidency,.
The president's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, were Kansas natives.
The complaint withdrawal came after Kobach made requests to officials in Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi for copies of the president’s birth records. The birth certificate controversy has been settled in those states and Obama is on those states’ ballots.
In spite of the withdrawal, Kobach said he nevertheless doesn’t believe the matter is dead. "I don't think it's a frivolous objection,” according to Kobach, an unofficial advisor to GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s campaign. "I do think the factual record could be supplemented."
The objections board includes Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, both Republicans. Current polls indicate that in Kansas, Romney is the current favored candidate at this point in the presidential race.
Why don’t you answer any of my questions?
Oh wait, I know, you you want to avoid answering. Just ignore them like they are not there. Just like A LIBERAL.
Why didn’t this bill pass?
S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128
Why does Obama call himself a native born citizen when he is running for the ONLY office to require a nutural born citizen. Why call himself a native born when they are the same thing according to you?
How about Roe VS. Wade? Congress passed the law. I think you must be a LIBERAL because you want the courts to overturn Roe VS. Wade. The congress has spoken, ya know.
“Congress has Constitutional Power over Presidential Elections and Certification.”
No, the states do.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger was put on state ballots and garnered enough electoral votes does congress have the power to seat him? How about Mickey Mouse or Hugo Chavez?
Tell me does congress have the power overrule the constitution?
“You are a LIBERAL if you want the Courts to decide everything.”
You’ve really got to be retarded. There is a process. A system of government. It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Constitution. Only amendments can change it.
Answer my questions.
Baloney!
That is NOT what the Constitution says.
No member of Congress agrees with you.
No Judge agrees with you.
No Immigration attorney agrees with you.
Your questions are stupid, rude, arrogant and miss the point:
You do not understand the law.
NO expert on the law is on your side.
You have LOST this argument and only a fool would engage you on technical, irrelevant and stupid questions.
You are ALWAYS spewing taunts on these threads. You have real issues of duplicity, but that is normal for a stealth liberal like you show yourself to be. Bless your little heart, you just can get enough attention can you.
Birthers are Liberals.
Birthers do not respect the rule of law.
Birthers want Judicial Supremacy.
Birthers have come up with something they WANT the law to mean, and are trying to force their warped, false views on the rest of us.
There is NO legal authority to support the view that there are any more than TWO classes of citizenship in the United States:
Natural Born
Naturalized
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the Moment of Birth and nothing else!
Not a single, established, conservative legal group disagrees with me on this point.
Bitherism is a form of Liberalism.
So in other words, I’m right.
You can’t answer them.
How come this bill failed?
S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128
Why does Obama call himself a native born citizen when he is running for the ONLY office to require a natural born citizen. Why call himself a native born when they are the same thing according to you?
Can Congress certify Hugo Chavez or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they get enough electoral votes after being on state ballots?
“Your questions are stupid, rude, arrogant and miss the point:”
Huh?!?!
These questions are rude, stupid and arrogant???
How come this bill failed?
S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128
Why does Obama call himself a native born citizen when he is running for the ONLY office to require a natural born citizen. Why call himself a native born when they are the same thing according to you?
Can Congress certify Hugo Chavez or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they get enough electoral votes after being on state ballots?
The State Department's note about the 'mother' needing to be genetically related is worth a chuckle. Back in 1952, it was difficult not to be genetically related to the person who bore you. The first egg donation didn't happen until 1983. I'll bet, if an actual case ever came up, it would be litigated.
In any case, it's a triviality of no consequence in the current case. It's just a handy way to needle birthers on the futility of their quest: Even if you somehow prove he was born in Mombasa, you still lose, because she wasn't validly married, and Section 309(c) ... blah, blah, blah.
Very similar to my theory. I have always thought she was sent to live with either Aunt Eleanor Birkebeile or Uncle Ralph Dunham. My bet would be on the Aunt though. Aunt Eleanor was definitely living in Canada in 1959, and we have proof of that. Whether she was there in 1961 we don't know.
In 1961, when young girls developed an embarrassing pregnancy, they would usually get shipped off to live with a relative somewhere far distant until they had the baby. Sometimes the babies would then be put up for adoption, but I think that would have been problematic for a half black child during that era.
I currently think Barry was born in Canada.
You lie
You may or may not be familiar with James Madison's defense of William Loughton Smith, but it has been argued quite a lot in these threads. To sum it up, Madison's argument was that every citizen of every state became upon July 4, 1776, a citizen of the United States. What applied to William Loughton Smith, also applied to Elldred, unless he chose to be a British loyalists.
This is a point which some of the "born on the soil" supporters simply don't comprehend. There were THOUSANDS of people born in the United States that were not considered citizens of the United States by either themselves, The British Government, or Our government as well. They chose to remain loyal to the British Government, and therefore were British Citizens, and where they were born had nothing to do with that fact. The issue is, and always was about Allegiance, and that is not imparted by dirt, it is imparted by Parents who convey it to their children.
2) A man born of Anericann slaves could not have tried to run for President until after the 14th amendment was ratified (not old enough). My question is: would that have been illegal in, say,1920, on the grounds that our hypothetical candidate would not have been an NBC?
It would be a legal technicality, just as it is today. One of the reasons I think the "natural born citizen" issue is pretty much ignored by most people is because they see it as nothing but a bunch of hair splitting about some rules. Other people, such as us "birthers" argue that it is not just some frivolous rule, it is a necessary safeguard which was bypassed, and the lack of this safeguard has now caused disastrous results.
In Any case, the examples of Mr. Elldred and Mr. McClure reinforce the point that just getting born on our soil did not make you a citizen in the eyes of our Government back then. Again, the examples of all those many thousands of British Loyalists ought to be a no-brainer for people to figure this out, but some people really want to believe crap they've heard.
It *IS* a very good column by George Will. It puts everything in perspective and it makes perfect sense. I like to inform people about this column as often as possible. It is information that really needs to get out there to the public.
Here is another very good column on the same subject, written by Ann Coulter. If you liked the Will Column, I would expect that you will also like Ann's Column. The two of them are "birthers" they just don't realize it. Their arguments go to the heart of the "birther" issue.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are quoted often, to this day.
Yeah, let's quote some Aristotle, why don't we?
Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
Now your going to tell me Aristotle was a nut or a liar or something...
Another Bitch-Slap from the past for you.
The stuff you write makes me feel like i'm getting stupider just by reading it. You emit stupidity like body odor (which you probably emit as well) to an extent that I have rarely seen.
States have NO authority, today, over the subject of granting or denying US Citizenship.
You are clueless f****** wonder. I shall not be surprised to hear of you winning a Darwin award.
Give the keyboard back to daddy and stop messing with his computer!
A Nit to pick with you. A Constitutional Amendment can change the requirements for citizenship. It cannot make something "natural" which is not. "Natural" citizenship is not subject to amendment, it is like hair or eye color, a characteristic that is innate.
You overlook the fact that a divorce in Kenya during this time requires only a simple statement from the man saying "I divorce you."
I think he was born in Canada, not Kenya. None of the evidence i've seen points to Kenya.
“The law does turn on marital status.”
What is your basis for this assertion? I just re-read the governing statute (USC 8, Section 1401) and find that it uses the term “parent”. Nothing about husband, wife, marital status, etc.
Agreed.
Section 1401(g) requires a residency of five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14. Annie would also pass that standard. However, in 1961, I believe the requirement was five years after the age of 14, which she would have missed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.