America!
Our National Security, The Economy, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Are No Joke to Most Americans
Thank you Media, for the Fraudulent, One-Sided, Election of 2008
Posted on 12/13/2008 3:36:19 AM PST by IbJensen
You’re right. There is a constitutional issue here but it needs people with level heads and sensible FACT-BASED arguments to work it through., otherwise it won’t be taken seriously.
Obama hasn’t bypassed any procedure requiring him to prove his elegibility... that we know of.
The difference in this case is that the American people aren’t prepared to accept the assurances from Hawaiian officials that he already has done it. Even though such assurances are themselves unprecedented.
To take it further, there’d need to be a formal decision as to whom Obama should submit his birth certificate (the governors of each State which allowed him to appear on the ballot BEFORE seeing such evidence seems to me to be an obvious starting point).
Secondly, there’d have to be safeguards to ensure that the document is authenticated impartially, the outcome is both honest, and all parties accept its findings as final.
Thirdly: just the facts ma’am. No court should be examining any allegation tied to Obama’s legitimacy, if the accusers can’t produce any evidence to support the charge.
Also, as to whether or not there’s any real evidence to Obama NOT being a natural born citizen, it’s a good idea to go through existing case law and see how the evidence stacks up one way or the other.
For example, some commentators in Europe have cited the case of 169 U.S. 649 (UNITED STATES vs. WONG KIM ARK). Which discussed very similar issues to what we’re discussing now - and its findings were based on the fact that while the Constitution doesn’t set out the exact legal definition of “natural born”, English Common Law asserts that it’s about where you are born, not who your parents are. And the Constitution doesn’t overturn that definition.
This raises really interesting issues. If for arguments’ sake, Obama was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii was on American soil, NEITHER parent was American, he was given an American birth certificate and had immediately been taken to live in Africa, he would, in British Common Law and in case law, still be a natural born American.
If Obama was born on American soil and he can prove it, then there is, on the face of it, no case to answer as the Supreme Court ruled it so over 100 years ago (and with the best will in the world that ruling can’t have been part of Obama’s gameplan).
Unless, of course, a later Supreme Court ruling suggests different.
Have they done so on oath or affirmation in front of an Article III court, in a way that you or I, or anyone else, can weigh their evidence?
Just show us the vault copy of your birth certificate, 0bama, and the whole argument will be over.
This is so damn silly! Why can’t some people see that he’s hiding something?
I suspect that the Hawaiian government has found itself in a serious mess. It says he has a vault birth certificate. But, it knows that it has to be stamped, signed, certified by the government before it can be released and proven. And it can’t get past the many talented and trained investigators who will examine such a document and prove that the government of Hawaii has changed the vault copy to oblige 0bama.
If that were true, why does the Constitution provide a procedure for what to do when the Electoral College chooses a President-Elect who is unqualified?
Maybe they were bored that day?
“...let SCOTUS declare the man who just won 53% of the vote ineligible. See if that doesn’t “violently shake this nation.”
Why do you assume that the 47 % of voters will peacefully accept a usurper?
That chart is a bit one-sided. For example, the first one actually concludes that Obama IS a natural born citizen if he was born on U.S. Soil.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Quote:
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’
That specific issue is debated in the Kim Ark case.
There was a specific issue for Chinese naturalization (founded both in treaty and in statute) but not for those of African or European origin since the exemptions applied to persons of Chinese descent didn’t apply.
The conclusion:
“In other words, the fourteenth amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens”.
Kim Ark didn’t qualify because he was of Chinese descent.
Overall, “citizenship by birth” equates to “natural born citizen”.
Ergo, unless Obama is part Chinese, being born on American soil does entitle him to run for President.
Wikipedia is nice for some things but not for others. For a statement such as this it is worthless. So I suggest you provide other evidence that Berg believes that the 9/11 attack was something other than it obviously was.
ML/NJ
Berg is a Democrat. You’re surprised that he hates Bush?
I meant to add:
The key words in that conclusion were, “according to the will of their native government and of this government”.
Even if both of Obama’s parents had been Kenyan, their offspring would be a natural born American if born on American soil - unless a legal impediment (treaty or statute) was in place that satisfied both Kenyan and American interests at that time.
So, for Obama to be declared ineligible even if he was born in Hawaii, there would’ve had to be an existing and lawful impediment to him receiving “natural born” status, by mutual agreement between Kenya and the USA, and/or the UK and the USA, at the time of his birth.
We wouldn’t need Obama’s cooperation at all to find THAT smoking gun. Assuming it ever existed. Which, as far as I can tell, it didn’t.
His mother is a natural born American so it doesn’t matter if his natural father wasn’t. The fact she split with his alleged father is also totally irrelevant.
The argument over her age rendering Obama inelegible for natural born status is only relevant if Obama was not born in Hawaii.
So, we would need documentary evidence from Kenya (not mere testimony) proving that he was born there, and/or documentary evidence proving that the DoH in Hawaii lied on October 31st when they confirmed his place of birth was Honolulu, for there to be any question of ineligibility.
Don't forget the LSM.
They pulled their weight to get Zero elected.
That's not what was said. They very carefully stated that they had an original BC on file. Foreign borns could get a Hawaiian BC if their parents lived in Hawaii for a year prior to birth.
For more information see: Obama's "birth certificate" - the Devil's in the details
But, herein lies the problem. He ‘potentially’(innocent until proven guilty) was ineligible to be on the ballot. If it is proven that he was not qualified to be on the ballot, then that 53% vote for him is totally meaningless. Period
Voting for an ineligible candidate does not validate that candidate.
It only proves that 53% of the voters were deceived and defrauded of their votes.
How popular he is, has NOTHING to do with it. Whether he is CONSTITUTIONALLY eligible to offer himself up as a candidate has EVERYTHING to do with it.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.
The Constitution makes provision for a mechanism to have it changed. A 53% vote for an ineligible candidate is not a valid procedure to change the Constitution!!
If the Constitution is NOT upheld, this country WILL face total anarchy!!
If it is too much for you to deal with, than go hide in your basement and let the conservatives worry about it.
Enough Already, The people voted. Respect the vote.
Go ahead. Be my guest.
Because those Americans, both living and dead and some of those on this thread, don't want the truth to be discovered.
They'd have to admit they made a fatal mistake.
Agree that the media did abet the fraud. They will be laughing all the way to the bread line....if there is enough left to fund one.
Screw that. I raped your wife and killed your kids, but it was years ago and the jury aquitted me, “Enough Already, The people voted. Respect the vote”.... How’s that logic work for you?
Jim, these are simple Kenyan farmers who wouldn't know an Article III court from a crooked Illinois political machine.
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.