Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
when there is no definition of an original term in any legal system, the law inevitably fills in the gap. They don’t just do it on a whim, and that becomes what it meant. I don’t see a single competent legal source outside the core birther community who has any doubt that Obama is a NBC. That would seem to include Chief Justice Roberts, who swore Obama in and presumably knows something about the Constitution.
If these trolls who subvert discussions about 0bama’s eligibility - especially the ones who say all the legal attempts are wrong, stupid, and so on, were asked;
What would you recommend? Legally, how would you go about proving his ineligibility, since you are a smart lawyer or know all about legal stuff and can point out all the flaws in these other cases?
They will say nothing. They don’t want him out.
Where do you guys get this dangerous idea?
Whatever the current congress thinks the constitution means or should mean is under their direct control?
What if you don’t agree with some future congress and they make changes you think are crazy, is that still the law of the land?
Just think about what you are saying?
I can’t tell if you’re for real or if you’re just trolling.
Don’t bother with self-admitted trolls and their anti-American rants. They don’t care about the facts and appear to be incapable of following simple syllogisms. Hence the non-sequiturs.
I have seen several people who disagree with much of this stuff propose their own alternatives. James777 (?) comes to mind. I think Buckeye Texan (?) has a proposal, too. I myself have suggested that, if you really want to see a birth certificate to your liking, you work to get laws passed in individual states for 2012. I don't think that will yield the result you want, but I would not mock it as it would at least be a coherent activity with an achievable objective.
Birthers seem to operate from the principle that Obama cannot be allowed to be President, so this issue must be real. They then confuse opposing this issue with love for Obama. Simply looking at the facts and the cases proposed as they lay indicates to me this issue is nonsense. I tell that, in perhaps more diplomatic terms, to prospective clients at regular intervals. I am not the type of advocate who will string you along on a hopeless case just to collect my fee.
Whatever the current congress thinks the constitution means or should mean is under their direct control?
What if you don’t agree with some future congress and they make changes you think are crazy, is that still the law of the land?
Just think about what you are saying?
I can’t tell if you’re for real or if you’re just trolling.”
No one is saying the Constitution means whatever the current Congress says. Congress at semi-regular intervals passes laws that the Supreme Court says are unconstitutional and which, therefore, do no go into effect. Any law stating, for example, that someone born in Austria to Austrian parents is a NBC would become one of those laws stricken.
What we are saying is that a body of work, both legislative and judicial, has evolved over time that the Supreme Court uses to make those determinations. That body of work does, in fact, fill in terms undefined and details unaddressed in the Constitution. We are also confident that this body of work would not yield a decision that a NBC must have two citizen parents.
But, yes, if one wanted to remove the NBC requirement, as another example, that would take a constitutional amendment.
So you're saying Obama fraudulantly registered his own birth when he was a week old?
Why does it matter to Ms. UnCurosity? She implies as a matter-of-fact that since UPI says it was writer's error that it could not be someone in the Obama family who is the source for Hussein being born at Queens hospital. How did the writer make the error? Did UPI just pull that factoid out of the thin ether, or does UPI think their source is in error, or is that UPI is just covering for Obama?
He could have been legitimately born at either. And Curiosity makes a pretty sound case that this was just a simple error in reporting that has been corrected.
She places her supposition as fact - that doesn't fly. More than one article, not just UPI, has said Obama was born at Queens hospital. Even if the articles were taking their cue from the same template, there is still the matter of original source, which could have been the Obamas. No one should give Obama a pass on anything he says whether it's from the sycophant press or his other minions. Picking and choosing what Obama says that 'are facts' makes you the fool.
He leaves it out because no court has ever asked Obama to present such documents. Courts aren't some free authentication service.
And she's leaving out that Obama could rectify the matter by easily submitting his real birth certificate and other related documents held by the state of Hawaii to one of the many suits that are arrayed against Obama. Imaging if Bush did the same thing as Obama here - LoL. The stinky press would be yelling at him 24/7.
They don't accept and evaluate documents they haven't asked for. There is a legal process in each of these suits that has terminated them before they would ever get to such a request.
Not much transparency from Obama is there? Obama's obstinacy doesn't persuade anyone that he is innocent since he could easily pay $12.50 to the state of Hawaii to send his birth certificate to a court of law. Again, the inCurious have NOT made their case that Obama was born in Hawaii, or have they proven that he is a natural born citizen in accordance with the United States Constitution.
This is a good example of why the cases never get anywhere. “I think someone is a liar so the same rules that apply to anyone and the same benefit of the doubt for state documentation given to anyone shouldn't apply to him” isn't an argument that will ever go anywhere in court.
Obama controls much of the facts about his life under lock and key, and he is a proven liar on a daily basis. Hang in there, I would not be saying never because Obama may eventually get his comeuppance in court. They are not going away.
“I don’t think “the light” buys that argument. “The darkness” probably does.”
Wow!! Brilliant!!! Thanks!!
I'm say he's a liar. His grandma could have been the one who could have easily lied then.
Eventually one of these cases should go to court on the merits, which may happen when Obama is out of office. The Quo Warranto case brought by Pidgeon and Donofrio may break through against Obama as their clients standing.
What possible motive would she have?
Just informing you that I don’t sully my mind by reading any nonsense from pro-0bama trolls who pretent they are conservatives, tired and old or not.
So whatver nonsense you posted to me, will remain unread. My time is too valuable to waste.
Gee, why won’t Obama just submit his birth certificate in a court of law?
Again, the Constitution is not being amended because the definition of natural-born citizen is not found in it. You can't amend something that isn't there to begin with.
I don’t know if you just can’t understand this or if you are blinded by your unconditional love for Obama.
One can always tell when you Birthers are foaming at the mouth. You accuse your opponents of being Obama supporters. The fact is that we're merely supporters of the law, the Constitution, and the judiciary. Obama has nothing to do with it. I guarantee you that if Bobby Jindal were to run for president I and the rest of us you all call Obamanoids and trolls would be making the very same arguments and fighting the very same fallacies that you Birthers would be throwing at him. Because it's what's right that is important, not who the individual is.
EVERY TERM IN THE CONSTITUTION (for purposes of the constitution) MEANS WHAT EVER IT MEANT FROM THE BEGINNING UNLESS OR UNTIL IT IS RE-DEFINED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
THEN TELL US WHERE THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN.
There might be argument on the original definition of a term, but your claim that congress can change definitons of constitutional terms is ridiculous!
And your continued claim that the Congress is somehow doing so by defining by law who is a natural-born citizen and who is not is even more ridiculous.
And here I tried to give you an honest response to a question you asked. I guess you didn't really want one. Straw men are far more comforting.
First of all, I'm a "he." Second of all, if the writer got the hospital name from a member of the Obama family, then it wouldn't be his error. Since UPI admits it was his error, it follows that he did not get this piece of misinformation from the family member.
If you can't follow that argument, I suggest you take formal logic 101.
How did the writer make the error?
By trusting an unreliable secondary source, such as Wikipedia, that he had no business trusting and should have verified but didn't. That is usually how reporters make errors in fact. This wouldn't be the first time misinformation on Wikipedia has made it into a mainstream news outlet.
More than one article, not just UPI, has said Obama was born at Queens hospital.
I am aware of only two: the UPI article, and an article in a high school student newsletter. If you are aware of others, please do point them out. Otherwise, kindly stop claiming that multiple news outlets were made this error.
Because no court has asked him for it.
So.
You know, you are one obtuse poster.
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.