US State Department Subpoena Denial in Obama Eligibility Suit

Jeff Schreiber @ 'America's Right' ^ | 9-3-08 | bonnieblue4me

[M Kehoe]

Welcome to FR.

While Article II makes it clear what the requirements are to hold the office of President, there are no prohibitions as to who may seek the office of President.

Why would one seek the office of president, if not to hold that office? To cause a constitutional crisis? To cause civil strife? Any ideas?

5.56mm

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am confident that is all in the US code.

Get back to me when you have the code.

[Peerless]

Welcome to FR.

Thank you.

Why would one seek the office of president, if not to hold that office?

Ask Ralph Nader. ;)

Or anyone else who has run for office of President who never stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually being elected and knew it.

Are you old enough to remember Pat Paulson's runs for President?

But that's all beside the point. The point is, there's nothing in the Constitution or federal law which restricts who may seek the office. Only who may actually hold it.

To cause a constitutional crisis? To cause civil strife? Any ideas?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the constitutional crisis or civil strife angles here. What exactly are the scenarios you're seeing here?

[Peerless]

I am confident that is all in the US code.

Get back to me when you have the code.

I have the code. I've read it. I see nothing in it which restricts who may seek the office of President. Only who may hold it.

So if you're confident that it's all in there, I'm afraid you're going to have to point to it, because I can't show you that which I don't see.

[Non-Sequitur]

Berg argues that the issue goes to the intent of "natural born," i.e. that of preventing any sort of divided loyalty, and that having dual citizenship goes against such intent.

I tend to follow along with Justice Scalia in that the Constitution means what it says. And it says nothing about dual citizenship.

[Non-Sequitur]

Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband.

Based on what? Berg's rather eccentric interpretation of the Constitution?

[Non-Sequitur]

according to that statement we can elect Putin.

Well that's kind of an idiotic thing to say. There is substantial evidence showing Putin was not born in the U.S. and hasn't lived here for the last 14 years. There is no evidence that I've seen showing Obama was not born in the U.S.

[M Kehoe]

Maybe I wasn't clear. What would be the motivation for one to seek the presidency, but not desire to be president?

Maybe a Paulson for publicity, or a Nader to make a point, but Obama has as much of a chance to become president as did Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt in their respective three way bids. Each could have been president.

So, what do you think would be the motivations of a person to spend millions of dollars and a great amount of time to pursue an office they couldn't hold?

5.56mm

[Steve Van Doorn]

Where does it say ‘hold’? You made that up.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"There is no evidence that I've seen showing Obama was not born in the U.S. "

I have only seen very bad copies of the evidence that he was born here. That isn't good evidence.

[meyer]

Seems to me that someone is asking an aweful lot of questions. Almost like examining a witness.

[Steve Van Doorn]

was thinking the same thing. But he is using bad information. The constitution doesn't say, 'hold'.

it say, 'No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office...'

[M Kehoe]

Seems to me that someone is asking an aweful [sic] lot of questions. Almost like examining a witness.

I am seeking an opinion, not testimony under oath. Thank you for your concern.

5.56mm

[Peerless]

Maybe I wasn't clear. What would be the motivation for one to seek the presidency, but not desire to be president?

Maybe a Paulson for publicity, or a Nader to make a point, but Obama has as much of a chance to become president as did Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt in their respective three way bids. Each could have been president.

So, what do you think would be the motivations of a person to spend millions of dollars and a great amount of time to pursue an office they couldn't hold?

I couldn't say.

[meyer]

I am seeking an opinion, not testimony under oath. Thank you for your concern.

It wasn't you to which I was referring - I just happened to reply to your post. Someone else is asking a lot.

[2nd amendment mama]

From the link to this article

Goldie said...
Someone posted a comment on another story here about Obama turning in his law license. If that's so then he must have been in a situation where he was "asked" to do so. This is the usual reason. Give it up or pay the price. Is there a way to really find out? I'm not in law and have no idea how to investigate such things. Can we find out if this is true and what the reason was?
October 3, 2008 12:08 PM

Is this true? Did obama turn in his law license - maybe Sarah ought to start asking about that too!!!!

[Kevmo]

This morning I answered this post and then FR (or my system, not sure) crashed. I see my answer did not survive.

I see that there’s been quite a bit of activity, maybe I’ll be able to catch up and maybe not.

In the meantime, here’s an article recently posted on FR:

Note the sentence about Berg saying he’d drop the suit if the BC were produced.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76933

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
World Net Daily ^ | October 4, 2008 | Drew Zahn

Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2008 9:16:33 AM by Amityschild

The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama’s American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he’ll drop the suit.

....

[Peerless]

Where does it say ‘hold’? You made that up.

"Hold" ultimately comes from the word "to" as it was used in Article II.

No person... shall be eligible to the office of President...

From Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged:

to 4. Indicating effect, consequence or resultant condition; specif.; d To serve as; in the capacity or part of; as, to take one to witness. "Water to his drink." Chaucer. "Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband?" Book of Common Prayer.

So it's quite clear that the restrictions on eligibility referred to holding the office of President, or, to serve as President or in the capacity of President. And that they haven't anything to do with seeking the office of President.

We don't use the word "to" in the same fashion these days so it's not so evident to most people. But it has to be remembered that those words weren't written today, they were written over 200 years ago.

[Kevmo]

But when will Berg produce evidence that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.? Has he said?
***He has produced evidence that the presented documentation is a forgery. Don’t believe it? Take that up with Polarik, the expert on this stuff. So why would Obama present forged evidence?

[Kevmo]

Because he doesn’t have to. How’s that?
***Good enough to start an armed revolution. The man in the president’s chair may be ineligible and has produced forged documentation towards his eligibility. So Obama can avoid all this mayhem and produce that little eeensy teensy bitsy piece of paper. How’s that?