Posted on 01/25/2009 8:32:35 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
This may give you a better idea who the author is. Edwin Vieira is quite familiar with the Constitution.
http://www.theheartlandusa.com/articles/authors/vieira/EV2007/ev_bio.htm
My five year old grandson had to show a certified copy of his birth certificate to enroll in church softball this year. Since I wrote the check for it, I asked them why.
It’s the rules was the reply.
Unfortunately, as in many catastrophic situations, such as Pearl Harbor and the rise of Hitler, mistakes are made. The more preposterous the incident, the less likely someone will speak up for fear of being ridiculed. No one in government or in our court system wished to be the one to question his citizenship, and so, the safeguards of our Constitution were negated.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler
It is a very simple matter to produce your long form Birth Certificate and silence the critics. I have never understood his rather expensive withholding of this document.
No, think Vince Foster (on a somewhat grander scale).
Friendly edit:
You are exactly right. The US Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and they answer to nobody but themselves. No one can legally “order” them to do anything.
I can understand about Little League and such, but I don't know many 13 year olds in high school, and that is what the article was about.
Besides, you have to provide a BC to enroll your child in school to start with. I can't remember if you have to submit one (that they keep), or just show one.
1) For school, why can't they just look up the one they have instead of you having to provide, in essence, another one? What did the school do with the first one? How many Certified copies of BCs do people have floating around?
2) For extra-curricular events, what do these people do with the BC (if they keep them)?
These are questions I would need answered before I would get them one.
“No one can “order” the United States Supreme Court to throw out a case. It’s constitutionally impossible.”
I’d like you to reflect on the difference between that which is “constitutionally” possible and that which is physically possible.
In other words you need to add some juice to your brain power, and fast.
If you have that many questions about kids needing to have their birth certificates, I’d like to see how many questions you have regarding the obligation of presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate.
WTF does “physically possible” have to do with this?
It’s about as possible as it would be for me to “order” you to stop posting. I could try it, but because I have no authority to do so it would hardly be an order.
So unless this alleged “order” was backed up by a threat to shoot the justices if they ignored it, even the concept is absurd.
0bumma announced ahead of time that he would be using his full name at the inauguration.
You said — “I would agree that this must be BS but it does seem strange that the SC hasn’t apparently taken any of these cases seriously.”
Well..., the way I see it, is that the Supreme Court doesn’t jump on legal matters simply because they are pressing in a popular or political sense, but only act when the legal issues become pressing to the Supreme Court, itself, in terms of its own criteria (of which they don’t make that known outside of themselves). Sometimes issues can be appealed for a period of decades and nothing will happen. Then, all of a sudden, a case will be taken and a judgment made on it (where it had not been touched for a long time before).
I would imagine that it could be that way now, too... The Supreme Court is not like contacting your Senator or Congressman, who have the next election to be concerned about. The Supreme Court doesn’t operate on that basis at all. And it was made that way, so don’t expect them to respond to political issues, because they seem pressing to certain voters. The Supreme Court seems to take a “long view” on a lot of issues, carrying on for decades before anything is done, if at all.
—
And then you said — “You’d think that in a gesture of openness and honesty that BO would disclose his real BC rather than hire lawyers to keep it sealed.”
Well, even though that was a slogan, no...., I wouldn’t expect it. It was simply political rhetoric (as usual, as it is with most politicians...).
You said — “You are exactly right. The US Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and they answer to nobody but themselves. No one can “order” them to do anything.”
Shhhh...., don’t let anyone see you talking “common sense” here... :-)
You said — “If HUSSEIN was applying for a Federal job instead of elected, he would have to present an original BC from the state with raised seal.
No BC, no job. “
The President, on the other hand, gets his job by being voted in. It’s a different job and different means to get in there. That’s just the way it works. The President gets to qualify for a lot of things, above and beyond what he would qualify for, apart from the “job of President of the United States” — if he were simply an ordinary citizen.
I would say that every last single President of the United States could *never* qualify for all the levels of security that he got as “President” — if he were an ordinary citizen, no matter what proof he put forth and no matter what kind of background he had that would qualify him.
In this particular case with Obama, the complaint you have about him being in office is with the “voters” who put him there...
You said — “0bumma announced ahead of time that he would be using his full name at the inauguration.”
Now..., now..., that just makes too much sense....
You said — “You are exactly right. The US Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and they answer to nobody but themselves. No one can legally “order” them to do anything. “
From looking over your posts, I would say that although no one can “legally order” you to post things here — it does appear that someone is making you post things in a certain way (at least the way it looks to me...). Someone has obviously “ordered” you to do so....
—
[in fact, it looks like someone has “ordered” a lot of FReepers to post some very curious things on the “qualifications issue”... on Free Republic...]
BS? Maybe. But so is the Usurper’s biography.
It has already been established that the long form is used in cases to prove Hawaiian ancestry...in terms of the lands commission.
This is to prove Hawaiian ancestry.
It’s true that he announced it beforehand. Yet from viewing the tape, it certainly looks as if he was caught by surprise.
Methinks we are not in the same galactic cluster.
That’s been done hereon multiple times.
I’m skeptical we even have sufficient shared vocabulary to discuss dog poop with very meaningfully.
Cheers.
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.