Evidence Aside, State Lawmakers Debate ‘Birther’ Bills

The New York Times ^ | 4/21/2011 | Kirk Johnson

[john mirse]

“But down the hall, an assistant Democratic floor leader in the House, Al McAffrey, said the bill was the embarrassment. “

“Asked in an interview whether he was concerned about embarrassing the leader of his own party,”

“Opponents of the birther bills say they are unnecessary and are designed to score political points more than safeguard democracy, certainly in Mr. Obama’s case. “

How can anyone be against this sort of a bill? Why would anyone be embarrassed by one? Is there a logical reason for a candidate to not prove their legitimacy?

*******

Yes. Why would anyone running for public office be embarrassed to show his long form birth certificate?

That is, what could possibly be on a long form birth certificate that would be embarrassing to a person running for the office of President of the United States?

For instance, is there anything on your birth certificate that would embarrass you if you were required to show election officials, local or national officials, your long form birth certificate?

To me, if a person is ashamed or embarrassed about some details that are on his birth certificate, then I say that he should not run for public office.

But offhand, I can't think of anything that would be on a person's birth certificate that would be embarrassing to someone. For instance, a person's religion is not listed on the long form birth certificates that I have seen on the internet.

So if anyone here can think of information on a long form birth certificate that would be embarrassing to a candidate for public office, please let me know.

[wiggen]

Not to mention one has no control over who their parents are. Its what you do with your own life that matters,not the circumstances of ones birth.

[sodpoodle]

Birther control bills!!!

[Venturer]

You are eferring to embarrassment by most people. There are many thins that could be on Obama’s Birth Certificate that could be embarrassing to him. Including the real father.

[frog in a pot]

Thank you for that link.

The Supreme Court of the United States…has said that one born of alien parents in the territorial limits of the United States is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the presidential qualification clause and, further, said that “such (persons) not being citizens can only become citizens * * * by being naturalized in the United States.” (Elk v . Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.)

The founders set different citizenship requirements for occupants of the highest levels of offices established by the Constitution. It is indeed ludicrous that anyone would believe the founders would require less than the highest known form of citizenship of candidates for the two highest offices.

The argument further supports the proposition that, as most here know, “anchor baby” citizenship is a liberal myth with no foundation in the law.

So long as state eligibility bills are silent as to the second leg of NBC, citizen parents, those bills are worse than fatally flawed, they tend to provide the way to an anchor baby president.

Is Trump the only one left to defend our Constitution (in a peaceful manner)?

[bitt]

constitutionalist ping

[bitt]

logic as per uncle sham:

“Just based upon what is currently KNOWN, even without a birth certificate we can PROVE he is not eligible.

Fact Number One
Congress is REQUIRED to ensure that the President elect is eligible for the office or they must name a replacement if the Vice President elect is also ineligible. (Twentieth Amendment, section three)

”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Fact Number Two
The burden of proof is on the President elect to prove eligibility. The sequence of words from section three stating “if the President elect shall have failed” is describing an action by the “President elect” that he failed at.

Fact Number Three
The eligibility requirements in Article Two, section one clearly state that NO PERSON who fails to meet the eligibility requirements can serve as President. “No Person” leaves absolutely no wiggle room for anyone who might possibly fool his way into being sworn in through fraudulent representation or Congressional neglect in enforcing section three of the Twentieth amendment.

” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Fact Number Four
Since Congress must act if the President elect fails to qualify, Congress must be made aware of whether they must act or not. This means that a legal “qualification” is fully known by Congress and that there is no mystery whether someone was eligible to serve or not. That is, if that “qualification” was made.

Fact Number Five
We have mystery about the eligibility of the person currently calling himself “President”. Nothing but mystery.

Fact Number Six
Since we have “mystery” this means that a “qualification” was NOT made and thus the President elect has “failed to qualify” and cannot be serving legally as President.

Fact Number Seven
“We have no birth certificate” EQUALS “We have a usurper”.

Fact Number Eight
It is the duty of Congress to immediately address this issue as per section three of the Twentieth amendment or they are breaking their oath of office from Article Six to “support this Constitution”.

Add up the facts and we have usurpation along with a Congress unwilling to address it. “

[frog in a pot]

Excuse me, I misquoted. The USSC words are only those the author quoted.

The Supreme Court of the United States…has said that one born of alien parents in the territorial limits of the United States is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the presidential qualification clause and, further, said that “such (persons) not being citizens can only become citizens * * * by being naturalized in the United States.” Elk v . (Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.)

[hoosiermama]

bump

[cycle of discernment]

I gotta say Michelle Bachmann comes off like a clueless ditz when Steph held up that ridiculous photoshopped COLB on GMA.

And now look what her wide-eyed, doe-like wonder and “duh, well, then that settles it” remark has spawned.

ATTENTION: WOULD YOU HIGH PROFILE REPUBLICANS ***PLEASE*** DO AT LEAST A BARE MINIMUM OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATING OF YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU GO OFF HALF-COCKED WITH UNINFORMED OPINIONS ON THE FRAUDULENT OBAMA.

[Menehune56]

I gotta say Michelle Bachmann comes off like a clueless ditz when Steph held up that ridiculous photoshopped COLB on GMA. And now look what her wide-eyed, doe-like wonder and “duh, well, then that settles it” remark has spawned.

ATTENTION: WOULD YOU HIGH PROFILE REPUBLICANS ***PLEASE*** DO AT LEAST A BARE MINIMUM OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATING OF YOURSELVES BEFORE YOU GO OFF HALF-COCKED WITH UNINFORMED OPINIONS ON THE FRAUDULENT OBAMA.

You nailed it. What a disappointment Michelle Bachmann turned out to be.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Marine_Uncle]

The L/MSM know full well things are not as they appear. They will continue to hoodwink the general public. Lots at stake for them.

[Quix]

THX THX

So . . . are the globalists about to throw othuga under the bus?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks bitt.