Posted on 07/03/2011 4:28:11 AM PDT by HMS Surprise
HMS Surprise wrote: “I can know, and do know, that his White House release a fraudulent document on April 27th. Game, set, match.”
The Hawaii Department of Health wrote: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Again, I ask, and you do not answer, who says it is fraudulent? What experienced, certified document examiner, who has ben accepted as an expert witness by the courts, says it is fraudulent?
To be a US citizen. In fact, by the anchor baby concept, neither have to be.
Actually precedent was set in Minor v. Happerstadt, per Leo Donofrio and that’s binding. Citizen parents. Plural.
Yes. Go to that website and download the instant case object. In pdf form you can zoom in yourself and see multiple problems. Do the same for a similar document and see if you can locate ANY such. I don’t assume anything, and I especially don’t assume that the libs within the Hawaii Dept. of Health are on the up and up.
You must be a lawyer. I don’t need a court to tell me that the sun shall rise in the East tomorrow. I am not trying to get a court case started, and I don’t care if this is ever carried forward in some effort to legally remove the ONE. It is merely ammunition to be used to deny Obama 4 more years. I personally believe that the doc is a fraud, and I generally don’t pull back the curtain until I’m sure the ducks are in a row. I care not a wit what any court thinks, or any court appointed expert thinks.
I don’t know whether that is completely true.
Gov. Bobby Jindal was born in the U.S.A., just four months after his parents moved here LEGALLY. Though not yet naturalized citizens, his parents were here under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and registered their son’s birth here.
The anchor baby concept is, at best, questionable if the parents are both illegal aliens and the baby’s birth isn’t registered. No doubt eventually it will be determined in court. I tend to believe any child born to illegal aliens in the U.S.A. are, by jus sanguinas, citizens of their parents native land.
Just because one is a citizen, doesn’t mean one is eligible to be President.
In addition, the more important problem in the use of a precedent is that, in a case that makes it all the way to SCOTUS, both sides will have plenty of precedents.
And remember, as an overriding consideration, SCOTUS would probably properly decide that such a matter was ripe for the Impeachment process, not theirs. Do we really want SCOTUS involved the next time Nancy Pelosi decides that some leading Republican is not qualified? And even if they acted, it would be 2-3 years until they did.
BTW, Obama being declared an “invalid” president opens a huge can of Constitutional worms. Are ALL laws he signed invalid? Are ALL pardons he gave invalid. Are ALL federal criminal convictions invalid because defs. did not have access to a proper appeal/pardon process? Are ALL actions taken by Cabinet Secs invalid? A huge can of worms.
Putting our eggs in the "Not Qualified" basket gets us no more voters in 2012, because anyone who believes such is already on our side.
I draw your attention to the follwing:
Forget trying to split the legal baby on the issue of what does “native born” means in a differentiation from “natural born.” The body of law demonstrates overwhelmingly that the courts recognize the overriding concept of two classes of citizenship. One is “natural,” the other is “naturalized.”
“Naturalized” simply means to be made “as if natural” by an operation of law not circumstances, (such as the application for citizenship process) as opposed to being a citizen at the moment of one’s birth, i.e. “naturally.”
Anyone can argue all day long in opposition to that, but in reality in the year 2011, that’s how any court is going to decide. Lawyers can argue the Earth is flat, too, with equal results.
Yes, I’m well aware of all the evidence of his application for scholarships self describing himself as a foreign citizen, his traveling to the Middle East with something other than a US passport and all the other indicators that the issue of US citizenship was at best a matter of “convenience” for him. That is not nearly enough to remove him from office. Likewise, any argument that he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth is of very dubious legal foundation and new decision on it would ever become ripe before the Supreme Court within the next 3 to 4 years.
You’re full of crap.
I noticed that mentioned in the article after I had already responded, but thanks. That does beg the question. Why not?
So why did you claim that the distinction was between one versus two citizen parents and cite it to Rogers v. Bellei?
This is what I said: Rogers v. Bellei provides another fact. In that case, the Supreme court ruled that being the child of one American Citizen isn't enough to be a "Natural born citizen." Bellei LOST his citizenship because he didn't reside in the United States long enough. A "Natural born citizen" could NOT lose his citizenship through inaction.
I would say that the fact the supreme court REVOKED citizenship for Bellei, is proof enough that ONE citizen parent does not reach the level of "Natural born citizen" while according to the Intent of Congress in the "Naturalization act of 1790" two citizen parents would be sufficient. Your objection to my characterization of it is because the court did not specifically SAY that. My argument is that their ACTIONS spoke louder than their words.
That’s what I questioned you on. You’ve asserted your own legal philosophy and you’ve attempted to speak for the founders, but the simple point was that the case you cited did not say what you claimed.
Nonsense. I pointed out the obvious fact that he had one parent and the court proved (by the action of REVOKING his citizenship) that one parent wasn't enough to be considered a "natural born citizen." For some peculiar reason you keep overlooking the point that a "Natural born citizen" CANNOT lose his citizenship.
The distinction between Bellei and Barack is trivial. It revolves around his supposed birth above American soil, a fact of which the First Congress apparently deemed insignificant. I would further point out that GEORGE WASHINGTON was President, and presumably SIGNED the act, with which he presumably concurred. As the man who INSERTED the "None but a natural born citizen" clause into the constitution, I would think he should know what characteristics are important for citizenship and what are not. Apparently he didn't consider the soil aspect to be the point upon which "natural born citizenship" hinged.
It’s not the issue here, but, no, I do not equate natural-born citizen with native-born citizen. That native-born citizens are natural-born citizens does *not* imply that *only* native-born citizens are natural-born citizens.
You may not specifically say so, but you certainly imply it. What other purpose could bringing up the term "Native born" be in this context?
There’s a fundamental principle of living under the rule of law that you seem to be missing: You don’t always get your way.
You mean that the courts can go wrong and still enforce their erroneous decisions because we have decided that they can be as silly as they want and still demand respect and obedience? (try that argument on the founders, who overthrew the ENTIRE system of British law.) I prefer to laud them when they are correct, and damn them when they are wrong. Objective reality is my preferred place of residence, not ego driven fallacy land.
Can you imagine if Science and Engineering was treated this way? We would still be living under Aristotle's misconception that Heavier Objects fall faster! In Science there is a term which is apparently alien to the legal system. FALSIFIABILITY. That means that something can be proven to be true or not. A system based on a sequence of opinions disconnected from the original principles is simply not falsifiable. It is a faulty system of reasoning. Were science to work like the courts, we would still be living with Aristotle's technology.
The Hawaii Department of Health wrote: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
I looked at your link, and there are a couple of things wrong with your logic.
1. The web page you link to is not "certified" with an embossed seal, so how do we know this is the "Official" statement from the correct officials in Hawaii, as opposed to the opinion of whatever clerk is tasked with maintaining the web page?
2. Even if that message was posted by the latest DOH Director, it is on it's own face a false statement, because the image file released specifically DOES NOT SAY that it is "ORIGINAL." It says that it is at best a "copy of the record on file", and at worst an "Abstract of the record on file."
I know this because I have been VERY conscious of the fact that it is NOT an original, nor does it SAY that it is an original. You see, I know exactly how important is the difference between "original record" and "record." As I have mentioned often, *I* am adopted. My "ORIGINAL" record contains VERY DIFFERENT information on it than does my "Record on file." For the office of Presidency we should not TOLERATE such games as these people insist on playing.
There is circumstantial evidence that Barack has been adopted and that his "ORIGINAL" birth certificate is sealed. Until the "ORIGINAL" is actually presented, and sworn to be the original by the appropriate state officials, the veracity of his documents will always be in question.
Again, this is the difference between the Legal mindset and the Science mindset. Lawyers would simply declare the two to be "legally equivalent" when in fact they may be substantively different in a very important way.
If we could get the issue INTO the courts, then that question would be easy to answer. Apart from that, I've seen at least four people with pretty impressive credentials in that industry, claim the image file was manipulated by software.
Unless you can demonstrate some manner in which a court or an act of congress did alter the Constitution, you're argument is nonsense.
You got nothing.
Except for one thing. If we convince the legislators of our state to REQUIRE proof that he is eligible, or he will NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE BALLOT, then he has to either produce an original or forsake an entire state, the political ramifications of which will wipe him out in an election, because people will wonder what could be so bad about his documents that he would rather give up an entire state without a fight rather than just show them to someone?
I urge everyone to continue in their efforts to push their state's legislators into passing such a law.
The statement from the Hawaii Department of Health says it's a "certified copy."
Perhaps, but a good BM usually helps.
As far as the law is concerned, sorry, but I am (of ocurse) correct.
The important point is that the evidence here is conclusive, and doesn’t require the imprimatur of the courts. It only requires a critical mass of the people understanding the implications of such fraud, and the removal of the current leader in the White House at our earliest convenience.
FORGET ABOUT THE COURTS!
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.