but I don't know, there's just somethin' about the guy ... can't quite figure it out ...
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:14:35 AM PST by Scythian
This birth certificate issue has been going on for some time now and for those hoping for some kind of dramatic outcome you are in for another big disappointment.
First, there is always the chance that there is a valid birth certificate proving Obama to be a US citizen.
Second, enough time has passed such that the Obama cult has manufactured and installed a phony certificate that will re-route us back up to option 1 above, he will have a valid certificate. Who do you think works in these kinds of government offices? They're all democrats.
Third, no court is going to force Obama to prove himself to be a citizen, the burden is on those making the accusation that he is not a citizen. A criminal doesn't have to prove he didn't commit a crime, the state has to prove that he did.
=================================
Flame on, and sorry for the Vanity, but this is driving me nutz, this issue gets my hopes up but then common sense dashes my hope on the rocks, and this now is a daily occurrence. You are going to find a valid certificate at the end of this road if you are lucky enough to get a judge to demand it, and that is very unlikely, whether the certificate be real or phony it won't matter, and will never be able to proven either way.
The one being aged by forgers as we type
***That’s my fear. It will be a true first class forgery, worth $Millions. There will be a mistake or two, but it will simply take too much effort and too long to find them.
I was sure the Edwards love child thing was a sham, but then....
I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my statement. I actually meant to say that Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status is determined by his fathers nationality at the time of his birth. Since Obama, Sr. was a British subject, so was Obama.
The constitution requires that the President be a ‘natural-born’ citizen (No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President). The founders were NOT natural born citizens, and they knew it. That’s why they left a loop hole for themselves (or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution). Citizens with dual allegiances “at birth” are not allowed for the office of President, or VP. Note both ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ are given as requirements. Obviously one can’t be the other.
The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Statutes passed by congress declaring who is, or who is not a citizen, are fine. However, congress can’t “define” a term of the constitution. That’s for the court to decide. If statutes violate the constitution they become null and void. The interpretation of the term ‘natural-born’ citizen then is left for the Supreme Court to decide, not congress.
My main point though was that there must be some other reason why Obama doesn’t show his birth certificate.
A step in the right direction toward Oba Mao Communism? Is this what you're trying to tell me or to do you believe it's inevitable and we just should "derail" our pursue of righting the wrongs?
Tell it ain't so, Joe!
We have forever to prove the new one is a forgery if it indeed is, don’t we?
Then he’s an impeachable felon.
There likely is another reason, I agree. But, the stipulation that it be the father was discarded in the late 1890s, I believe, and was replaced by “a parent”.
The loophole in the Constitution was put in place for a single person, by the way. Every one of the Founders met the requirement that they were born in what became the United States, save one: Alexander Hamilton was born in the Bahamas.
Why, because it says; "Bastard" right on it?
So was I.. heck, if I am wrong, yip, yip, yahoo... but if I am right that we may be being played in this, we can add it to the list of all the games that have gone on so far, Larry Sinclair, drug dealing, Odingo E-Mails, Whitey Tape, API Michelle Obama tape, Kenyan birth certificate, Indonesian adoption records.. the list goes on and on all of the 'game changers' that turned out to not be true.
Then it falls naturally that he is not confident he’s natural born.
See post #174 for current law. It doesn't state 'father', just a parent. The father provisions are from reading 19th century laws, not current law that applies.
Sure, no problem, how about his claim that:
I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama can release a golden birth certificate signed by 100 gazzillion witnesses embossed in gold leaf that he was born on the mall in Washington DC and it still wouldn’t make him a “Natural Born Citizen” under the Constitution because he was, regardless of where he was born, a BRITISH citizen “at birth.” Since he was “born” as a British citizen/subject, his United States citizenship was not “natural”.
This argument has no support in the Constitution or Federal statutory or case law. What Donofrio is arguing, essentially, is that foreign countries can, by passing a law, disqualify Americans from the Presidency. So, North Korea would pass a law stating that henceforth, any American citizen from birth is also a citizen of North Korea, thereby disqualifying anyone after the date of such law from serving as President.
Granted, this hypothetical is unlikely to happen, but it just illustrates how untenable his position is, in that it looks to foreign citizenship laws, rather than the laws of the US, to determine whether or not one is qualified to server as President.
I think I misread your original and missed something. When did Obama try to have the definition of ‘natural born’ expanded?
Forever?
If.. we can.. just.... hold out.... lonnnngggg enough......(thud!)
Meanwhile, he is free to damgae our Republic at will?
Also, you can't have access to much from behind bars.
As in; you and I will probably be convicted of something during his reign.
"Consider the following hypothetical, with known or commonly assumed facts mixed in: Barack Obama was born in Honolulu of married parents, of which his mother was a U.S. citizen, and his father was a subject of the United Kingdom by virtue of his Kenyan nationality. At this point, and at least temporarily, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Fast forward to when Barack Obama turns 18. He is now an adult, and remains a natural born citizen. By virtue of the fact that Kenya is no longer a colony of the UK, Barack is also a full-fledged citizen of Kenya. As a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, Barack now has options which, as an adult, he is fully empowered to exercise. For example, now that he is an adult, he can formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship. Since he has not renounced U.S. citizenship he has held since birth, he is free and clear to run for president of the U.S. once he attains the age of 35.
But let’s say he does nothing for the time being. He is an 18 year old adult holding dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya, just living his life. He enrolls in Occidental College as an out-of-state freshman, ostensibly of U.S. nationality and citizenship. Tiring of Occidental, he learns of opportunities available at Ivy League colleges and universities for foreign nationals to matriculate at a steep tuition discount, lower entrance requirements, or both. Possessing Kenyan citizenship, Obama thinks, hey, why not apply and see what happens. He fills out a Columbia application, indicates Kenyan citizenship, signs the application, and sends it to Columbia. Much to his surprise, he is accepted, and he matriculates at the age of 20 as part of Columbia’s program for accommodating students of foreign nationality. By the time Barack Obama reaches age 21, he has failed to formally renounce U.S. citizenship. By operation of Kenyan law, he loses his Kenyan citizenship. Retaining his U.S. citizenship, Barack Obama finishes his degree at Columbia, and begins living the rest of his life.
The Supreme Court will consider Barack Obama’s personal behavior between the ages of 18 and 21 to be directly relevant to the question as to whether he presently possesses Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. More particularly, they will be evaluating his actions during that time for any evidence of deliberate actions which are inconsistent with a desire on his part to preserve his Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. They will be presented with the documentation comprising his Columbia application and find where he declared himself to be a Kenyan citizen for the purpose of gaining admission and/or obtaining a break on tuition. Based on this, they will conclude that Barack Obama forfeited his previously-held Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. This despite the fact that Barack Obama never gave up his U.S. citizenship proper."
Such a defense would get laughed out of court, unless the defendant could provide some evidence for his claim.
The defendant then has the constitution right to demand the evidence supporting Barrack Obama's legitimacy be provided to the defendant for forensic review.
No, he wouldn't. The defendant couldn't go on a fishing expedition for evidence- he would have to show evidence of his claim before any court would let him do anything.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I would argue this point poorly. Edwin Vieira who has been a constitutional attorney for 30 years and holds 4 degres from Harvard can argue the point quite well. He in fact is the source of the concept I passed on. You would do well to examine his learned opinion before pretending you know what you are talking about.
‘42.5% of the total population voted’ is an interesting missuse of stats ... the real issue is what percentage of eligible to vote population voted! The percentage goes way up under that comparison.
Take your obamanoid kneepads off and sit a while. ANd you might want to do a bit more reading ...
We have forever to prove the new one is a forgery if it indeed is, don’t we? Then he’s an impeachable felon.
***We would only have 8 years to impeach him. And I doubt we’d get much cooperation. Someone with big bucks would need to hire Polarik full time, pulling him away from his book project.
Actually none of them were born in the United States. They were all born within a British colony subject to George III.
Well you missed with that one. Try again.
Thanks, MHGinTn. Good comment. Our lives are determined by the choices we make.
Ping.
When did Obama try to have the definition of ‘natural born’ expanded?
***When the resolution before the Senate in 2000 for McCain came up. He introduced additional language that was rejected.
I doubt the word ‘bastard’ is there, but it may say “Father: UNKNOWN”
I think there’s something fishy about the whole thing, but it may not have anything to do with his eligibility for POTUS.
Excellent. Bookmark that section on Obama using his Kenyan Citizenship for his own benefit.
Under that scenario, much of the narrative fits as well as his own actions.
Thanks lucy for the pings!
I'm not going to bother, since you haven't actually refuted my points. Hand-waving doesn't count.
Now, Democrats, being a criminal enterprise, have no problem with that and many obamanoid operatives are working FR trying to float that position, even resorting to accusing us of being fools to continue on with this issue of constitutional eligibility. But that is just David Axelrod agitprops working his astroturfing campaign for the little affrimative action Chicago squirrel.
There are also obamanoid operatives mining for points to be solved in presenting their fraudulent candidate as eligible ... the bastards want to know everything that can possibly come up or out that will resonate witht eh public so they can formulate astroturfing ways to negate them.
MOST posts I read on FR blieved the API tape did not exist, at least after a VERY short time (such as days), I thought it hokey after the API machinations.
Um, could be that I’m inferring you get on your knees to worship the little Marxist squirrel ... but we see where your mind is, junior.
The Constitution actually says
“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;”
The phrase “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” specifically covers Alexander Hamilton since the argument could have been made for the others that since they were born in what became the United States, they were naturally born there. Hamilton would not have had that argument.
"Realize that if he was born to a parent who is a Natural Born citizen then he himself is a Natural Born citizen."
Wrong. The burden is on Barack Obama to prove that he's constitutionally qualified to serve as President. This is not a criminal case. This is the base requirement to be President.
If he fails to prove it, the burden then falls on every elected official, every Elector, every judge, to keep their sworn oath and keep him out of office. He can't be President if he's not a natural born citizen.
Donofrio's argument would ask that the court relegate millions of native-born Americans to the status 2nd-class citizens. This is not, anywhere backed by solid legal argument, precedence, and language found in the Constitution. We tried the "2nd-class citizen" idea before and it didn't work out so well. I doubt the Supreme Court will try so again.
It wasn’t MEANT to be funny.
It was meant to make those who see it THINK and BECOME VERY ANGRY at the trashing of it by “our” alleged “leaders.”
Good!! Sounds like it worked!
Dick Bachert (USAF ‘62-’66)
http://www.virtualwall.org/ds/ShimpAH01a.htm
It wasn’t MEANT to be funny.
It was meant to make those who see it THINK and BECOME VERY ANGRY at the trashing of it by “our” alleged “leaders.”
Good!! Sounds like it worked!
Dick Bachert (USAF ‘62-’66)
http://www.virtualwall.org/ds/ShimpAH01a.htm
Go ask Bush Cheney.
My vote made them get in twice and look what they did?
I repeat, we already became socialist. All is left is official.
Just to be clear, you both know that the only way this might be applicable is if he was born abroad? This law does not apply to someone born in the US.
You are presented facts but rather than construct points that support your assertion to refute those facts, you suggest that people perform sexual acts upon Barack Obama.
Well “old man”, your ability to hold civil discourse, to disseminate information, and to debate in a clear and factual way are lacking in the worst ways possible.
Knock off the ad-hominums and present facts, or sit silently and let your ignorance take a break.
“At the time of Obama’s birth his mother was not four full years past her fourteenth birthdate so she was not able to pass citizenship to him.”
It is my understanding the above does not apply to an unmarried minor. Consider the case of an unmarried 16 year old American who might unexpectably give birth while on a short trip overseas. Is her child not an American? I believe that child is born an American. I understand that was the law even when 0bama was born. If his mother had been legally married, that would be different. Then the father’s citizenship is important.
Perhaps, I heard wrong, but believe me, I’m not trying to find an excuse to confer citizenship on 0bama. I did not vote for him. I do not want him to be President. There is no dissonance factor at work here. I’m just objectively considering all possiblities.
Doesn't work to apologize, you are still performing sexual services to Obama. After all, you disagree with MHGinTN.
Hmmm... I can’t really swear this is true. It is just something I have heard and it makes sense to me. What if a 16 year old unwed pregnant girl took a short trip into Canada to go shopping. If she gave birth unexpectedly in a Canadian hospital, is her child Canadian and not American? I’m pretty sure the child could be either or both.
Wow. I don’t even know how to reply to that one.
Setting a strict requirement for Presidential qualifications in no way relegates anybody to second-class citizen status.
It wouldn’t matter if the child were Canadian or American, for our purposes. The child would not be natural born American, therefore ineligible to be president of the US.
LOL... Well, that explains it then. Thanks, for the heads up.
Okay, then. Thanks, for the info.
I can aspire to the office of the Presidency but my California-born children cannot. This makes my children 2nd-class citizens. That is not only offensive but wholly un-American! I can't see where any court would disagree with this.
This the essence of Donofrio's argument so pardon me if I'm not enthusiastically drinking his Koolaid!
could it be “because” his parents were not married? I mean that would make him “illegitimate” in the bilical sense of the word. Perhaps that is the embarrassing info concealed within? I knew that there was a Hawaiian birth announcement in a Hawaiian news paper, but maybe he’s embarrassed that his mum and dad were perhaps not really “married” and he is thus a bastard child? Then the issue with his mum’s second marriage. Even if the second father “adopted” him, he didnt have his name legally changed and I dont think a parent can renounce a child’s citizenship for them?
Please understand I’m not trying to upset/anger you or anyone else. I’m arguing an idea.
Not everyone is going to agree with Donofrio. I do. You don’t. That’s part of what makes the world go round.
Thanks for the give/take.
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.