Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

That Bleeping Birth Certificate
Intellectual Conservative ^ | December 6th, 2008 | Steven D. Laib

Posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:01 AM PST by vietvet67

The government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications and to make public any documentation thereof; after all, when they apply for the highest office in the land, they should be held to the strict constitutional standard and every citizen has a right to see that the Constitution is followed. Certain elements of the blogosphere have recently paid a tremendous amount of attention to the question of whether or not the state of Hawaii should be required to produce the original birth certificate of president elect Obama. Regardless of claims that this is a red herring, or assertions that Paul Berg is a crackpot who should be ignored because he is a “911 truther,” the certificate should be produced. Secondly, Berg’s suit should be taken seriously, and his standing to sue should be affirmed.

While the courts have generally looked with disfavor on suits such as his, they have been wrong to do so, and they should allow this suit for a very simple reason. When no one else, i.e. government agencies, is enforcing the law of the land, only private citizens may do so, and the only manner in which they may do so, short of armed insurrection is in the courts. Within this context, Berg is effectively acting as a “Private Attorney General” acting on behalf of all of the citizens of the United States. He does so because the Federal Election Commission, the other candidates and the U.S. Attorney General have done nothing to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility. All of them could have and should have. The situation is similar to that which occurred in 1968, when the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. California Secretary of State Frank Jordan, discovered that according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was one year short of the required 35 years needed to run. Cleaver was removed from the ballot and Jordan’s actions were upheld in the courts.

The concept of the private attorney general has existed for a long time. Frequently, it has been found in class actions where someone seeks to force the government to follow its own rules. The courts have frequently allowed private attorney general lawsuits to proceed where civil rights violations are concerned. This situation is not significantly different, as the rights of the entire population to see the constitution followed should trump any other consideration. We must ask, if the government is not going to enforce its own rules, then who will, if the courts say that private citizens cannot.

As I have not seen Berg’s paperwork, I cannot state whether or not he used this approach in his petition, and if not, it may have been a fatal error. None-the-less, Berg is right in making his request and his suit should be allowed to proceed because he is certainly asserting a case based on reasonable doubt, and a presidential candidate should be required to prove that he or she is eligible for the office they seek. And, the government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications. After all, a person seeking much lower privileges, such a driver’s license or voter registration must produce a birth certificate; why not a candidate for the highest office in the land. Which situation implies a higher duty by government officials; state statutes or the national constitution?

A second approach, favored by Dean John Eastman of Chapman University Law School, which he discussed with Hugh Hewitt on the Salem Network, December 3, 2008 is based on the corporate law principle that the shareholders can sue to force the officers or directors to follow the corporate charter or bylaws. The Supreme Court has never accepted this view, with respect to constitutional issues, either. Its view that citizens have no standing has allowed it to dodge difficult issues where the Constitution is concerned, despite the fact that they should undertake enforcement of the “supreme law of the land” as Chief Justice Marshall put it many years ago.

The state of Hawaii is asserting that privacy laws forbid it from revealing the certificate. This should be considered a bogus claim. Anyone running for the presidency has placed himself in the arena of a public, rather than a private citizen. A candidate is, for all practical purposes, giving up his privacy rights, and making his or her entire life open to scrutiny by the public and the press. Their personal records should and must be part of this. If Obama supporters are allowed to investigate and report on “Joe the Plumber” with impunity, the public has an equal and reciprocal right to investigate a candidate.

There is a second and even more important reason why the certificate must be produced. As Berg’s suit, and those of other parties have pointed out, birth status is a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. If this rule is not followed, then it brings into question the issue of whether or not any aspect of the Constitution, at all, must be followed. Already we have seen challenges in the courts and in the overall media environment of certain government actions. Whether we are dealing with establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, or bailing out the financial and automobile industries, people have valid questions. Sometimes it is not enough to say “you have no standing to sue” or “this is covered under the legislative interstate commerce clause and is settled law.” It is a slippery slope argument, but such arguments are not invalid simply because of the foundation they are built on. The courts should regularly review such actions to prevent legislative power from running unchecked. The intent of the framers of the document should carry significant weight in such review.

As for the Obama birth certificate, I, personally, have no interest in the thing beyond silencing the argument over it once and for all. If the certificate is never produced, and proper birth status is never verified, one way or the other, it will likely become the core of another Great American Conspiracy Theory such as those surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy assassination conspiracies have been debunked, for all practical purposes, but they haven’t gone away. We don’t need another one of these things. We need openness, we need transparency and we need honesty. If there is a valid certificate, stating all of the relevant information as the state of Hawaii asserts, the Supreme Court or any other court should support its production for public view. I doing so, it can state a compelling public interest; the interest that the Constitution must be followed, and that anyone who seeks office governed by the Constitution must prove their eligibility, or it calls constitutional authority into question. In fact, every candidate from Hilary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani should have been required to produce their certificates when filing as candidates. The matter should not be subject to question because of the constitutional requirement.

Paul Berg isn’t entirely a crackpot. His case has merit, as do the others seeking production of the certificate. If it is produced and everything is in order, the case disappears along with the conspiracy theorists and the office of the presidency goes on without a hitch. If it is not produced, the potential for future complications could be very significant. We might even end up with President Ahhnold, who could claim that he wasn’t really born in Austria, and that he doesn’t have to prove he was born here. See what I mean?

Politics: General, Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Elections & Political Parties

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven D. Laib is a semi-retired attorney living in Cypress, Texas, just northwest of Houston. He is a member of the California State Bar, and United States Supreme Court Bar. slaib@intellectualconservative.com http://intellectualconservative.com


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artbell; birthcertificate; certifigate; choomgang; conspiracy; conspiracytheory; csection; illegalpresident; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

1 posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:02 AM PST by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Suggested fill-ins for “bleeping”:

“Missing”.

“Hidden”.


2 posted on 12/07/2008 10:09:30 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("Free Trade" = Fire Americans. Buy another company then fire more Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

“nonexistent”.


3 posted on 12/07/2008 10:13:38 AM PST by null and void (Hey 0bama? There will be a pop quiz every day for the next four years...miss a question, people die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

“Fabricated”


4 posted on 12/07/2008 10:20:20 AM PST by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

My question... If the constitution lays out the citizenship requirements, then why is there no path of verification? Is it an “honor system”. IF it is, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard... since when has politician and honor been allowed in the same sentence?


5 posted on 12/07/2008 10:20:40 AM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
since when has politician and honor been allowed in the same sentence

Only when they say it themselves as in " I am honored to be politician" :-)

6 posted on 12/07/2008 10:23:41 AM PST by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: null and void

By not releasing the long form birth certificate, if it is even on file at the Dept of Health in Hawaii, is only delaying the inevitable. The Presidential library for “King Obama” will be pretty empty without the release of the documents which at the present time are under “seal”. Who would want to tour such a library which would be empty save for what the public up to this point know? Who would want to tour a library that only holds a picture of the Jackie Kennedy wannabe? sarcasm intended


7 posted on 12/07/2008 10:24:20 AM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: null and void

.............another Great American Conspiracy Theory

LOL and that file continues to thicken.


8 posted on 12/07/2008 10:24:44 AM PST by PROSOUTH ( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
In fact, every candidate from Hilary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani should have been required to produce their certificates when filing as candidates.

No! I detest brainless rules-based approaches like this. It's almost like we don't want to single out Obama. Yes we do. Most Presidential candidates have established family histories in this country and producing documentation is unnecessary. Obama does NOT have established family history in this country which in of itself is a problem for someone wanting to become President of this great country. I can't believe they essentially elected a foreigner for this office.

9 posted on 12/07/2008 10:25:20 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

If the courts will not uphold the Constitution, the people have a responsibility to do it them selves...


10 posted on 12/07/2008 10:30:20 AM PST by babygene (It seems that stupidity is the most abundant element in the universe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Obama does NOT have established family history in this country which in of itself is a problem for someone wanting to become President of this great country.

That discounts his mother's family.

11 posted on 12/07/2008 10:33:05 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
America will be guilty of car theft in essece if they buy into Obamas act based solely on a registration form and NO title. A fool and his money will go separate ways, America is being conned into buying a hyped up SUV or whatever and after they fork out the dough the seller is refusing to show the title.
12 posted on 12/07/2008 10:33:05 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Americans should lead America, its the right way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

As a federal employee I had to produce my certified birth certificate, fingerprints, subject myself to an FBI background investigation (and every five years thereafter), submit to a polygraph test at my employer’s request, submit to drug testing at my employer’s request, report any planned trips outside of the country to security personnel, and give an outbrief to security. I am also forbidden to hold a passport other than that of the United States, or to hold dual citizenship.

Some people are just more equal than others I suppose.


13 posted on 12/07/2008 10:33:17 AM PST by seowulf (Discipline knows no emotion and frequently runs counter to the whims of panic or elation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
I have several times posted my belief that the Obama vault certificate should be produced. I come to this belief along the same lines as the author, that is, the constitutional requirement for the office must be observed and there must be a remedy(a right which can be vindicated) in the public to see that its constitution is being observed.

We have for a couple of generations now thought only of the court as the place to have these rights vindicated. The Court has often dodged these cases when it finds them inconvenient by finding that the supplicant does not have "standing." I think there is a very high probability the court will dismiss all of these cases on the issue of standing. I say this even though I am aware that there are at least two cases which come at the matter from a different angle which might somehow provide standing. Standing here being defined as an interest in the petitioner which is concrete and explicit enough that the court should hear his claim.

There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.

These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy.


14 posted on 12/07/2008 10:33:51 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

The “We the People” made the Constitution to limit the Federal Government as to how it is to govern and coin money. It also devised the Judiciary to oversee the Executive and the Legislative.

We also have the right to change the government to any form we want.

We are the employer and have the right to demand proof that the person applying to be the President is qualified to our satisfation.

The Federal Government has forgotten a long time ago who is the boss in this great country of ours.


15 posted on 12/07/2008 10:43:33 AM PST by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
It seems to me that the state of Hawaii's argument rests on the notion that the birth cert is tantamount to medical records and therefore covered by confidentiality laws. I think this absurd on its face. Medical records involve assessment of health and diagnosis of disease. The time and place of one's birth is obviously not in the same category and to assert it has the same protection makes no sense.

What else on the cert could require such secrecy? The doctor's name? Absurd. The names of one's parents? I suppose that could be something a few people wish to keep quiet. But one does not ordinarily think of this as the kind of information that must be sealed from public view.

Obama has created the appearance he is hiding something. By invoking this phony argument of confidentiality, the state of Hawaii creates the appearance that it, too, is trying to help him hide something on the birth certificate.

16 posted on 12/07/2008 10:44:44 AM PST by freespirited (Honk to indict the MSM for treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seowulf
I am also forbidden to hold a passport other than that of the United States, or to hold dual citizenship.

Is there a way you could tell us what level or department of government you work in, that does not allow another passport or citizenship? And why do we ask this of your sector and not the presidency? (I know the CIA has loyalty clauses that perhaps the presidency does not...)

I'd also like to see the wording in your rules list -- this may be your department's attempt to heed the Constitution's "natural born" requirement. Could someone born outside the USA work in your position?

17 posted on 12/07/2008 10:45:30 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
So many attorneys and legal eagles are finding this a fascinating issue, which it is.

If it is produced and everything is in order, the case disappears along with the conspiracy theorists and the office of the presidency goes on without a hitch. If it is not produced, the potential for future complications could be very significant. We might even end up with President Ahhnold, who could claim that he wasn’t really born in Austria, and that he doesn’t have to prove he was born here.

This is absolutely possible if Obama is never vetted and serves 4 or 8 years as President.

18 posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:42 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
>"If Obama supporters are allowed to investigate and report on “Joe the Plumber” with impunity, the public has an equal and reciprocal right to investigate a candidate"

Hear! hear!!!!

Bambi is already in above his pay grade!

19 posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:48 AM PST by rawcatslyentist (I will stand with the Muslims ~B Hussein Obomunist ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Verito Possumus~Verified Sleeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

In all my life and of the infrequent times I have been pulled over by an officer of the law {LEO} there has NEVER been a request to see my vehicle Title, and essentially this is the case of Barack Hussein Obama, all his life he only had to show his Registration, this is the crux of the matter and why he was allowed to proceed to where he is now.

Its because of the unique requirement stated in the US Constitution that he must display proof of his origin not his registration form, America has just bought a President but legally they cannot use it because until the title, proof of absence of liens etc. this candidate is questionable by the laws stated in our Constitution.

If Obama manages to skirt this it will go down into history as the greatest embarrassment of America, a hotwired Presidency.


20 posted on 12/07/2008 10:48:01 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Americans should lead America, its the right way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Yes - my oversight. Thanks


21 posted on 12/07/2008 10:48:41 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
Barack
22 posted on 12/07/2008 10:48:55 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Remember when the Democrats demanded President Bush’s dental records?


23 posted on 12/07/2008 10:49:09 AM PST by cake_crumb (Waiting for Dear Leader Obama to drop sea levels and heal Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

“No! I detest brainless rules-based approaches like this. It’s almost like we don’t want to single out Obama. Yes we do.”

Methinks perhaps you don’t understand the entire basis for this lawsuit. The president must be a natural born citizen, regardless of their family history. Holding people to different standards is unconstitutional in itself. Anyone who is to become president MUST be a natural born citizen, and should be prepared to provide proof of that. If your goal is to single out Obama, upholding the Consitution is nowhere near your real agenda, and you are undoubtedly contributing to the idea that this entire issue is just a partisan witch hunt. In other words, you’re doing more harm than good.


24 posted on 12/07/2008 10:50:38 AM PST by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

present


25 posted on 12/07/2008 10:51:58 AM PST by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
Why are so many people so anxious to make Joe Biden president?

I've refrained from commenting on these threads in the past but really, there is no court in America that will hold Obama ineligible to be President. He's taking office January 20, we need to deal with that and not be sidetracked by non-starters like this.

26 posted on 12/07/2008 10:53:41 AM PST by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
Paul Berg isn’t entirely a crackpot,

Cannot prove that, but the statement does indicate he is somewhat of a crackpot, are maybe he is just a little cracked. Probably delivered by c-section that's not natural.!!!

LOL

27 posted on 12/07/2008 10:53:53 AM PST by org.whodat (Conservatives don't vote for Bailouts for Super-Rich Bankers! Republicans do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The Court has often dodged these cases when it finds them inconvenient by finding that the supplicant does not have "standing." I think there is a very high probability the court will dismiss all of these cases on the issue of standing. I say this even though I am aware that there are at least two cases which come at the matter from a different angle which might somehow provide standing. Standing here being defined as an interest in the petitioner which is concrete and explicit enough that the court should hear his claim.

There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.

Standing is another procedural rule of the legal system designed to put the court in a position where its orders are enforceable. So are the requirements of a case or controversy (plaintiff and defendant on opposite sides of an argument with harm flowing from one to the other); jurisdiction; and justiciability.

You may view those as dodges but they are not--they are substantive legal requirements of getting a legal proceeding before the courts; they exist for a reason.

In the case at hand, had competent counsel been engaged to pursue the issue last spring, the issue would have been resolved. The narrow time window in which a case could have been pursued to a decision between the election and the Electoral College is probably closing fast enough now that it will not be possible to get an effective challenge in place.

But other forms of action exist between the Electoral College and again after inauguration. Capable lawyers will ultimately get the issue before a court with the power to decide the issue.

28 posted on 12/07/2008 10:54:55 AM PST by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: COgamer

Obama should be singled out because the location of his birth is in question. This wasnt the case for the last 200 years. There was no need for John F. Kennedy’s birth certificate to be produced. Common sense and reason should prevail not moronic process-run-amuck.


29 posted on 12/07/2008 10:54:59 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy.

But what could be more of a law than the Constitution? If the SCOTUS says that this is something that should be done by the SoS of each state, well, what if the SoS is politically inclined NOT to do so?

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be somewhat above politics, and the last resort if the rest of the country is deciding EVERYTHING based on political coercion? I mean, that is our problem, isn't it? Our public systems of information (MSM) all want Obama to be President so they wouldn't call for vetting him properly, whether it's the law or not.

30 posted on 12/07/2008 10:56:51 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
Paul Berg isn’t entirely a crackpot.

I believe he's a 9/11 Truther. Makes him a crackpot by definition.

31 posted on 12/07/2008 10:57:04 AM PST by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

I ask everyone to go the Donofrio web site listed below and read, read, read. Our Constitution must be upheld no matter WHO is President!

The Donofrio case may be considered to have merit since it was referred to Conference by the full court, not just Justice Thomas. We will know their decision tomorrow and it takes four of the nine Justices to vote for a full hearing of the case.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Yes, I am spreading the news about the Constitutional issue because I think this is very important. Finally some more Freepers are beginning to look into this issue. I am certainly not a “tinfoil hat” wearer but have been following these cases since October.

You may be interested to hear more about this issue by listening to Plains Radio Network on line at http://www.plainsradio.com/ this evening. The exact time I do not know at this time. Currently they are playing previous taped interviews with Leo Donofrio, Curt Wrotnowski, and Freeper Joe Thunder. This will most likely be followed by the replaying of more current interviews.

You might also be interested to know that tomorrow there will be a Press Conference at the Washington Press Club at 1:00 or 1:30. Leo Donofrio WILL NOT be at the Press Conference. Any reports that he would be are completely false. It will be interesting to see what Media reporters show up at the Press Club!

Some other FR Threads are listed below.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144344/posts?page=380#380

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144360/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144417/posts?q=1&;page=1


32 posted on 12/07/2008 10:57:15 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
A number of agencies require clearances, not only the CIA.

The terms and conditions he stated are standard for obtaining a security clearance. For Top Secret the periodic re-investigation happens every 5-yrs, whereas the Secret clearance requires the re-investigation every 7-yrs (I think).

33 posted on 12/07/2008 10:58:33 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

“Fictitious”, “nonexistant”, “unreal” COLB of He Who’s Birth Certificate Cannot Be Viewed.


34 posted on 12/07/2008 11:01:00 AM PST by cake_crumb (Waiting for Dear Leader Obama to drop sea levels and heal Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

This is not about who would be the best President. That decision was supposed to be made by us last year, and the votes are in. It does not matter who the President or Vice President is; this is large and serious for the future of our country. The Constitution is what our President must uphold, and he must first be eligible to hold the office. We need to clarify the “natural born” definition and make sure that Barack Obama fits it.


35 posted on 12/07/2008 11:01:51 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: missnry

Why! He’s PreFident-Elect! Don’t ask questions!

“Prefident

Pref”i*dent\, a. [Cf. L. praefidens overconfident. See Pre-, and Confident.] Trusting beforehand; hence, overconfident. [Obs.] —Baxter.”


36 posted on 12/07/2008 11:02:09 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

It’s the first I’ve heard that to get a security clearance, you can’t be a dual national. So no employee with a clearance can be married to a non-citizen, or have been naturalized, even as a child?


37 posted on 12/07/2008 11:07:39 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: babygene

I’ve posted on another thread, even if he produces it now, it’s been too long to make us look like fools. It should make it look like he attempted to deceive us. He ought to be disqualified on that basis alone. However, Ido not believe he has a valid bc, and America should not tolerate a disqualified candidate. And you are correct, if the courts won’t remove him, the citizens should.


38 posted on 12/07/2008 11:10:47 AM PST by Quickgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
In the article referenced below, it states that Senator Obama was given a government passport. He was traveling with Senator Richard Lugar to Russia. I wonder what documentation was required replace his "blue tourist passport?"

"His blue tourist passport, which he had taken across Asia, Australia and Africa as well as most of Europe, was replaced by a burgundy one that designates him an official of the U.S. government."

A Foreign Classroom for a Junior Senator http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509230360sep23,0,1103689.story?page=2

39 posted on 12/07/2008 11:11:50 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

Didn’t Obama just schedule a very expensive little getaway in Hawaii? Wonder what deals have been made.


40 posted on 12/07/2008 11:14:08 AM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
In the process of law, today,
41 posted on 12/07/2008 11:16:18 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seowulf

Wonder if any federal employees from Hawaii have ever had to produce a valid cert. If not, you were singled out and should sue! If they did,then the state of Ha. can’t very well say that originals can’t be released.


42 posted on 12/07/2008 11:16:58 AM PST by Quickgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Why are so many people so anxious to make Joe Biden president?

Obama has not been elected yet. Biden cannot be Vice President in this case.

The Electoral College can vote for anybody to be President once Obama is disqualified!


43 posted on 12/07/2008 11:17:07 AM PST by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Not exactly.

You are specifically asked if you have loyalties to another government/person/organization, and dual citizenship would indicate you do.

Access to classified information is limited, obviously, and even non-classified information or technology that is restricted due to ITAR is witheld from you, a dual national.

Being married to a foreign national is not an automatic disqualifier. It does make the adjudication process more complicated, as the threat to you is greatly enhanced: Say your wife has relatives in an unfriendly (or even “friendly”) country, and that country threatens the relatives unless YOU give up information. See? You may likely not divulge information, but granting someone a clearance with that possibility must be seriously examined. Being naturalized makes you an American citizen, you have taken the oath. Now, like before, you may be subject to blackmail/threats, so the adjudication process must be carefully done.

Hope that helps.


44 posted on 12/07/2008 11:19:37 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Yeah you’re right. Lets pick and choose which laws we want obeyed.


45 posted on 12/07/2008 11:20:29 AM PST by kennyboy509 (Ha! I kill me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Is the court to stupid to ask 0 to produce a BC, just to see if he suddenly develops a medical condition that requires him to step away for the good of the country without ever showing the BC?


46 posted on 12/07/2008 11:24:24 AM PST by Waco (Oath? What oath?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
Why are so many people so anxious to make Joe Biden president?

We're not. Biden's Secret Service code name might as well be "Poison Pill," as far as that goes.

But, there are future consequences, arising from allowing this to go forward unchallenged. Think of potential, worse, presidential candidates, that could be allowed as a result of precedent.

That is why the more stringent "natural born" eligibility requirement is there, to ensure a President who actually identifies with and cares about his or her own country. The requirement has never been tested in a court of law. Obama will be the first, assuming at least one of the many plaintiffs is found to have standing.

47 posted on 12/07/2008 11:28:29 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: David

Standing, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.


48 posted on 12/07/2008 11:30:31 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

“..........t will likely become the core of another Great American Conspiracy Theory such as those surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy.......”

Close but not quite. It’s as if the true and final answer to who killed Kennedy and why, the full story, were behind a closed door, but on a technicality that door was kept locked. Not every element exists to solve the Kennedy story, but from the get-go every element exists to settle the Obama imbroglio.

Opening the Obama door now would send the country into an uproar. The Judges would never be able to pass a “serene” judgment. The culprit was that lower judge who decided that “we the people” have no standing. For self-evident reasons, this question should have been settled before the election, perhaps even before the primaries, but definitely before the General Election.

Instead they were asleep and the Mack Daddy played the law like a fiddle


49 posted on 12/07/2008 11:31:21 AM PST by Mancolicani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Why is security clearance so much less stringent, for those working on code for certain defense systems, then? We’ve been hearing, for years, about problems with Chinese programmers in that area.


50 posted on 12/07/2008 11:33:37 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson