Posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:01 AM PST by vietvet67
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.
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!
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.
Yeah you’re right. Lets pick and choose which laws we want obeyed.
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?
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.
Standing, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
“..........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
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.
I have been planning for that eventuality.
Very historic.
In many ways. It's a pity that the DNC didn't have more respect, to make sure that the first black winner of a U. S. presidential election, historic in and of itself, wasn't potentially tainted. But, then again, very few Democrats give a flying fig about the Constitution, so it begins to make sense. A surprising number of nominal conservatives don't seem to care, either. It's been eye-opening.
I tried to find a political black democrat that wasn't tainted. Name one!
I can think of quite a few, who are eligible under the Constitution.
Whether we would find their political views desireable in a President, is another matter.
Is that true about their argument, or is it just your surmise?
I'd be inclined to think that "state's rights"or the separation of powers may be at work here. If you favor an activist judiciary overturning state regulations, fine. That seems to be the way things are going. But should that be the case?
If we are going to go down that road, does "the public" really need to know whose parents were legally married and whose weren't?
Part of the problem is that Hawaii did allow people who weren't born in the state to get birth certifications. If they didn't, if that abuse weren't a possibility, would there still be a case here?
It seems unlikely, doesn't it? I recall a few speeches given by Barack Obama, wherein he consistently referred to Palistinians as "we," and Israelis as "them." He clearly sees Israelis, and possibly Jews in general, as "other."
The getaway is much more than expensive, according to “The StatBulletin” the only estate which fits the description of where he will be renting is the Paul Mitchell estate. The price per day of rent for the property is a whopping $8,250! Story can be seen here:
Jr can’t pay for a long form vault copy of his birth certificate but can pay an outrageous sum for his vacation in Hawaii during an economic downturn. Whatever happened to his share the wealth? sarcasm intended!
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.