Posted on 01/29/2012 11:19:11 AM PST by devattel
“Birthers” have asked a Georgia court to bar President Barack Obama from the ballot unless he proves he was born in the United States.
The president last year tried to silence doubters and showed a copy of his citizenship papers, but that has not stopped those who say his papers are forged.
American law requires the president be a natural born citizen. His birthplace is recorded as being in Hawaii.
Savannah, Georgia Tea Party chairman Marolyn Overton told the local WSAV station, "I think Obama should not be able to just kind of force his way through this, not produce any answers. He's stonewalling us. He has partially contributed to the controversy because he has not produced any papers that would prove or disprove anything to end the controversy."
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
The DNC and, specifically. Pelosi, are in this up tp their eyeballs.
Here is an article that has copies of BOTH versions of Pelosi's signed certifications (one with the Constitutional warranty and 49 without!)
Can you spell, "FELONIOUS FRAUD!"?
Obama status is determined by the immigration laws at the time of his birth. His mother did not meet the definition of an adult at the time of his birth. By Immigration laws the child assumes the citizenship of the adult in the relation (which will be the father). Thus at birth Obama will technically be a British subject (Kenya was still part of the British Empire).
If the GOP is smart, they need to pursue this matter even after Obama leaves office. If they can prove ineligibility then the DNC and key Dems can be dragged into a trial of fraud. Done properly, the Dems can be bankrupted in serious of trials of their key officers and leaders involved with the certification of Obama. Unfortunately I never went to Harvard or Yale, thus no one in the GOP will take my plan seriously.
More smoke and mirrors, I am so sick of these "birther" arguments. His Father was a British subject, BHO could have been born on Plymouth Rock on the Fourth of July and he would still not be a "natural born citizen". His parents citizenship status is more important then his place of birth.
Regards,
GtG
If it makes it to the Supreme Court, they will drag out the decison to hear the case until after the Presidential election.
I still wonder if Obama flubbed the oath on purpose, then he met with all the Supreme Judges alone in the Oval Office afterwards. Why? Did he tell them the truth and warn them of the nightmare it would cause?
You are correct, she was 18 when she gave birth 04 AUG 1961. At the time law of the land was 19 YO to convey citizenship. That has since been changed to 18. I'll even give them that as a freebe, since a "Natural Born Citizen" requires that both parents be US Citizens. No matter how they wiggle and dance they can't make that happen for Barry.
I have been saying from the very beginning that there is only one issue of merit and that is "Natural Born Citizenship". Birth Certificates, age of mother, location of birth are all misdirection. Obama's autobiography names his father as a Kenyan National who traveled with a British passport. End of story! It is not important if Bill Ayers actually wrote "Dreams From My Father" What makes it important is that Obama himself says it's true. He is thereby "hoist with his own petard".
Regards,
GtG
Right! And I think the DNC and RNC were (are) both in it up to their eyeballs. Something stinks about the DNC's registration letters to the states, and in particular, Pelosi's verification letter to Hawaii. The RNC, on the other hand, must have been involved with the DNC in the Obama/McCain Senate [eligibility] declaration entente.
I smell TEA brewing.....not iced TEA, but TEA so hot it burns.
Or they are idiots. Personally, I lean that way. Idiots, Crazy and\or Corrupt just about sums up the Democrat Party.
In 1968, California kept Eldridge Cleaver of the ballot because he was too young (33) at the time.
I think contesting the place of birth is also a good idea because there is enough stuff floating around to make the place of birth also questionable. I don't think he has shown anyone his "original" birth certificate. I think what he has put forth is a Hawaiian DOH created replacement birth certificate issued to Adopted children, and designed to LOOK like an original.
Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. You don't actually have to be born there to get a Hawaiian birth certificate.
No, this is incorrect. A parent must be 18 years old if the child is born *OUT* of the country. If the child is born *IN* the country, they automatically get 14th amendment citizenship. (Which is not the same thing as "natural born.")
It's got nothing to do with winning the state. It's got to do with explaining why you wouldn't prove you are entitled to be on the ballot.
If people are told that all he has to do to show up on the ballot is show an original birth certificate from Hawaii, but he refused to do it, they simply won't understand it. It doesn't pass the smell test. People will think something is seriously wrong, and perhaps he *ISN'T* eligible to run for office.
It will engender a WTF? moment among the people of the United States, and Obama will HAVE to answer their questions. If he can't answer correctly, he will not be allowed to run in ANY state, and it might be possible to revoke everything he has done. (If a Federal Judge ORDERS Hawaii to release the original document and it doesn't establish that he is actually born in the United States.) Keeping him off the Ballot in Georgia will cause an avalanche of inquiry into his eligibility across the country.
That only applies if the child is born in a foreign country. Children born *IN* America get 14th Amendment citizenship. (Which is not the same thing as "natural born citizenship."
I can only hope that Nancy Pelosi ends up in Prison.
It is more risky for our side. I'm pretty sure the court is going to uphold Wong Kim Ark and decide that it is the relevant precedent that matters. If they ruled the other way, it would overturn the citizenship of millions of anchor babies.
In order for them to overturn anchor babies, they would have to rule Amendment XIV did not include children born in the United States to foreign parents.
Since Amendment XIV is irrelevant to Natural Born Citizenship, it does not require any explanation thereof. They simply rule:
Natural Born Citizens are born in the United States to parents who both are, at the time of birth, Citizens of the United States.
That does in no way affect anything else in the Constitution. Problem solved.
I think Kent will give them everything they want. The entire RINO establishment has avoided the issue like the plague - why should he be any different?
The issue is not just about winning Georgia in an election. The point is, if he was forced off the ballot in Georgia, then other states would have to consider why and even the lapdog media would have to pay attention. “Birthers” would be vindicated and the media would have to explain what happened.
Also, the Birth Certificate that he provides must show someone else for a father.
Since Amendment XIV is irrelevant to Natural Born Citizenship, it does not require any explanation thereof. They simply rule:
There are multiple issues currently being juxtaposed.
1. Firstly, most of the lawyer types argue (Incorrectly in my opinion) that if you are "born" a citizen, then you are a "natural born citizen." This notion seems quite pervasive among the legal @ssholes i've argued with, and there is no reason to think that it isn't a ubiquitous belief among lawyer types including sitting Federal judges.
2. The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to the children of transient Aliens, but because of the ruling in Wong Kim Ark, most subsequent legal people seem to think it applies to anyone born here, including the children of Foreigners known as "anchor babies."
3. If the court holds that Number 1 is correct (born a citizen = "natural born citizen") then they have to decide if the 14th amendment actually makes citizens of the children of foreigners. To do this, they will consider the impact that it will have on the millions of people who currently claim American citizenship just because they were born here, and face the possibility that if they decide the 14th DOESN'T apply to them, all of these people will lose their citizenship, causing them great and possibly irreparable damage.
I'm Thinking that court is likely going to decide that #1 is correct, (It is not.) and that regarding the 14th amendment, they don't care what it really means, they are NOT going to disrupt that many lives. They are going to "Stare Decisis" it just the way they did Roe v Wade some years ago.
I repeat, the court is not going to give a rat's @ss what the law ACTUALLY means, they are going to Uphold Wong Kim Ark as applying to the children of Foreigners.
If there is even a prayer of hope to get them to see this issue correctly, it will require them to rule that #1 is incorrect. Being born a citizen does not make you a "natural born citizen." If they go the other way on that question, it will not be possible to get a correct verdict out of them regarding Obama.
The 4 liberal judges are thoroughly predictable. *IF* the four conservative judges all see it the same way as you or I, (and that is not a guarantee) then the deciding factor will once again be Justice Kennedy.
As one wit said of the Gay Marriage ban in California:
Why don't we just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?
I'm pretty sure Justice Kennedy is going to rule against us.
The issue is not just about winning Georgia in an election. The point is, if he was forced off the ballot in Georgia, then other states would have to consider why and even the lapdog media would have to pay attention. “Birthers” would be vindicated and the media would have to explain what happened.
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.