Posted on 03/26/2009 7:10:06 AM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
While this is true, birth in the US *may* not be sufficient in an of itself to qualify one as a "natural born citizen". Just having a foreign national father, not even a legal immigrant, but just a visitor on a student visa, may be a disqualification. It would not be disqualification for being a citizen, per the 14th amendment if nothing else, but "natural born" is something else again.
I say *may* not, because the matter has never really been adjudicated. The only time it matters is if one wishes to be eligible to the office of President. Governors need not be "natural born", nor Senators, nor Representative, we have examples of each who are not, but Presidents, they must be natural born.
It's not being merely born in Hawaii that they are not accepting proof of. It's being born of parents with sufficient native Hawaiian ancestory.
But the point that the Certificate is "is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth" which is "a computer-generated printout", is still important. The Certificate shows place of bith for the parents, and residence address of the parents at the time of birth. The Certificate only shows their race.
Because it is a computer generated printout, it's much easier to modify or forge completely than the certification, which, at the time Obama was born, was usually a form filled in by typewritten enteries, and then signed by the parent, the doctor or other attendent, and the hospital registrar, (for hospital births).
Even the State Department won't issue a passport on the basis of a Certification from some states, because it does even show place of birth, but rather place of registration. They also won't accept one from any state if the date of birth and date of registration are more than a year apart. Now that is not the case with the Certification (alleged) posted as Obama's. However it illustrates why the Certification is not acceptable in all circumstances or for all purposes. The reason they won't accept a "delayed" registration, is that those are more likely have been "pencil whipped", with the information for the Certificate provided by the parent, or grandparent, with no doctor's signature, and so forth, and the State Department wants to know if that is the case on a "delayed registration", so as to be able to do further checking.
I wonder what The Messiah's Certificate would show on the "Attendent/witness" and "local registrar" lines?
The criminal enterprise democrat party controls both the House and the Senate. The criminal democrats are not going to impeach their marxist messiah even if he were caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, or even if he were proven to be an agent of Islamic jihad.
Assuming that they would continue to stand there if the Court ruled that the occupant in that office was not eligible to be there. The Secret Service is sworn to protect The President, and the Marine is likewise obligated to follow legals orders only, and is likewise obligated to protect The President. If the person in the Oval Office is only the occupant, and not the President, why would they protect him/her? They might even aide in tossing him/her out, so that the real President, whoever that might be, can take his lawful place.
It's all unknown territory.
But I don't think they would order federal marshals, who are part of the executive branch anyway, to remove an ineligible person. They would just rule on that eligibility. At least unless or until asked, they likely would not even order him to vacate the office.
< But, as the Court has said, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the time it is passed, not just after being declared so. Similarly, a person ruled ineligible to the office, can never have actually held it or legitimately exercised any of its powers.
Moreover, there is ample legal precedent for the Supreme Court to take this position and quite properly so. After all, the matter could have been handled by the political parties themselves, by the secretaries of state of the individual states which certified candidates or ballots, or when they certified the election results, or by the political party in convention, or by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the only venue for resolving disputes in America and it is not the venue for deciding "political" questions at all.
Just because all those other folks did not exercise their "due diligence" doesn't mean that the Court should not enforce the Constitution, or rule on a particular case or controversy arising under the Constitution. Besides none of those folks even examined the eligibility of the candidates or the electee. (Except perhaps for the parties who nominated him, who declared him eligible to various State officials).
In the end, it is not a "political question", involving some policy matter, but rather it is a Constitutional question of the first magnitude.
You do realize that if you sack Obama you have Biden at the helm ? And behind him stands Nancy Pelosi.
As you work through the list I don’t even start to feel comfortable until we reach the name Robert Byrd, and I only like him because compared to the rest he’s about as good as we can do.
Actually the law itself might be Constitutional, but it would in effect never have been properly inacted, and thus not a law at all. Before they become laws, bills must be signed by the President, or passed over his veto by supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Any bill which he signed, would simply never have become law.
It would be one smell of a hess.
You might be right, but I doubt it. Taking the oath of office is a requirement for taking office, but it does not make the person being sworn President. It's just another requirement for becoming President on January 20th, at noon. Just like being eligible and getting a majority of electoral votes. But, given that the requirements are all satisfied, it's the clock going past noon January 20th, that makes one President. Specifically the Constitution says:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
and
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Note that it does not say that the President elect become President upon taking the oath, nor even just when before entering the execution of the office the oath must be taken. (I'll not even get into the oath fiasco. :) ). It's only by tradition that the ceremony includes the oath takings is done on right at noon on the 20th, or in the date in March that the Presidential term began before the XXth amendment changed it to January 20th.
The Supreme Court has a power potentially greater than physical power—that of bringing facts to light.
It would really help if more Americans were to become aware of the facts here. Right now most base their opinions on rumor and innuendo established by the media. A Supreme Court ruling would fix the problem. It’s far better to have a few riots sparked by the light of truth than a slow asphyxiation in a sea of lies.
Right now the Supreme Court appears to be running from the truth.
Because it's their job? Otherwise any law repugnant to the Constitution could not be overturned, since it would have been enacted with all the proper procedures, votes and signing by the President and such as that. But they do overturn unconstitutional laws, from time to time. And they could find that a Usurper was ineligible.
The ammo is on backorder. :)
We do know that he was registered for school in Indonesia as "Barry H. Soetero". There is documentation of that. Not complete evidence, but like birth certificates, adoption records are no longer "public", so one could not expect to have them. The other evidence is that Barry, or someone other than his half sister who is mentioned by name, is recorded as a non minor child of the marriage requiring educational support, on the divorce papers of Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetero. (Divorce papers *are* public).
As my father told me, endlessly (well it has ended, and I wish it had not), book smarts, which is what it takes to be a rocket scientist, and common sense, are two entirely different things. He knew I had the former, and was secretly proud of it, but always said I didn't have a lick of the latter, possibly with at least a little justification.
Gee, yah think?.
Only until he appointed a VP and that person was confirmed by Congress. That's how we got President Ford you know. He was never elected, not even to be VP, he was appointed when Spiro Agnew resigned.
Of course as IQ deficient as Biden is, he might appoint Hillary or Pelosi as VP. We might then get another non-elected President.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.
I must then assume that your statement is not a fact.
That's your problem, right there. You see, the appropriate response when getting an email from WorldNutDaily is to delete it. Reading anything put out by those clowns is generally a waste of time. Shrug.
Yep, bad wording on my part. Should have said bill. Late at night ....
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.