theres no question that it ws FABRICATED...DIGITALLY...."mechanically" if you will, and thats ILLEGAL!in and of itself
What’s old is new again...
Sheesh...
Because not everyone agrees with the definition of natural born citizen you pieced together in 2008.
No you’ve done it. Soon the hordes will be here telling us all how the Constitution is a fluid document and the FF didn’t mean what they clearly wrote.
Try again.
Obama was born in ‘61, Hawaii became a state in ‘59, or am I missing something?
Sez who? When citing “US constitution and Law” it’s usually helpful to include minor details like say a citations to the Constitution, or The United States code, or even a supreme court decision supporting your thesis.
Otherwise it’s simply wishful thinking on your part.
der reader didn’t release a long form birth certificate. der reader released a transparently forged certificate of live birth.
Hawaii was not a state in 1961??
And *that* is why I’ve been so frustrated with this entire story from the start.
What is everyone looking for with the BC? Proof that he’s not qualified to be POTUS? We already know that! It doesn’t matter what his BC says because his dad wasn’t an American. He can be a citizen, but not a NBC.
He is not, and never has been, qualified for the position.
So why did he bother to go through 3 years and over a million dollars to hide his BC in the first place? (And it’s this obfuscation that fuels the Birther fires.)
IMHO, it has nothing to do with where he was born. It is my guess that he lied and claimed to be an Indonesian citizen to get funding for college. He’s covering up fraud.
Don't impeachment proceedings begin in the House?
“Meanwhile, let us understand that every media writer who has with unbearable condescension stated that the birthers are whack-jobs because the birth issue was resolved by the release of the certification of live birth in 2008 has been shown to be a despicable liar or at best stone-cold indifferent to the truth. If the birth issue was resolved in 2008, then why did Obama release the birth certificate today? If the birth issue was resolved in 2008, then why did Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie try to get the birth certificate released in early 2011, and wasn’t able to do so, because Obama was still refusing at that point to allow his birth certificate to be released? The answer is that the birth issue was NOT resolved in 2008. The people who have been complaining for the last two and half years that the birth certificate has not been released have been proved right, and the people who have been oh-so-knowingly declaring for the last two and a half years that the birth certificate has already been released have been shown to be lying apparatchiks. “
I based my position as a birther on two points:
1. He was not born in Hawaii ( 25% )
2. His father was not a citizen (75%)
Apparently, he WAS born in Hawaii.
That is assuming the birth certificate is not a fraud.
It IS apparent that his father was not a US citizen.
btt
Get over it. You're not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama's failure as a president...
We need the Donald to get on this natural born citizen aspect..
He was the only one with guts enough to make him cough up his bc.
Folks can argue over the definition of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen, but the fact is, there is a condition of group membership that the Framers were attempting to codify in the US Constitution in Article II, Section I, by using that phrase.
They wanted to protect our country from ever having someone with divided loyalties from ever attaining the office of president (for obvious reasons).
To accomplish this, they set the bar for citizenship of president higher than for any other federal office named in the Constitution. Nowhere else in the Constitution will you find that a federal officer MUST be a Natural Born Citizen.
The Framers didn’t just pull that phrase out of thin air, either. That phrase was well known to educated people of the time, and it was universally understood to mean, one who is born on the soil of their country to two citizen parents of that same country.
It’s a simple concept, whose meaning has been muddied by time, and the corruption of our laws and language.
The original intent of the Framers has never been in question about this.
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
No, it doesn't. There is no such legally binding definition.