Eric Cantor: Obama is a citizen

Salon ^ | 1/23/11 | staff

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

wOW..WHAT AN ORIGINAL AND BRILLIANT RESPONSE.

You are the first one to think of such a cogent argument.Just brilliant...

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Brilliant response to a typo.

you must have won the high school debates!
Just stunning response.

[Electric Graffiti]

Without a legal record like a Birth Certificate.....how is one able to determine the age and National Born Citizenship of a potential Presidential Candidate? The other states don’t have to accept any BullSH!T when it comes to possible questions regarding the future Commander in Chief.

I think the Framers intent for presidential eligibility is that there would be NO DOUBT or controversy surrounding a candidate who would become Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

Barry has no witnesses to his birth, No documentation, No proof of his legal age, his legal name, or his citizenship status. Obama couldn’t get a job at Burger King with his credentials. Obama is applying for the most powerful position in the world. It’s his duty to supply all his bona fides, character witnesses, etc. He has refused to do any of that.

There should be no DOUBTS. There is no RIGHT to run for the Presidency.

He should have never even been considered for POTUS much less put on the ballot. He is ineligble no matter how you look at it and a national security risk.

The proof is his last 2 years. He is an anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-capitalist, Marxist, Muslim, narcissistic-sociopath bent on destroying America from within.

The Republican congress should start impeachment hearings until Barry proves that he is eligible to be POTUS. Of course he can’t and he should be removed from office.

If the Congress won’t do it, the Supreme Court should.

[dfwgator]

Eric Cantor: Obama is a citizen

I agree he is a citizen, the question is, of what country?

[jamese777]

It is not good enough for any thinking person.

---

That would depend on what the thinking person is thinking about.

[jamese777]

IF the truth ever comes out about THE 1 and it’s proven that he’s not a NBC, then we can add Boehner’s and Cantor’s names to those who were willing participants in the most massive fraud ever in US history. Pelosi and Reid are already on that list as well as the members of the SCOTUS that refuse to even look at the issue. Every one of them may be dead by the time the truth comes out but they will be stained by the fact that all aided and abetted the worst person ever to hold the office of POTUS.

---

The operative word in your post is “if.” Time will tell.
Obama announced his candidacy on February 10, 2007. Thus far, zilch.

[itsahoot]

That would depend on what the thinking person is thinking about.

It depends on how you define a "Thinking Person" I guess.

People engaged in self aggrandizement have trouble thing about truths as opposed to selfish interests. Something stinks in the whole NBC conflab, and part of the stench is coming from E-republicans.

[jamese777]

I agree he is a citizen, the question is, of what country?

---

According to the state of Hawaii, the United States:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

The reason that Republican members of Congress are so skittish about challenging Obama’s eligibility is because a Republican administration in Hawaii backed Obama on native born status, one hundred percent.

[jamese777]

It depends on how you define a “Thinking Person” I guess.

People engaged in self aggrandizement have trouble thing about truths as opposed to selfish interests. Something stinks in the whole NBC conflab, and part of the stench is coming from E-republicans.

---

I’m pretty sure that [former]Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has told the Republican National Committee to lay off the birth certificate issue, it’s a loser.

“It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. “I was in the Mainland, campaigning for Senator McCain and this issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

“So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.” —Governor Linda Lingle

[noinfringers2]

If Fukino’s declaration is valid then it follows that she saw/knows Obama’s parents, mother and father, were USA citizens. That doesn’t fit with Obama’s declaration of who his father was.

[noinfringers2]

If Fukino’s declaration is valid then it follows that she saw/knows Obama’s parents, mother and father, were USA citizens. That doesn’t fit with Obama’s declaration of who his father was.

[butterdezillion]

I looked at that some more, and there was a case where someone went through a sex change operation to become female, had their BC from that state amended to show the new gender, and got married in Kansas to a guy. When the husband died a relative showed up contesting whether the wife could automatically inherit as a wife because Kansas doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. At issue was whether Kansas had to accept the BC-issuing state’s ruling that gender was determined by current anatomy or whether Kansas could use their own criteria for determining gender (based on anatomy at birth).

The court and the appeals court agreed that Kansas could apply its own criteria, not necessarily having to accept the amended BC’s determination that the person was now female at the time of the marriage in Kansas. SCOTUS wouldn’t take the case so the lower rulings stood.

And there’s the big issue whether marriage certificates issued by states which have same-sex marriage have to be accepted in other states which only allow male-female marriage. AND whether the certificates, if accepted, have to mean that people in same-sex “marriages” get the same benefits.

There’s also this at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf which talks about how prevalent document fraud is, including with documents that appear genuine. It talks about states needing to decide what documentation to require in order to catch and stop document fraud. The idea is that states SHOULDN’T just automatically accept a birth certificate as proof without other documentation as well.

I haven’t fully digested that report but from the first reading of it I think that the way a person would get to the bottom of identity fraud where a fake is used to create genuine documents would be to have the birth and citizenship records and look at the logs which say when they were generated and/or amended and on what basis. Which is actually what this kind of bill would require.

It would be great if the House would subpoena the records. I contacted Issa and a couple others asking them to do exactly that. They’re not going to though. The media would eat them alive, and they don’t think it would be an effective use of their time.

I begrudgingly looked at other options when I realized they weren’t going to do it. The CRS says the states are responsible for vetting so the states would be a good place to do it, if only because we can quote the “experts” as agreeing. But there are other advantages to the states doing it as well.

The states by actually using the 2-citizen-parent interpretation can force the courts to rule on the definition of NBC, which is critical.

And the states can grant regular people the chance to both scrutinize the records and to present an argument before the court, which is important because that is the only way to insure that an AG who likes the candidate doesn’t just deliberately leave out information or otherwise screw up the court case.

To specifically get rid of Obama before 2012 would require the House or a state AG to investigate, but even at that the process probably wouldn’t be done by the time 2012 got here, and there would be political heck to pay because of the media.

Going the route with the states, we can bring back all the quotes people gave saying that if we had problems with Obama we should pass an eligibility law - which they acknowledged would be a reasonable way to resolve these questions and issues. There isn’t a decent argument that the media could even attempt to make (although I’m sure they will amaze me with their stupidity anyway. lol)

My first choice in dealing with Obama would have been a Congressional or state AG investigation. Believe me, I’ve tried to get that, and it’s just not gonna happen. But we eventually need state eligibility bills anyway, and there are some bright sides to doing it this way as well.

[jamese777]

If Fukino’s declaration is valid then it follows that she saw/knows Obama’s parents, mother and father, were USA citizens. That doesn’t fit with Obama’s declaration of who his father was.

---

The “two American citizen parent” theory of natural born citizenship is not codified in the Constitution, nor is it in any US law, nor is it found in any decision on Article 2, Section 1 rendered by the US Supreme Court.
It remains a theory based on a law book on international law written by a non-US citizen from Switzerland that several of the Framers were known to have read.
The Supreme Court has had twelve different opportunities to rule on Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen and they have refused them all.

Current US law defines a “Citizen of the United States at birth” as “a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” No court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a “natural born citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States at birth.”

If there was such a distinction, there is no way that the Chief Justice of the United States would have agreed to administer the Oath of Office to an ineligible president-elect.

[Walts Ice Pick]

I think the difference is that the state of Kansas should be permitted to determine the validity of marriage for purposes of its own state inheritance laws without reference to any birth certificates issued by any state. The problem only arises when a state decides that an issue should be determined by the information in a birth certificate. Once the state decides that the resolution of an issue should depend on the information contained in a birth certificate and the birth certificate is a public record issued by another state, the accuracy of the public record can only be challenged in the state that issued the public record.

The problem only arises if a state decides that in order to run for president in the state, the person must first prove he/she is a natural born citizen by using a birth certificate. If a state requires a birth certificate, then the state will be required to accept the accuracy of a birth certificate issued by another state and made a public record of that other state.

The constitution doesn't require birth certificates and many of our early presidents probably didn't have one. A state will create a trap for itself if it tries to demand that a candidate submit a birth certificate (probably unconstitutional) and then refuses to accept the accuracy of a birth certificate (public record) issued by another state (also unconstitutional).

If Boehner and his boys refuse to subpoena all of the birth documents, then we're either going to be stuck using the public records that Hawaii chooses to make public or we're going to have to figure out a way to determine qualifications of all candidates without using anyone's birth certificates.

[noinfringers2]

In my experience with law, codification cannot nullify the law. In this case the law is the words of the Constitution which explicitly demands a “natural born citizen’.
My understanding is that the SCOUSA has never specifically heard arguments on eligibility because of the standing issue. It could well be that justices in their own privy do not agree with doubts as to eligibility.
A’citizen of the USA’ is not,at least by wording, identical to a’natural born citizen of the USA. , and
I have references to prominent judges and office holders since mid 1800s who have made distinction for natural born citizen being of place and parents. I’ll check as to court opinions.
AS to the Chief Justice of USASC being infallible in administering the oath, I was appalled that the oath was made twice because of error during the first; which error it seems to me should have been publicly corrected and not in a private ceremony. My scepticism of judges does not agree with your trust in them.

[jamese777]

In my experience with law, codification cannot nullify the law. In this case the law is the words of the Constitution which explicitly demands a “natural born citizen’.
My understanding is that the SCOUSA has never specifically heard arguments on eligibility because of the standing issue. It could well be that justices in their own privy do not agree with doubts as to eligibility.
A’citizen of the USA’ is not,at least by wording, identical to a’natural born citizen of the USA. , and
I have references to prominent judges and office holders since mid 1800s who have made distinction for natural born citizen being of place and parents. I’ll check as to court opinions.
AS to the Chief Justice of USASC being infallible in administering the oath, I was appalled that the oath was made twice because of error during the first; which error it seems to me should have been publicly corrected and not in a private ceremony. My scepticism of judges does not agree with your trust in them.

---

The current Justices of the Supreme Court do not appear to agree with you. It only takes four justices to agree to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and in 3 years of trying no appeal challenging Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen has been granted cert. Two such attempts were rejected this month: Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro.
You can have all the skepticism you want. It doesn’t alter the record or the facts.
There are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court. The highest Court can hear any case that four justices (the rule of four) agree raises serious constitutional issues.
Since the Supreme Court has not commented on why they have refused to hear any Obama eligibility appeal, we will never know whether agreement with a lower court’s ruling on standing was the reason for their denial of certiorari or not.
Furthermore, there are no issues of standing in a grand jury investigation of Obama’s eligibilty and no one has convened a grand jury to look into his eligibility.

[danamco]

To phrase their statements; "god enough for me" or "citizen" yes that is good enough for me at this time!

If the elaborate into "dangerous" territory such as "NBC" that's NOT good enough for me!!

However, I think they are not eager to rock the boat at THIS time, when the LSM are pressing them for answers. As long as WE as a grass root movement keep this issue to the fire and in the forefront (background, LOL) the truth WILL eventually come out and the critters, the talking heads will all join on OUR bandwagon, we just need to have a little patience to handle this the right way!!!

[Captain Peter Blood]

The problem here is that there are way more questions than answers on Obama and whether he is a Citizen.
I hate to say it but hearings are called for and this issue needs to be investigated to make a determination one way or another.
The Supreme Court has pretty much said this is a Congressionial matter.
There are a lot of implications if Obama is not a citizen eligible to be President.
It would most certainly mean that every document he has signed has no validity under the law and the constitution.
Cantor and the current leadership are the same old Republicans of no leadership, the lapdogs they always have been.
It may prove to be unpopular to investigate but it should be done to either prove or disprove it. You can bet if this was reversed the Democrats would.

[Captain Peter Blood]

The problem here is that there are way more questions than answers on Obama and whether he is a Citizen.
I hate to say it but hearings are called for and this issue needs to be investigated to make a determination one way or another.
The Supreme Court has pretty much said this is a Congressionial matter.
There are a lot of implications if Obama is not a citizen eligible to be President.
It would most certainly mean that every document he has signed has no validity under the law and the constitution.
Cantor and the current leadership are the same old Republicans of no leadership, the lapdogs they always have been.
It may prove to be unpopular to investigate but it should be done to either prove or disprove it. You can bet if this was reversed the Democrats would.

[Captain Peter Blood]

The problem here is that there are way more questions than answers on Obama and whether he is a Citizen.
I hate to say it but hearings are called for and this issue needs to be investigated to make a determination one way or another.
The Supreme Court has pretty much said this is a Congressionial matter.
There are a lot of implications if Obama is not a citizen eligible to be President.
It would most certainly mean that every document he has signed has no validity under the law and the constitution.
Cantor and the current leadership are the same old Republicans of no leadership, the lapdogs they always have been.
It may prove to be unpopular to investigate but it should be done to either prove or disprove it. You can bet if this was reversed the Democrats would.