Posted on 12/15/2016 4:30:41 PM PST by Fractal Trader
And this is exactly backwards to rationality. It is so mind numbingly stupid, that it is obviously a modern day invention rather than a concept which the founders contemplated.
A stamped and sealed birth certificate is self-authenticating.
No it isn't. Again, you are talking legalistic jibber-jabber and I am talking about the factual truth. Once again I will inform you that *I* have a birth certificate that deliberately and with knowing aforethought by state officials, contains FALSE INFORMATION.
It may be "self-authenticating" as a state document, but the information contained thereon cannot be accepted at face value when it is a well known occurrence for false information to be placed on them under circumstances similar to Obama's.
You just keep pushing that old adage, "When the Law is on your side, pound the law!"
I am pushing the concept "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts!"
Most of us here understand that the "Law is an @$$", and therefore do not much care what our "betters" tell us regarding the law. We are interested in truth, not creative and nonsensical interpretations of law.
If its fake, then years ago someone should have been able to prove it in a court of law, before a committee of Congress or a committee of any state’s legislature.
Forgery is a crime. Document tampering is a crime. Identity theft is a crime.
Using false identity documents is a crime.
With criminal investigations come subpoenas, depositions, discovery, hearings, grand juries and the threat of perjury hanging over people’s heads.
Until then, all you have is an allegation.
This tosses the "Natural Citizen" requirement out on it's head. Need I remind you that the Supreme Court opinion to interpreting the US Constitution can be summed up as "The Constitution may not be interpreted so as to render any of it's clauses as having no effect."
Ergo, it is not just about the electors. The other constitutional requirements must also be met. If the man has not attained the age of 35, he's ineligible, and it doesn't matter what the electors or the public has to say on the issue.
American voters had the opportunity to rule on Obama’s qualifications, twice.
Well this is not true at all. Firstly they were very badly misled by the media and various lawyers on the correct understanding of the issue, so they didn't really get to weigh the question with the appropriate due diligence.
Realistically, the voters are mostly followers, and if enough of the right sort of people tell them something, they simply buy it, and will act on their misinformation.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to discuss what you consider to be fantasy.
It is when you try to cite it in a defense of fake birth certificates. It is well known that about 100,000 birth certificates are issued each year containing false information.
It is reasonable to accept such documents as having been issued by a state, but this does not make the information contained on them true, and most especially not when it is this particular state that has probably the most lax admission standards of any of the 50 states.
These fake birth certificates may be acceptable for most normal issues of law, but the Presidency has further requirements demanded by the US Constitution and which cannot be met by accepting fake information as true through an appeal to Article IV.
It is the attempt to use what constitutes a legal loop hole to circumvent Article II that is the "jiggery-pokery."
If Article II comes into conflict with Article IV, it is Article IV which must give way.
Has anyone ever seen a live full newspaper of that date. None, as far as I know, has ever been discovered. Instead, all have is the same exact picture, used in every place, that is supposed to confirm the newspaper. All I see is a potential photoshop.
‘you were pretty certain that no Obama biographer had placed Stanley Ann in Hawaii near her pregnancy,’
Did you misquote me on purpose, or is this actually what you believe I said?
In this modern society, Truth has become no defense against law. Again I point out that "marriage" is now "gay" in direct contradiction to thousands of years of history and law.
Yes, truth ought to overcome crap in judicial proceedings, but ever since Roosevelt was President, the Judiciary has become more and more insane.
Forgery is a crime. Document tampering is a crime. Identity theft is a crime.
Except when States do it regarding birth certificates. Then it is business as usual. Again, I will point out that the 50 states produce 100,000 replacement birth certificates for adopted children each year, and none of which contains the actual truth of the child's birth.
I keep telling people that Obama's fake birth certificate was produced by Hawaii and likely in accordance with accepted law, but this doesn't mean that the information contained on it is true.
Until then, all you have is an allegation.
With a released fake birth certificate, we have more than an allegation. We have proof that something is wrong with his provenance.
U.S. general election law falls under “powers reserved to the states.” The only federal election law is on campaign finance. A candidate has to qualify in 51 separate jurisdictions under each states’ elections laws and any candidates’ qualifications can be challenged before state elections boards or courts of law.
Electors can vote against a president-elect that they consider to not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1. The House and Senate, meeting in joint-session can refuse to certify the electoral votes of a candidate that they consider to not meet the requiremnts of Article II, Section 1.
Any state’s Chief Elections Officer can refuse to place on the state ballot a candidate who does not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1.
If enough states did that, it could be imposdible for an ineligible candidate to reach 270 Electoral votes.
Nobody was “misled,” there were over 200 court rulings on Obama’s eligibility. The issue was a major discussion point in 2008 and again in 2012. Each voter made up their own mind on who they believed and that’s just as it should be.
And here is the Jack Cashill article in question. It insinuates that Anderson had no valid sources and appears to have exercised his own creative license in articulating events.
"In his fair-minded biography, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Christopher Andersen concedes, "There were certainly no witnesses -- no family members were present; and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling they were even engaged." "
Here is a subsequent Jack Cashill article in which he reiterates the point.
“With a released fake birth certificate, we have more than an allegation. We have proof that something is wrong with his provenance.”
With a physical document, you prove it is fake in a court of law or before an investigative committee of Congress. No one has ever conducted a judicial or legislative hearing for forgery.
I have heard this theory expressed before, but I put no stock in it. I believe that if actual copies of those old Newspapers are ever found, they will reflect what is on the microfiche.
The operative word here is "can". In a rational society, the word would be "shall", but we have once again been blessed by the courts with another example of their inherent stupidity when they ruled that State officials don't have to do their job. They can if they want to, but they cannot be compelled to do their job if they don't want to do so.
If forget which of the particular cases it was, but i'm sure you have it somewhere in that big list of cases you cite from time to time.
Nobody was “misled,” there were over 200 court rulings on Obama’s eligibility.
Notwithstanding the fact that virtually all of those court cases occurred *AFTER* the fact, those court cases do in fact mislead people. But it is not this particular misleading of people to which I refer. I am referring to the media and the talking head lawyers misleading everyone as to what the issue was, and what the facts of eligibility were.
The public was and has most certainly been misled by the Judiciary and Law schools since 1898.
Hey, DL, not so fast! I’m playing with this one. I’ve got him in the blender, but I haven’t hit, ‘frappe,’ yet. ;)
I know that Anderson made the statement with zero backup, zero evidence, zero witnesses, zero corroboration, and zero credibility. I just wanted to break it to my desperate, grasping-at-straws friend by stages. It’s more entertaining that way.
Wjd, leave Cashill out of it. You’re the one who brought up Anderson as a source. Well Anderson said he was told by two different Chicago-based friends of the Obamas that Barack didn’t write Dreams—that in fact Ayers wrote it lock, stock and barrel. Haha—according to your own source, Obama is a talentless weasel who has spent ~two decades basking in stolen glory.
I.e.: he’s a lying conman.
But oh well, you can’t win em all.
The courts will not accept a case from the public because they declare the public has no standing. Congress wants no part of this, and therefor will refuse to participate in any such effort.
That the document is demonstrably fake will sway neither courts nor congress.
No one has ever conducted a judicial or legislative hearing for forgery.
It isn't "forged" in the normal sense. It is a false document created through a legitimate and accepted practice by officials of the State government.
It is a real state document, but deliberately containing factually incorrect information.
Go get em Tiger!
:)
Bol! I’m on it.
As for your discussion, I hope you have time to burn. For Nero, this is nothing more than pro-Obama legalism taken to unnatural extremes. I.e.: the truth is not what Nero’s after. He’s just playing the, ‘But a court of law,’ game.
He likes the, ‘But the congress,’ game just as well.
Meaning, he likes to taunt conservatives over the fact that nether our politicized legal system nor our worthless Establishment has fully investigated Obama. This is the highlight of his apparently hollow, empty life.
I feel so sorry for him. Just not sorry enough to play his never ending, time-destroying, meaningless games.
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.