Congressman Steve Stockman Questions Obama Birth Certificate; Foreign Student?

Obama Release Your Records ^ | 8-20-2013

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

WASHINGTON – To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.

~

The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

~

Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.

~

In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide.

~

The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.

~

Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.

~

A News 4 report from Jacksonville noted that U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho has promised to back Texas Rep. Steve Stockman’s proposed bill to investigate the president’s birth certificate.

“So I called Steve up when I got back. He says, ‘Yeah, we’re doing it. You want to get on that?’” I says, ‘yeah,’” said Yoho.

[Nero Germanicus]

According to Orly Taitz, Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney submitted a copy of the long form with a letter he wrote to Judge Mahili.
Dr. Taitz argued that she should have then had the right to inspect the original, vault copy, long form birth certificate in Hawaii.

Dr. Taitz said that “Judge Mahili gave me a leave of the court to petition the Superior Court for Letters Rogatory to the Circuit Court of HI seeking local subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy attached to 01.25.12 letter from Jablonski.”

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“Dr. Taitz said that “Judge Mahili gave me a leave of the court to petition the Superior Court for Letters Rogatory to the Circuit Court of HI seeking local subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy attached to 01.25.12 letter from Jablonski.”

And then what happened?

[widdle_wabbit]

“And then what happened?”

Then what? Ted Cruz is what happened.

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm

[widdle_wabbit]

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/

Then what happened?

https://libertylegalfoundation.org/georgia-law-not-enforced-against-the-powerful/#.UhThU9LVDcs

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2012/01/26/obama-eligibility-court-case-blow-by-blow/

[Night Hides Not]

And where did he get that odd SSN?

Donald R. DeCicco?

[Nero Germanicus]

So much happened that it would take a book to relate the entire story.
Four eligibility challenges were all heard on the same day: Farrar v. Obama, Powell v. Obama, Swensson v. Obama and Welden v. Obama.

Orly Taitz did not get to view Obama’s original birth certificate in Hawaii,

Judge Mahili ruled in Obama’s favor and declared Obama to be a natural born citizen.
[”For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012”—Judge Mahili]
(It is important to note that several of the plaintiffs stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Their argument was that his Kenyan father rendered him ineligible under the “two citizen parents” theory of natural born citizenship).

Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp cleared Obama for the Georgia ballot.

The plaintiffs appealed Kemp’s decision and the Fulton County Superior Court upheld Secretary of State Kemp’s ruling.

The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court and the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of the Fulton County Superior Court’s ruling.

Several of the original plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Justices’ conference at the Supreme Court of the United States, there weren’t the required four votes to hear the appeal before the full Supreme Court, so the petition to hear the appeal was denied.

Romney beat Obama 53% to 45% in Georgia and won Georgia’s electoral votes. That’s the Readers’ Digest version.

[Nero Germanicus]

The courts can’t do their job if no one brings forward a formal criminal complaint in the form of an indictment to a court of law. Congress is not the place to adjudicate criminal activity.
Nearly every accusation of fraud, forgery, identity theft and document tampering has been made in a civil lawsuit, not in a criminal complaint.

[Constitution 123]

IMHO Congress needs to show some interest.

Past presidents were investigated for many reasons ie.

Nixon during the Watergate scandal.

Reagan during Iran contra.

President Clinton was investigated regarding the Lewinsky affair.

And then a second time for lying to congress.

More recently, Obama for the Benghazi probe

AND even now, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has launched an investigation into the Obama administration's decision to delay aspects of Obamacare

When the supreme court sees some intrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will hear some appeals brought before them.

Our roll as citizens is to yell from the rooftops as we educate others before it is too late.

[Uncle Sham]

"The SCOTUS needs to get 4 justices to agree to take an appeal and tell us what a "natural born Citizen" is."

This isn't necessary as it's been settled by Minor vs Happersatt. In addition, the "natural born citizen" question is a red herring.

The President Elect is tasked with "failing or not failing to qualify" under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. A failure to qualify forces Congress to act in naming a replacement. In order to act, they must be made aware of whether or not they have to act. If they didn't enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, this means that there has been a failure to qualify regardless of whether it's because there was no proof of eligibility given or they didn't act upon this non-proof. Both scenarios result in a usurpation of the office of President.

Even someone who is a natural born citizen will fail to qualify without being able to back it up with evidence to Congress. This is why the "natural born citizen" arguments are a waste of time. What should be discussed, and answered by our congressmen and women is how did they satisfy the demands of the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. If they are unable to answer, they didn't. So far, I don't think any one of them has.

[Uncle Sham]

"The power to check qualifications for office is a state issue not a federal issue."

You are incorrect. Obama's own defense used the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three as their reason to disallow standing to those who demanded to see proof of eligibility in court. Their argument was that Congress was charged with this responsibility under the Constitution.

[Nero Germanicus]

It makes no sense to me that Obama’s attorneys would try to use section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Do you happen to remember which lawsuit that was?
If Congress had a role in presidential eligibility determination, I wonder why in the six plus years since February 10, 2007 when Obama first announced his candidacy, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to his eligibility?
Now I do see Congress having a potential role in blocking the certification of an ineligible candidate’s electoral votes, but that’s about it. A president-elect can “fail to qualify” under the 20th Amendment by not having 270 or more electoral votes certified at the Joint Session of Congress that is held to count and certify the votes of the electors. Any one Senator along with any one Representative can submit a written objection to certifying any state’s electoral votes but there were no written objections in 2008 or in 2012.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.

[Uncle Sham]

"A president-elect can “fail to qualify” under the 20th Amendment by not having 270 or more electoral votes certified at the Joint Session of Congress that is held to count and certify the votes of the electors."

Stop your baloney. We've discussed this several times and you only try to obfuscate the issue. There is no such thing as a "President Elect" until Congress has accepted the results of the Electoral College votes as final and approved. Only after this has been done can anyone know exactly "who" is the President Elect. This means that the qualification required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three has NOTHING to do with election results and everything to do with other "qualifications", of which, the only remaining are the eligibility requirements.

As to the Obama defense position regarding this, you seem to know everything about all of the other trials that point to the innocence of your boss, you damn well know what I'm referring to here.

[Nero Germanicus]

The easiest way to disqualify an unqualified president-elect under the 20th Amendment is for Congress to refuse to certify the electoral votes in enough states to push the unqualified president-elect below the 270 electoral vote threshold needed for election to office. It only takes two members of Congress to object to certification of the electoral vote in any state, one Senator and one Representative.

President-elect of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming President of the United States in the period between the general election on Election Day in November and noon eastern standard time on Inauguration Day, January 20, during which he is not in office yet. The title is used for the apparent winner and is finalized when votes of the Electoral College, cast in December, are counted by a joint session of Congress in early January. If a sitting President has won re-election, he is not referred to as a “President-elect” because he is already in office and is not waiting to become president. If a new President is scheduled to enter, then the current-standing one is said to hold the office on a lame-duck basis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect
and:
http://presidentelect.us/index.html. (Check out the FAQ, if you’re interested)

The bottom line is the the 20th Amendment refers to ONLY the President-Elect failing to qualify and we haven’t had a President-elect since 2008-2009.
A reelected incumbent is not a president-elect.

[MHGinTN]

The democrip deadhead voters and the globalist oligarchs have one thing in common: both WANT a lying criminal in the White Hut in order to end the Republic. They got their little barry bastard boy ...

[Uncle Sham]

"A reelected incumbent is not a president-elect."

Untrue.

Each Presidential election cycle results in a person being named "President Elect". A President Elect is the person who assumes the office of President, if they qualify that is, for the next Presidential term of office. If someone is the current President, they can still be the President Elect as well.

Meanwhile, most Freepers know that the Constitution is a far better source than Wikipedia.

[liberalh8ter]

I fully expect he would roll out the ‘I had to do it as the minority son of a single working mother’. He'd proclaim that he never wants to see anyone else have to resort to the lengths he did to get an education so college will now be free!

[Nero Germanicus]

So you believe that a re-elected incumbent holds two constitutional offices, president AND president-elect and that there is only a two week period between the counting and certification of the votes of the electors at the Joint Session of Congress and taking the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day when it can be determined whether the president-elect has qualified or not. Whew, that’s a tight schedule.
An interesting position you have there.