Posted on 08/10/2010 5:20:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Over twenty-five percent of Americans, say that President Obama's 49th birthday is not this week. A poll called “where were you really born that day?” summoned this up into question.
The persistent theory boosted heavily by conservative activists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but that he was born outside of the country of the U.S. The CNN/Opinion research Corp. survey said 27 percent of responsive people doubt that Obama's father is telling the truth or that his birth certificate is real. 42% have no doubts, 29% said he probably was born in Hawaii, but couldn't give a sure answer. Democrats backed Obama more than Republicans. 14 percent of Republicans said he was NOT born in the United States. This issue began over Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign and has become a topic of interest with Rush Limbaugh and the so called 'Birther' movement. Hawaii has already released a “certified” copy of Obama's birth certificate. The 1961 archives of two local newspapers in Hawaii also show his birth announcements! Snopes.com has also checked into it.
Related Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If you are 100% correct on your theory, then Obama is not qualified.
If you have a duel citizenship, or give up your citizenship then you can’t become President.
I think you trust our corrupt government a little too much.
I’d also say that the Republican Party and our so-called yapping “conservative” media have a public relations problem for having IGNORED and done almost NOTHING about Obama’s eligibility. I hold them in even greater contempt that I do the Marxists. At least I knew the Marxists were snakes. I didn’t expect Rush, Hannity, Beck, Ingram, Coulter, Levine and the rest to bite me.
They are scared. They are scared of the other 96% of the media that isn’t conservative will viciously attack them and succeed in demonizing them just like they attacked and demonized Sarah Palin and many others.
... they are very very scared.
Supposidely Levin threatened Obama with the B/C issue during his show yesterday, a little late but I’d welcome him in this fight.
Of all the talking heads on our side there are three who have completely disappointed me on this issue. Levin, Coulter and Judge Napalotano (spelling?). All three of them are lawyers, Constitutional lawyers THEY KNOW BETTER!!!!!!
Rush would have been great because of his HUGE audience, Hannity too (as a little dog yipping at Obama’s heels) but for three Constitutional Lawyers, three so called scholars who refused to cover and mocked this issue - I too hold them in contempt.
Supposidely = supposedly - geeeze, not enough coffee yet.
Coulter was especially disappointing because she was insulting about it. She called us “cranks”! She used the example of a KKK parade to imply that we were somehow few in number.
CONTEMPTABLE!
Not that she cares, but she is never getting another dime from me.
That could be, but we don't remove Presidents based on somebody's opinion.
Exactly what is driving the country nuts, Gato!
Here's the problem in a nutshell. "Not eligible" DOES NOT MEAN "not President." It means he is holding the office, but not legally. That is he is the sitting POTUS de facto and just perhaps, since no court has yet ruled on it, not POTUS de jure.
The history of Western Civilization is replete with illegal Popes, Kings, Bishops, etc. In many cases with two or three characters competing against each other as claimants, each making rules and laws, and maintaining a government, all the while condemning each other!
In effect, by voting for him in The Electoral College, and by allowing BHO, Jr. to take the oath of office, Congress in effect, altered the Constitution and granted BHO, Jr. a "waiver."
Now, only Congress can undo that. The Constitution Obama wrecked, now protects Obama. Obama can be removed by Impeachment and Conviction, Resignation, or under a very narrow and strict set of circumstances, be declared incompetent to discharge the duties of the office.
In reality, Gato, this is our de facto POTUS until 2012, and unless some state legislatures and governors stop pussy-footing about, perhaps longer. Right now, all they are doing is helping Obama set up a trap play with all this Birth Certificate nonsense.
Team Obama wants to change the dictionary. They have invested in a huge and apparently successful campaign to convince people who should know better, namely our elected representatives,
So far, to the best of my knowledge, not one (1) elected Republican has even mentioned, "Natural Born," as the key eligibility factor of Article II, Section 1. There is an increasing constitutional scale of eligibility for each federal elective office in the Constitution, culminating in the requirement for the President to be a "Natural Born," citizen.
It does not require an intimate knowledge of Vattel, or Rocket Surgery to figure it out in context. Obama ain't eligible.... but he now holds the office, having been given it by The Electoral College, and being sworn in by the Chief Justice. The Representative branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive branch colluded, and it is done.
He was’t born, he was hatched.
I of course meant de jure, since legally that is what would count if a ruling came down that he was not eligible. The Constitution does say a *Sitting* President shall be impeached, it says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
To argue that because the vote count was certified, and he took the oath of office, that he is President, is to argue that somewhat not eligible to hold the office can somehow *be* President. He can not. Once it was determined that he holds the office illegally, then de jure he's not President, and no one need obey his orders nor any laws he signs. The status of laws signed prior to that would need to be adjudicated. However I fail to see how it's any different than an unconstitutional law. It was so from the day it was passed, and once ruled to be so, no one may be punished or otherwise sanctioned under it. Any office it created, is null and void. Why would it be any different with an unconstitutional occupant of the office of President?
In effect, by voting for him in The Electoral College, and by allowing BHO, Jr. to take the oath of office, Congress in effect, altered the Constitution and granted BHO, Jr. a "waiver."
Congress has no power to "waive" the Constitution, and their action in certifying the electoral votes does not make someone who is not eligible under the Constitution, suddenly able to lawfully hold the office.
LOL. Origins are pretty meaningless when the founders are no longer in control.
Betcha didn't know that institutions like Harvard and Yale, bastions of secular humanism and liberalism, were originally founded by Puritans as evangelical Christian institutions. Nope, didn't think so...
However, History is replete with illegal, illegitimate, and usurping holders of offices high and low, to which they have no right. Obama is one such character.
The wicket becomes stickier when considering the laws, regulations, and orders issued by the usurping office-holder. Of course, the successors to the usurper may quite legally wipe the record clean of all his deeds. The hard part is, they may decide not to.
for example, what if Obama is succeeded by Hillary (which I maintain has been the PLAN all along)? She will seek to solidify the changes made by the usurper ... and she will quite legally hold the office.
Gato, you and I have lived through a fairly successful anti-constitutional coup. Undoing it means Hell to pay.
Once it was determined that he holds the office illegally, then de jure he's not President
Yes he is. He would unfortunately still be President. Just not de jure. The finding of the court can be acted upon by Congress to Impeach and Convict. Or, Congress can decide not to do that, even if it flies in the face of popular opinion. Of course, IF the "ineligible" ruling came down, they probably would toss him out on his ear. It's just that there is nothing "automatic" about it.
Once it was determined that he holds the office illegally, then de jure he's not President, and no one need obey his orders nor any laws he signs.
Now there, there is a truly interesting hypothetical situation! I.E., The interim between the court ruling and his impeachment and conviction. Of course, he should resign immediately after such a finding, but since he's a Marxist, I doubt that he would!
IMHO, some laws would be reinstated by special "reinstatement" sessions, and some would not. The spectre of this legal mess has had the effect, IMHO at least, of dampening any enthusiasm for throwing the half-breed Marxist out before 2012.
Congress has no power to "waive" the Constitution, and their action in certifying the electoral votes does not make someone who is not eligible under the Constitution, suddenly able to lawfully hold the office.
In brief, my theory is that he holds the office, although not lawfully. We all know that he is illegitimately in office, however, no court has yet agreed with us, and probably will not until after 2012.
I think it could be done with a single law, signed by acting President Biden. It would say something like "all laws passed between 20 Jan 2009 and that date, are hereby repassed. The R's might grumble, but I think they'd go along. So I think that bugaboo is overblown.
Yes he is. He would unfortunately still be President. Just not de jure
There is no other way to *be* President, than de jure. Once it's determined that the officer occupant is not President de jure, he cannot be impeached, because Congress was only delegated the power to impeach and remove Presidents, Vice Presidents and and all civil Officers of the United States. That has to mean "de jure". Now Congress could pass a resolution, or even a law stating that the usurper is not President, but it would not be an impeachment, because he would not fit any of the Constitutional categories.
We all know that he is illegitimately in office, however, no court has yet agreed with us, and probably will not until after 2012.
Mores the pity. Might get to be nut cutting time, well before then. Being rid of him might prevent that from happening.
I said you cannot impeach someone who was NOT LEGALLY ELECTED.
Impeachment is a POLITICAL function of the 'House" and the "Senate" and is not valid against some not legally elected.
Its an interesting argument that you have. Demand that the Constitution be honored by legally confirming the eligibility of the candidates (good idea) and then demand that the Constitutional method of removing a President be ignored (bad idea)because you don’t like what the voters, the electors, the Vice President, the Congress, and the Courts have done about it. Impeachment is a Constitutional process and the only process available once someone has been sworn into the office. The Office of the President is not just another federal position.
Obama is an Ivy League-educated (Columbia, then Harvard) lawyer.
So of course he's not natural-born.
In fact, he was never born at all!
He hatched.
Cheers!
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.