Posted on 11/26/2008 2:44:07 PM PST by urobolus
This just in:
1 out of 9 dentists also agree with factcheck.org
Looks like the Mods stuffed this turkey!!
Obviously he has something to hide.
Let’s just replace the judiciary and other constitutional systems with factcheck.org.
You can trust ‘em. There’re here to help.
Not.
Look, I am not in any way, shape or form convinced that there is a problem with Obama’s qualification for the presidency. That said, I don’t know that he is qualified and there doesn’t seem to be any legal mechanism-—short of a lawsuit on grounds very difficult to raise and have heard-—that officially vets presidential candidates, or at least the President-elect.
(And, yes, I have participated in highly interesting legal discussions on this case. That is different from concluding Obama is not qualified.)
Obama was willing to release his BC once. That obviously did not answer the questions, simply because there apparently are two types of BC in Obama’s case.
So if he was willing to release the short form, what is the problem for him in releasing the long form? THAT and ONLY THAT is what has continued to fuel this controversy.
Regardless of the ultimate conclusion, we have all learned that NO ONE apparently verifies that a candidate is, in fact, eligible for the presidency and no one, as yet, has figured out a way inside the constitutional system to challenge (verify) a candidate’s, or a President-elect’s, eligibility.
That is not too much to ask. The law is not settled in this area, there are many factual permutations that could arise, and there is no mechanism to vet the citizenship of those placed on presidential ballots.
Sure, there is (maybe) a procedure for the electors to object to a candidate’s qualifications, but nowhere does there appear to be a responsibility to do so or to affirmatively verify the candidate’s qualifications.
Many SOS’s have taken the position that it is “not my job” to verify eligibility for office of those placed on their state’s presidential ballots. They say their job is ministerial only. Okay, that may be true in the absence of specific statutory requirements, but if so, maybe that needs to be changed. Maybe the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on whether that needs to be changed.
In short, even if you don’t think there is any there “there” re Obama’s qualifications, it’s appropriate to support having the Donofrio case heard by the Supreme Court. They could address these matters and especially point out where the law is deficient in procedures and safeguards to ensure that our President is eligible under the Constitution. Moreover, they could give us some idea of how it would be appropriate (on what grounds, how would standing arise) to challenge (verify) the qualification of a President-elect under the Constitution.
These are good things.
Never mind any particular candidate, we cannot remain in this “do loop” where, essentially, no one without a court order can force the production of a BC of a President-elect, but no one without a BC showing a deficiency in qualifications has standing to force verification of the PE’s qualifications. There is not even an explicit official duty given to an public official upon which a citizen could file a Writ of Mandamus to force the official to verify a PE’s qualification. This is untenable.
The SCOTUS should address:
1. The effect, if any, of the citizenship of Obama’s father (which may have made Obama a British subject by birth) on his “natural born citizen” status. (This assumes Obama was born in Hawaii and there are not factual ambiguities there.)
2. The effect, if any, of the fact that McCain was born outside the U.S. to parents who were U.S. citizens on his “natural born citizen” status.
3. The need, if any, for additional procedures to vouchsafe the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born citizen,” and, if needed, when in the process such vetting should occur.
4. The grounds upon which standing is achieved in such extraordinary circumstances.
“Some authority should also be charged with the responsibility of verifying the information”
How about candidates have to provide proof of elligibility to each individual voting district before their name can go on the ballot? How hard would that be?
Dude.
Until Barry Zer-O produces a certified, bonafied copy, I believe nothing.
So:
Welcome to FR.
Now:
Get Zotted.
In less than two weeks we will have an answer to tv BC question from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alieto and Scalia.
You said — “I’ve always been suspicious of this birth certificate controversy...”
Well, here is what I’m *most suspicious* about.
Okay, let’s start with this (whatever it was) document from the Obama campaign that is supposed to be the document that proves the issue of where Obama was born. And then, let’s go with the idea that this website examined it and handled it and so on...
Okay so far....
Now, *here* is the *extremely suspicious* part.
Let’s go to the next step and say someone has filed a court case saying Obama wasn’t a natural-born citizen - WELLLLLL.... - then it would figure that all Obama would have to do is simply give over to the court the very document that he has been “parading around” to “prove to the court” that there’s no issue.
SOoooo..., does Obama do that? NOPE!!
What does Obama do, even though he has what is purported to be a legitimate document proving that he is a natural-born citizen????
Welllll..., Obama spends several hundred thousand dollars in court costs and lawyers fees — *fighting* — against “showing” his birth certificate!!??
WAIT A MINUTE...., I thought Obama just did that???
Uhhhh..., well, Obama probably realizes that what he’s shown is *not legal* and not worth the paper it’s printed on — otherwise — he would simply “run on down to the courthouse” with the document that the campaign was parading around and the document that was “analyzed” on that website... LOL...
—
As you can see..., something is *awfully wrong* with the documentation that Obama has provided... :-0
factcheck.com: kid tested, mother approved
Which one was Target Two?
Here is a link you may want to keep handy:
Factcheck.org has already been discredited.
Please see this very comprehensive and well documented report by Ron Polarik, PhD. (scroll down)
Oh, yes, the dreaded Viking kitties!! I haven’t seen them in a while! It’s definitely time to sick those on the Obot trolls!
Agree. Suspicious history.
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.