Posted on 03/02/2009 5:31:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
President Barack Obama has hired an army of lawyers to prevent access to records that may show he is constitutionally unqualified to be president of the United States. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
A California lawsuit seeking documentation from Occidental College that could verify the nationality under which Barack Obama entered the school has been filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, which has brought a lawsuit on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes over Obama's eligibility. Defense lawyers for Obama are trying to quash the request for Occidental records, arguing that any objections to Obama's presidential candidacy and victory should have been raised in Congress at the time of the Electoral College vote. However there was an effort to raise the question with the Electoral College but the court refused to intervene. Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship but his case was denied.
As part of the suit filed by USJF, a subpoena was served on Occidental College for its records. School officials immediately contacted lawyers for Obama and said the demand would have to be answered unless they intervened. Obama's lawyers then submitted a demand to the court arguing the case was moot because the election was over and the correct place to resolve such concerns was in Congress now and challenges should have been made to the Electoral College who confirmed Obama’s election as president. [But as pointed out previously such an effort was timely made but was rebuffed.]
Papers filed on behalf of USJF also cautioned: "If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office."
Obama has refused to document his U.S. citizenship and as a result his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement for a "natural born" citizen, have been challenged in court.
"MR. Obama’s actions to block any attempt to inquire into his status as a 'natural born citizen' raises questions which must be answered in order to avoid a situation where, perhaps several years in the future, it is discovered that he was not eligible to serve as President of the United States, and, therefore, all of his acts would be null and void, and that the resulting chaos could lead to a constitutional crisis, immobilizing the United States," the USJF said.
Obama supporters have all along stated that his birth certificate was posted on the internet web site. However the "Certification of Live Birth" which was actually posted doesn’t confirm a birth location. "[Hawaii] statute 138 allows foreign born children of HI residents to get HI [Certificates of Live Birth] and get them based on a statement of one relative only. While Hawaiian officials confirmed a birth certificate exists, they did not exclude the possibility it was "one obtained for a foreign born child." It is also noted that in Obama's immigration to Indonesia at age 5 he was considered an Indonesian citizen.
In addition to the USJF law suit, many other suits have been filed and all are documented in various article posted on the internet, including several described by WorldNet Daily. Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. Some suits contend that if he was born out of the country and some contend that Obama's American mother was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. This would make the father a dual citizen. However the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Although Obama could settle all questions about his eligibility to be president by simply producing his birth certificate or authorizing others to do so; instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama's behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.
Obama has refused to document his U.S. citizenship and, therefore, his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement for a "natural born" citizen.
What do you conclude from this?
I think we should collect MILLIONs, one dollar at a time and offer it to 0 to release his original cert.
Full page add in the Washington Compost "OBama, we have X million dollars in a trust for your children(or whatever) if you just release your vault BC"
It'd just need to get in the news cycle for average Americans to see it and wonder "odd, the president won't release his BC, why?"
“particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”
Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.(emphasis mine)While the rule cited does indeed mention ‘embarrassment’ specifically, it is mentioned as only one of five legal conditions for granting protection. As far as I can tell, the idea of avoiding embarrassment for Obama/DNC is never specifically raised in the document as a reason for the protection sought. In short, the defense never seems to come right out and say something to the effect of “we’re trying to avoid any embarrassment that could result from the release of these documents.” Yes, embarrassment is mentioned, but from now on I must admit that as far as I can tell, the defense did not explicitly claim a concern about embarrassment.
They are bumper stickers...gosh my html is poor, but I got it!
I revised to capitalize the letter B in Birth Certificate.
bflr, sorry for the typo
Like many people, he doesn't have the original, long-form certificate (I don't have mine).
I once found myself in the same position. Here's what I did: I phoned the hospital where I was born and asked them how I could get a copy of my birth certificate. I followed their instructions, and before long I received a nice crisp certified long-form-style copy in the mail. It was not a minimal-information short form, like this one. My birth certificate shows the name of my birth hospital, the name the doctor who delivered me, his signature, my exact weight at birth, the names of witnesses, and so on. Total time expended and money required: under one hour and under $20. It could not have been easier. Why does Obama prefer to spend a fortune defending himself in court, instead of simply doing just what I did, and releasing the long-form certificate to the public? Saying "he doesn't have to" is just dodging the question.
It's good enough to... prove birth in Hawaii for all legal purposes.
False. The short form has been considered inadequate documentation for paternity cases, for some Hawaiian state agencies, and for some federal agencies. Why on earth should it be good enough for him to satisfy the natural-born citizen requirement for becoming the POTUS? The short form is adequate to prove Hawaiian residency, but it does not prove the place of birth. Lurkers should read the Credibility of the "Certification of Live Birth" section of this piece by Robert Reece. Actually, read the whole thing.
Here is the quick, oversimplified partial recap for lurkers:
States need a procedure to deal with resident mothers who give birth abroad, then return home asking for a birth certificate for junior. Hawaii currently has such a procedure:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
While that specific statute may not have been in effect when Obama was born, it seems very likely to me that there was a similar statute in effect at the time. It fills a pressing need. Parents understand that their kids will eventually require valid American birth certificates for identification. They don't want for those certificates that say something like “Birthplace: Kenya,” they want something that looks like proof of American birth. There is no good reason for states not to give them such documentation.
If Obama's mother gave birth in Kenya, does anyone doubt that after returning to Hawaii she would have tried to get him a legal Hawaiian birth certificate (or something similar) if it was available? If she did, Obama would now be able to produce a perfectly legal Short Form Certification of Live Birth. He has produced such a document. However, he would not be able to produce a detailed long-form birth certificate. He has not produced such a document. That's what this is all about.
I will touch on a couple of the standard objections:
But Hawaiian officials have confirmed that he was born in Hawaii!
Read Recent Statements Regarding Obama's "Birth Certificate" in the linked Reece article. Also, answer this: Why should the unsworn statements of state officials be considered sufficient proof when much more authoritative documentation is so easily available, but has not been provided?
But a Hawaiian newspaper contained a birth announcement!
Obama's maternal grandmother was in Hawaii when Obama was born. She could easily have placed the noticed after receiving a phone call from her daughter from Kenya.
Now, back to Curiosity's post.
I can see it now. Curiosity is pulled over while driving.
Cop: Sir, may I please see your driver's license?Curiosity: Do have any reason to doubt that I have a driver's license?
Cop: No, but I still need to see that license.
Curiosity: You don't need to see my license. I have a license, I said so, and that's good enough!
Cop: Uh, no sir, it is not good enough. Do you have that license or not?
Curiosity: Only a crazy person would doubt that I have a license. You must be insane!
Cop: No sir, I am not insane, and I need to see that license now. Either you produce it or I will have to arrest you for driving without a license.
Curiosity: Nothing will satisfy you, mark my words. If I give you my driver's license, next you will be asking for my passport, and who knows what else! You tinfoil hatters are all alike!
And so on, to the predictable conclusion. There comes a point where it is perfectly reasonable for the cop to conclude that Curiosity does not have a license. That's where we are now with Obama and the long-form birth certificate.
As I have stated before on FR, I would be happy to be proved wrong about this. I am not comfortable being a "troofer," but until I see better evidence than I have seen so far, I will continue to believe that the most likely reason Obama has not produced his long-form certificate is that it contains information that he wants to hide, or it is missing information that would be present had he been born in Hawaii.
I think the best outcome for all concerned would be for Obama to produce a certified long form certificate showing all the particulars, proving his Hawaiian birth. That, plus a good explanation for the delay, would end the issue for most people, including me. I don't want for the idiot Biden to be president, and at this point, revealing that Obama was never a legitimate candidate would be a national disgrace.
I sent for my BC today. Cost was 12 bucks plus mailing cost: Total was $17.50. Maybe it is the postage Bozo objects to huh? Anyone who still thinks he isn’t hiding something is simply not thinking straight.
The Birthers sound more like the Truthers every day. Every time you ask for evidence of a claim, it evaporates.
I can't believe anybody still takes Phil Berg seriously!
Yes, and so is the long form. You cannot prove paternity with a birth ceriticate. That requires a DNA test. Duh.
for some Hawaiian state agencies,
False. I defy you to find me a single Hawaiian state agency that does not accept a short form as sufficient to prove brith in Hawaii.
and for some federal agencies.
Also false. I defy you to find me a single federal agency that does not accept a short form COLB as proof of birth in the US.
So on your planet, birth certificates are never admitted as evidence in paternity cases, only DNA evidence is ever admitted.
As for the rest, I provided a link, but apparently it was too much trouble for you to click on it.
And, predictably, you did not address my main points.
Too bad. I am still hoping for someone to point out some obvious flaws in my argument, but I guess you aren't that person.
I sent for my BC yesterday and it cost me 17.50 total, 12 bucks for the bc and the rest was for shipping, you know, postage. What is the problem with the bamster getting a BC?
As referenced in my above-linked Reece article, the Hawaiian Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts only certain types of birth documentation as sufficient to establish eligibility for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Primary DocumentsThe primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
* A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
* A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
* A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
"Certification of Live Birth" is not in the list.
I thought you were going to post that.
The only reason the Dept. of Homelands requires the long form is because it needs proof of Hawaiian Ancestry. Hawaiian birth is not sufficient. From your own link:
"You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as 'any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.' This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian."
Do you not bother to read your own links?
The short form of the COLB is enough to prove Hawaiian birth. It doesn't prove Hawaiian ancestry.
Last time I checked, Hawaiian ancestry is not a qualification to become president.
Your main points were that the COLB is not enough to prove birth in Hawaii. I refuted that decisively.
It is you who are not reading, while you try to change the subject. Neither form by itself is adequate to prove Hawaiian ancestry. Additional certified birth certificates are required to obtain a lease. From the page I linked above:
You will need the certified birth certificates for:So Certifications of Live Birth are not accepted as adequate identification for relatives, either. Odd, since according to you, they are always accepted as proof of Hawaiian birth. If you were correct, COLBs from all parties should be sufficient proof of ancestry. The Hawaiian Department of Home Lands seems to disagree.* Yourself
* Your biological father; and
* Your biological mother
The question you relentlessly refuse to answer remains the same: Why should second-rate documentation be accepted, when first-rate documentation should be so easily available? Answer that convincingly and I'll happily give you your "gotcha."
LOL. I'm trying to change the subject? LOL.
Since when were we talking about ancestry? We're talking about birth.
Any court, and any government agency accepts the COLB as proof of birth in the United States.
The only reason the Dept. of Home lands doesn't accept the COLB is because it needs proof of ancestry, not just birth.
That is a fact that you are unable to refute, my friend.
The only reason the Dept. of Home lands doesn't accept the COLB is because it needs proof of ancestry, not just birth.
Then why aren't the parents of the applicant for the lease permitted to provide COLBs? Their ancestry is not in question.
You have presented no proof that COLBs always show the correct birth locations for children born to Hawaiian mothers abroad. You don't answer the question of why Obama has not provided the best available documentation of his birth, which is the long-form birth certificate or another document that underlies the COLB.
Anyone interested in this issue should start here.
I would love to be convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, but your gratuitous assertions don't get me there.
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.
