Posted on 07/22/2009 10:22:50 PM PDT by TheFreedomPoster
LISTEN TO LOU DOBBS SAY THAT OBAMA HAS NO PROOF OF A VALID BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
(Excerpt) Read more at myfreedompost.com ...
You asked — I have a question about that COLB. Wasn’t it proven to be a fake? Libs are constantly bringing it up as proof positive, cite Snopes, and that’s the end of that, but I thought the person who created it, admitted it was fake.
—
As soon as that is submitted to a court, if a court ever demands it (but I doubt that they will since there is no legal requirement to produce one) — then at that time, I’ll be interested to find out what the court says about the legitimacy of that document.
At this time, I don’t consider a document on the Internet to be something that is worth being called “evidence”. It may be “information” but it’s certainly not evidence. I mean a person can put anything on the Internet, and in fact, I found out from another FReeper that McCains birth certificate that has circulated on the Internet is a fraud... LOL.. [i.e., McCain has never submitted his birth certificate to the public, therefore the one that is there, is a fraud...]
So, this would be evidence if it was submitted to a court or it was submitted as part of a legal requirement to produce one. And that’s why I’ve been saying that there needs to be state laws enacted which *legally requires* this be produced to state officials, or else a candidate cannot be placed on the ballot for that state.
The burden of proof for proving citizenship is on Obama. He can use whatever would legally and finally establish that fact.
You can parse that all you want to.
When I want to see what the “burden of proof” is, in real life, all I do is examine what was required of all candidates in the last few decades. That will give me the information for what was required for the “burden of proof”....
Now, if someone does *not think* that what has been practiced in real life by candidates over the last many decades is *sufficient* for that burden of proof — then that means that something is going to have to “be changed” in order to change that burden of proof as it has been done by all the candidates over the last many decades.
That means that you’re going to have to get a law passed that *specifies* exactly what “burden of proof” that one needs — which is different from what had already been done by the candidates over the past many decades.
There’s already been a law passed. It’s called Fraud, falsifying government documents, etc.
The questioned McCain’s eligibility in this very election and he put it to rest by providing his BC. Constitutionalists require nothing less of Obama. We aren’t asking him to do anything more than what McCain voluntarily did this election.
I guess he can invoke his 5A right to not incriminate himself, but since I believe he’s eligible, but feel like he ought to meet the same standard his opponent did in this election, he ought to put up the document or explain why he can’t.
You don’t need a law for that.
In fact, your premise is idiotic since the Constitution is clear on eligibility. Anyone with standing can challenge him on it, and the burden’s on Obama to satisfy it, even after the election. It’s why this Cook case was so important. They punted on it, but the first time an active duty set of orders gets challenged on the CINC NCA, they won’t be able to.
You said — There’s already been a law passed. It’s called Fraud, falsifying government documents, etc.
—
You’re right in regards to laws on fraud, and all one has to do is present evidence to District Attorney, and see if he thinks he can prosecute a person on fraud. Then if he thinks he can prosecute, the District Attorney will present it to a grand jury to get an indictment on the charge. And then with that they can go to trial and see if they can get a conviction.
Now..., that’s what is done for any citizen in the United States. But, we’re talking about a President and so — the Constitution specifies where charges are to be brought against a President, if he is to be removed from office. The charges are to be handled by the House of Representatives, and then they send it over to the Senate for a trial. The Senate will determine whether the President is guilty or not and if so, then he will be removed from office.
If the matter against a President is not something for which he will be removed from office, you’ll find that many times a legal matter will be put off by courts until the end of a President’s term (they’ll argue on these kinds of matters that it interferes with his duties in office). If it is a matter for removal from office, then it will be handled by the House and then the Senate.
Thanks for the replies and thoughts.
One thing concerning 0bama losing his ability to lead.
The election is over and those 10 million liberal voters are not as helpful as they were on that single day.
0bama must now deal with the House and Senate. They know that THEIR job could be on the line. 0bama has at best 8 years, they could have more.
thanks again
Well he did have the author as a mentor, ghost writer and neighbor didn't he? (oh yeah, he Denied that) :(
bump
“It is better to work on stopping his policies as best we can until the next elections.”
What about during leisure time? Is that ok?
You’d be right, but this goes to his eligibility to hold office. As such, he’ll be removed for lack of qualification.
You said — You’d be right, but this goes to his eligibility to hold office. As such, he’ll be removed for lack of qualification.
—
Then that means it heads to the House of Representatives...
Yeah, procedurally, but they’d have to remove him. If they didn’t, you’d have a constitutional crisis on their hands.
At that point, if he can’t prove his a natural born citizen, the military could and would refuse orders. They are there to uphold the Constitution, not the government.
At that point the NCA would be suspended - no one would have National Command Authority to launch nukes, empower the military chain of command, etc. Rather than force the JCS to make it up as they went along, you’d have to ensure the goverment kept the mess political.
That means the House would have to deal with it, or face the fact that the military might decide to have the man removed forcibly. Upon doing that, they’d ‘install’ Biden as President and declare that National Command Authority had been restored.
It shouldn’t come to that. The House would squawk, but in the end they’d have to can him. I think at this point there’d be quite a few aiming to help with the dumping.
Well, the trouble is, the House can’t do it. Only the Senate can...
The House “charges”...
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.