Posted on 07/27/2008 6:54:26 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
Although it is just a copy, Obama's birth certificate is invalid due to one simple fact -- it is incomplete. Without the certificate number, there is no way that it can be validated.
Such a certificate can have really be anything, including:
- Never having been a certificate at all
- Being dated long after the birth occurred
- Having a fraudulent certificate number
- Having a certificate number that is inconsistent with other information on the certificate
- Having a certificate number that invalidates the rest of the document (inconsistent with dates, etc.)
Why was this information blacked out?
Only Obama and perhaps his closest advisors probably know.
How could there be any danger in disclosing it?
If the number was valid, it would be tied to the original document that should agree with everything that is on the copy. Since Hawaii will only release this to the individual or the next of kin, there is nothing to be lost by providing this number.
Unless......you are hiding something, or something on the copy is inconsistent with the original.
Therefore, even with all the excellent work done by Techdude and others, the copy provided is invalid in that information, the certificate number, was removed by blacking it out. End of discussion.
Just to refresh your recollection, the suits against McCain were actually suits against the state officers who certify election results, seeking an order directing the officer to decertify the delegates it has certified to the National Convention as elected.
Those suits were timely filed promptly after the election results were certified so that there was enough time to force answers and deal with motions to dismiss before the convention. And even then, one of those actions has been dismissed on what I believe are procedural grounds.
Too late to use that remedy against Obama.
It frankly does not occur to me that there is a direct effective remedy in court prior to the convention although I am not a conclusive authority on that issue. Most of the obvious ideas would see the judge dismiss the case for lack of a case or controversy--because the real party in interest might not get the nomination or might not get elected.
The real remedy is to spend the money to get the facts and demonstrate the capability to run a real lawsuit challenging the candidate--probably in a suit to kick the electors off the ballot on a state by state basis. The case is enhanced if both candidates are alleged to be ineligible on the same grounds because the voter then has no real choice.
It may be that a state v. state suit, on an equal protection theory like Bush v. Gore could be started with original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. I am not a procedural expert and I think if a serious legal effort is to be started, one would start in DC with counsel who has addressed these kinds of questions.
In this context, $75,000 is a drop in the bucket. If I had access to a couple of million dollars today, and could afford to spend full time working on the problem, I could probably mount an effective attack by the end of the year.
The good news is that there are in fact several parties out there who perceive they have an interest in the issue who do have access to that kind of money. So you can hope that one or more of them will step up.
The hope would be enhanced by some additional facts: Is the birth announcement in the newspaper on August 13, 1961 reflected by other newspapers? With additional facts? Who does the Hawaii title company say owned the property at the published address on August 13, 1961? What do the Kenya records on file in Salt Lake City Utah with the genealogy library disclose: Birth in Kenya of Obama in the period between July 15, 1961 and August 10, 1961; marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama in the period between January 1, 1961 and April 30, 1961?
Those facts are still out there and available--and would help support the argument that the case merits investment of significant money.
I never said anything about Hawaii’s being a territory. I know Hawaii was a state in 1961.
If Barack was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural-born citizen.
If he was born OUTSIDE the U.S., then he is not a natural-born citizen.
This is an important story as to both McCain and Obama.
First place, all that passed was a "sense of the Senate" resolution--in effect a direction from the Senate to the Supreme Court how to rule if the issue reaches the Court. Usually, those kinds of directions are not only ignored, the Court views them antagonistically.
The origin of that resolution was one of three bills originally intended to be actual legislation. Although the bills were introduced by Clare McKaskill (Senator from Missouri), a pal of Obama, as indicated by the two part analysis of the legal presented over the weekend by Texas Darlin (Banjamin's article), the bill originated with Obama.
And as originally presented by Obama, the bill not only addressed McCain's situation, it addressed the eligibility under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of any citizen who was born outside the US--ie, Obama's problem.
In short, it is a reasonable inference that Obama has been engaged for many years in an intentional fraudulent effort to conceal the true circumstances of his birth for exactly the reasons on the table here.
Reason the bill didn't pass and became just a self-serving resolution was because legal advice was that the bill would not be effective to control the Constitution anyway.
People who question McCain’s eligibility are concerned citizens who care deeply about our Constitution. People who question Milhouse’s eligibility are divisive, paranoid, racist wackos.
Why can’t I, a citizen of the USA, ask for the authentic birth certificate of a candidate for the highest office of said country? I don’t get it.
the question becomes WHY would they prefer to obfuscate rather than playing it straight?
I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t know, I’m sorry if my post read that way. I agree with you about an individual born outside the US. I find it odd obama and his handlers felt the need to show a false BC.
You can. But he has no legal obligation to deliver it. And therefore, you have no access to legal process to force him to deliver when he ignores your request.
You ought to be able to make a political issue of the question--the press ought to say, as it does with respect to other issues, why shouldn't he deliver up a copy. But here, the press isn't going to help you because members of the press understand clearly why you would be after it and oppose your objective.
But, if enough people develop enough public interest in the issue that it becomes a topic, the press will be forced to consider helping you.
Further, if Obama is in fact elected (or even if McCain is elected), there is almost certain to be a Constitutional Crisis. Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 is couched in terms of "eligibility" to hold the office. Either one of these guys, if elected, is subject to question as to his eligibility to act as President.
So every act--every time he signs a bill; there will be a legal objection to the validity of the act. And someone will have a vested economic interest that justifies spending money on federal court litigation to challenge the act. I don't think the establishment will let this issue get that far. I might be wrong.
So according to this logic, if both parents of a child are under 23, that child is ineligible to be president. Or if one parent is under 23 and the other isn't a US citizen (or was naturalized). Or if the parents are over 23 but spent some time abroad after their 16th birthday.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html
Sec. 1101. - Definitions
(a) (22) The term ''national of the United States'' means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent [but not necessarily exclusive] allegiance to the United States.
Of course all this only applies if one of the parents is not a US citizen. If both are, then as long as the birth is registered with the US consulate or embassy abroad, it is just as if the child was born in the US
Current law is different for birth abroad to one US citizen
For those born after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
2. The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child’s birth; and
3. At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
In 2005, billionaire investor and principal Obama supporter, George Soros, convened a group of 70 super-rich liberal donors in Phoenix to evaluate why their efforts to defeat President Bush had failed. One conclusion was that they needed to step up their long-term efforts to dominate key battleground states. The donors formed a group called Democracy Alliance to make grants in four areas: media, ideas, leadership and civic engagement. Since then, Democracy Alliance partners have donated over $100 million to key progressive organizations.
On January 26, 2007, George Soros, who gave $18 million to Democratic advocacy groups seeking to defeat President Bush in 2004, said he is supporting Barack Obama.
Two weeks later, on February 10th, Obama, standing in front of a cheering crowd, formally announces he is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America.
George Soros financed MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org founder David Axelrod helped the state senator win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as Strategist and Media Adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign. He is Obama’s Karl Rove.
Not necessarily. That's just an argument that "natural born citizen" in Article II, Sec. 1, par. 4 of the US Constitution means citizen when born--that it does not include a Constitutional test other than citizenship.
That is probably not the law.
I should have been more clear on that. I was meaning to say that the child would not be a “naturalized” citizen. His citizenship would have been established at time of birth according to section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
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.