Posted on 10/03/2008 8:51:01 AM PDT by bonnieblue4me
LOL! Well-played, and likely accurate.
There is nothing in the Constitution or the statutes which prevents anyone from running for or otherwise seeking the office.
***But there is fraud involved in collecting money towards that endeavor and knocking out an eligible contender.
Perhaps they are making the point that a certificate of birth is issued by the hospital and signed by the attending physician. Just guessing.
Okay, here’s my second attempt at answering this post. This time it’ll be more abbreviated.
And I just happen to think that the claims made by Berg in his lawsuit make the birth certificate a non-issue
***You’re straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Berg has stated publicly that he’d withdraw the lawsuit if a valid copy of the BC were produced, as I posted to you. That’s one good way to piss off a judge is to not follow through on a publicly stated promise to drop a lawsuit.
But Berg argues that his Indonesian citizenship trumps whatever status he may have had as “natural born” by being born in Hawaii.
***See previous paragraph.
But I haven’t seen any evidence that he was born in Kenya.
***There was a Kenyan birth certificate posted on FR, statements by relatives that he was born in Kenya. Unfortunately, Berg bought into a red herring when he suggested a Canadian birth — note the birth certificate was signed by Dudley Dooright. So, his case has huge holes in it, and the fact you’re focusing on this small matter compared to the real big stuff is quizzical, especially when it gets pointed out to you that Berg will drop the suit.
So if I am trying to steer the conversation to Berg, it’s only because that’s what I was led to believe this conversation was about.
***OK, I wasn’t clear on this point. You’re trying to steer the conversation to this minor little thing in Berg’s lawsuit which is subordinate to the birth certificate, even by Berg’s public statements. So you’re trying to steer the conversation to this minor point, casually overlooking at least one huge major point along your path.
Second, I can’t answer that question. Nor do I see that anyone but Obama can answer that question. Anything else is just speculation. And speculation doesn’t get one any closer to any meaningful answer so I don’t see the point.
***You’re speculating on this minor legal point about Indonesian dual citizenship trumping the birth certificate, even though Berg has stated publicly that he’d drop the suit if a BC were produced. When I ask questions along these lines, I acknowledge that I’m trying to figure out your underlying motive. What is your motive, when you swallow the camel of Dudley Dooright and Berg’s public statements but strain at a gnat of Indonesian dual citizenship?
Note that that is not what was said.
First, here's what the author wrote:
Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.
And here is what Berg is actually quoted saying:
"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."
First note that the author says "...authorized proof of citizenship..." A birth certificate is not necessarily proof of citizenship. Remember, Berg claims that Obama lost whatever US citizenship he had when his mother married Soetoro and they moved to Indonesia where Obama became an Indonesian citizen.
Second not that Berg says "...these documents..." A simple birth certificate is not a "these documents." If Berg were saying he'd drop the suit if Obama simply provided his birth certificate, he would have said "the document."
But he didn't say that because he's not asking just for Obama's birth certificate. The "these documents" he is referring to with regard to dropping the case are:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship;
3. A certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.
And the reason Berg is demanding these other documents is because he claims that Obama lost his US citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen when his mother married Soetoro and they moved to Indonesia.
Which means, as I have said, and even Berg himself has said, that a Hawaiian birth certificate is meaningless as it does nothing to change Berg's claim of Obama's Indonesian citizenship.
So the notion that Berg will drop this case if Obama produces his birth certificate is simply incorrect and not in keeping with what Berg is quoted as saying above or what he states in his lawsuit.
But that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Which was that neither the Constitution nor federal statutes restrict who may seek the office of President. Only who may hold that office.
But that's not what Berg stated in the article you posted, as I have pointed out to you.
So, his case has huge holes in it, and the fact you’re focusing on this small matter compared to the real big stuff is quizzical, especially when it gets pointed out to you that Berg will drop the suit.
No, it is you who is focusing on a small matter compared to the real big stuff.
Again, Berg did not say he would drop the suit if Obama simply produced a Hawaiian birth certificate. You keep overlooking the "real big stuff" of Berg's claiming that Obama lost whatever US citizenship he had when his mother married Soetoro and moved to Indonesia where Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship.
And this is precisely why Berg is asking for more than just a Hawaiian birth certificate as you keep trying to claim, but also a certified copies of his certification of citizenship and his oath of allegiance.
OK, I wasn’t clear on this point. You’re trying to steer the conversation to this minor little thing in Berg’s lawsuit which is subordinate to the birth certificate, even by Berg’s public statements.
You haven't shown me a public statement made by Berg in which he says he will drop the suit if all Obama does is produce his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Berg himself says it wouldn't matter if he does due to Berg's claim of Indonesian citizenship.
You’re speculating on this minor legal point about Indonesian dual citizenship trumping the birth certificate...
I'm not speculating at all on that point. Berg lays it out in clear black and white. Here it is again in case you missed it the first couple of times around:
Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband.
This says in unequivocal terms that Obama's producing a Hawaiian birth certificate would ultimately be irrelevant to his case as it would have absolutely no bearing at all on his claims with regard to Indonesian citizenship.
What is your motive, when you swallow the camel of Dudley Dooright and Berg’s public statements but strain at a gnat of Indonesian dual citizenship?
And I would ask what is your motive when you misrepresent what Berg has said publicly, and completely ignore what he has said in his own lawsuit?
OK, I think maybe in your roundabout way, you’ve made an interesting case here. I don’t trust Berg so it matters little to me.
Here’s what I’ll do. Polarik is in touch with Berg, his analysis is on the website. We’ll ask Polarik to have Berg clarify this little minor teensy weensy point.
If what you say is correct, then Berg will lose all support from PUMA and us right wingers as well as a pissed off judge, so he would find it a very bumpy road should he be parsing his words on this item.
And I would ask what is your motive when you misrepresent what Berg has said publicly, and completely ignore what he has said in his own lawsuit?
***You first, newbie.
Don't you think a public statement by Berg himself would be better? Then there can be no question.
If what you say is correct, then Berg will lose all support from PUMA and us right wingers as well as a pissed off judge, so he would find it a very bumpy road should he be parsing his words on this item.
Sad to say, but Berg's worst enemy seems to be Berg himself.
Peerless says, "Hold" ultimately comes from the word "to" as it was used in Article II.
I maybe a little drunk at the moment but this guy doesn’t know the difference between the words ‘to’ and ‘hold.’
He needs to go away. As he is trying to put it “it depends on the meaning of word ‘to’”
You can read all his posts and stuff but this is his whole argument in a nut shell.
As he puts it:
“So it's quite clear.." that he needs to go away.
"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.
"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.
Here Berg demonstrates that he has little understanding of the Constitution he says he wants enforced.
The most salient portion of the above is Berg's saying "...there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs..."
Berg seems to not understand that the federal government has no say as to who may run. Who may run is entirely a state issue.
To understand why this is the case, you have to understand that we do not directly elect the President in the United States. Instead, the President is elected by the electors who make up the Electoral College. And the appointment of those electors is left, by the Constitution, to the legislatures of the various states.
From Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.
While not required to, all of the state legislatures have chosen to have their electors appointed by way of popular vote for those candidates whose names appear on their state ballots.
So, if you wish to run for the office of President, you don't go to the federal government and say "I'd like to run for President. What do I have to do in order to qualify to be on the ballot?"
Instead, you have to go to each state and tell THEM "I'd like to run for President. What do I have to do in order to qualify to be on your ballot?"
There isn't a singular federal system as Berg implies, but instead there are 51 state systems (the 1 includes DC, which isn't a state but gets three electoral votes). And each state's legislature decides what the qualifications are to appear on each state's ballot. Not the Constitution or any federal laws.
The Constitution explicitly, and without any restrictions, leaves the appointment of electors up to each state.
And it is within the power of each state to establish the qualifications for being on the state ballot, which can include that a candidate meet the eligibility requirements of Article II.
At least one state, Texas, includes this qualification in their state election laws.
Anyway, the point here is that Berg doesn't seem to understand any of this.
No, the problem isn't that I don't understand the difference between the words "to" and "hold." The problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "to" as it relates to Article II.
I've provided the definition. Which to repeat means to serve as, or in the capacity of.
Are you seriously arguing that to serve as President, or to be in the capacity of President is not synonymous with holding or otherwise occupying the office of President?
Yes, he’s peerless in his annoyance but he at least is knowledgeable. He makes some interesting points. I say let’s keep him. We need more knowledgeable freepers, and we shouldn’t be getting rid of smart newbies just because we disagree with them.
What does she mean by "it was not used"? What was not used?
Thank you for the kind words, but if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is my annoyance? All I've done is try and express my thoughts and opinions as simply and straightforward as possible. I haven't insulted anyone or called anyone names. So what's the annoyance?
Peerless says, "Hold" ultimately comes from the word "to" as it was used in Article II."
Well, my annoyance is in the focus on the straining at the gnat while swallowing a camel. I was also annoyed by your request for proof. Lotsa vectors pointed towards troll, with your new startup date & attitude. But as long as you know what you’re talking about, you’ll most likely be allowed to stick around. I can’t speak for others’ annoyance, but I know it’s there. Freepers are often generally annoyed by a newbie with a showoff attitude and a big mouth. But just keep answering and you’ll withstand any harsh wind coming your way. If you were a post & run troll, you’d be paved by now.
So... answer the question about your motives, newbie.
I'm sorry, but I'm not connecting that to "It was not used she says." What was not used?
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.