Posted on 10/03/2008 8:51:01 AM PDT by bonnieblue4me
Update on latest information from Berg v. Obama regarding eligibility for POTUS.
But when will Berg produce evidence that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Has he said?
Because he doesn't have to. How's that?
If Obama produces a valid Hawaiian birth certificate then this whole issue is over. He meets every requirement under Article II. Nothing in the Constitution prevents someone from being president if he/she holds dual citizenship. Nothing.
It's not "Washington," it's the US State Department. Which as I pointed out previously is part of the executive branch.
So are you saying that the Bush administration is in on this?
What's their motive? To keep McCain out of the White House? For what reason?
But Berg argues otherwise.
Berg argues that the issue goes to the intent of "natural born," i.e. that of preventing any sort of divided loyalty, and that having dual citizenship goes against such intent.
Obama has produced a birth certificate and posted it on his web site. He could just point to it, but he doesn’t because he knows it is a forgery. So he posted a forged birth certificate. Isn’t that fraud? Isn’t fraud illegal?
Is there some reason he cannot be prosecuted for this fraud?
Berg's statement:
"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."
that is what the court is to decide.
”I've only said that Berg's claim that Obama is or was an Indonesian citizen makes the birth certificate moot”
You tell me does Obama have an Indonesian citizenship or not?
If he does then he has a duel citizenship, and Burgs case is strong.
If not, then the case is just stupid.
Yes the State Department is part of the executive branch but Bush has not cleaned it up after Clinton administration that is how Bush got a lot of problems over the years. It was Bush’s number one biggest mistakes in his administration.
He never did learn from that mistake either, he still has Chris Cox which is a major screw up that was appointed by Clinton.
Ah. Fair enough.
Personally I don't believe there is anything for any court to decide at this point. At least not with respect to Obama and Article II.
Article II only states the qualifications to actually hold the office of President. There is nothing in the Constitution or the statutes which prevents anyone from running for or otherwise seeking the office. So Article II wouldn't become an issue until such time as Obama actually received the requisite number of electoral votes.
And even at that point, statute provides a mechanism for Congress to deal with this issue and the Twentieth Amendment addresses what is to happen should a President-elect be found to have failed to qualify.
So for a judge to step in at this point with regard to Article II would be for that judge to usurp the power of Congress.
It would be like a judge stepping in and declaring some piece of legislation unconstitutional before it was ever signed into law, which would turn the concept of separation of powers on its head.
However Berg is free to try and convince a judge otherwise.
You tell me does Obama have an Indonesian citizenship or not?
I don't know.
Given that the Clintons want to see Obama elected President about as much as the Bush administration wants to see Obama elected president, then it makes even less sense that the State Department would stonewall for Obama. ;)
Thank you.
Yes that is what the courts job is. It is called checks and balances. When congress is doing something not with in the law they are required to step in.
what are we doing going back to pre-school or something? What is wrong with you?
”It would be like a judge stepping in and declaring some piece of legislation unconstitutional before it was ever signed into law”
You have got to be kidding me? That isn’t an analogy at all. It would be more like getting a permit for something and someone questioning the permit that was granted.
You and I don't know if he has an Indonesian citizenship. Then if it is a question shouldn't we find out in order to make this a legal election?
The people on the left are not in the 'pockets' of the Clinton's they just lean towards the left and anything on the left.
I feel like I am talking to a pull string doll.
You're missing the point. Congress (and the President unless a veto was overridden) must first have actually enacted a law before the court can step in.
The court cannot step in and preempt any law from being enacted. They can only step in after the fact. As I said, to do otherwise would be to usurp the power of Congress which is empowered by the Constitution to legislate.
You have got to be kidding me? That isn’t an analogy at all. It would be more like getting a permit for something and someone questioning the permit that was granted.
No, it would indeed be like a judge stepping in and declaring some piece of legislation unconstitutional before it was ever signed into law. Because to continue with the analogy, nothing here is been signed into law. Or in other words, Obama has not received the requisite number of electoral votes which would trigger any issue with regard to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
At this point, we are only at Article II, Section 1, Clause 2. Which as per the Constitution, is a state issue, not a federal issue.
You and I don't know if he has an Indonesian citizenship. Then if it is a question shouldn't we find out in order to make this a legal election?
What do you mean by a "legal election"? As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution or the statutes which prohibits anyone from running for or otherwise seeking the office of President.
It only becomes a constitutional issue once someone actually receives the requisite number of electoral votes. And even if that happens, statute provides specific means for it to be dealt with by Congress.
So for a judge to step in at this point would, as I said, be a usurpation of the powers of Congress.
Did you miss the smiley face I placed at the end of the comment you're referring to here? That was put there to indicate that it was a joke, and not a serious argument.
according to that statement we can elect Putin. The law in question is as old as the country exists.
I am not going to look it up for you. I am sorry. I am confident without looking what defines who the president can be and when that needs to be checked.
Theoretically, yes.
Though first he would have to qualify to get on the ballots of enough states that he would be able to receive the requisite number of electoral votes.
Then, enough people in those states would have to vote for him in order have enough electors appointed.
Then, the votes of those electors would have to be accepted by Congress with no objections when the electoral votes are counted before that body on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December.
So theoretically, yes, we could elect Putin as President of the United States. Though it's rather unlikely.
The law in question is as old as the country exists.
Mostly, but not quite.
We legally became the United States of America when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. The Articles of Confederation had no such requirement for President. And in fact, the function of the office of President was rather different under the Articles of Confederation.
Anyway, Article II didn't come into play until the ratification of the Constitution of the United States in 1789.
So technically, our country is eight years older than Article II. Thirteen years older if you want to take it back to our declaration of independence. ;)
In any case, regardless of how old Article II is, it says the same thing today as it did in 1789. And that is that it only restricts eligibility to the office. Which means to actually hold that position.
There is nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes which prohibits anyone from running for or otherwise seeking the office.
You seem to be missing an important distinction here.
Who may hold the office of President and who may seek the office of President are not one and the same.
While Article II makes it clear what the requirements are to hold the office of President, there are no prohibitions as to who may seek the office of President.
And that's the distinction you seem to be missing here.
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.