Barack Obama Birth Certificate is not real.

Forgive me for rehashing this if anybody is tired of reading it, but I finally did all of the research for myself, and have some info you may not have seen.

Barack Obama has never shown his birth certificate. Allow me to explain. A "certification" of live birth is a copy document, accessible by the public, or government agencies, and usually a relatively legally acceptable document in most scenarios. You can use it at the DMV, or to get a passport.

A "Certificate" of live birth is the actual document itself, created on the day/moment of the event, and it is a hospital-maintained record in most cases, accessible only by immediate family and the person for whom it was issued.

This image is a fraud, plain and simple. There is no state seal, no Registrar's signature, and only a vague June 2007 stamp on the reverse side. Both the signature and seal are easily visible in any photocopy, and are deliberately so. The artifacts surrounding the text are clear photoshop work. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, probably some overzealous aide generated it from a viewing of the regular document.

This is an image from Factcheck.org of what the website put out, excpet here we have an actual photograph, in high resolution, proving the website document a forgery. Notice, this document has the necessary seals and signatures:

This is, at least, a real document from the State Records office. It is still not an actual copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. The State seal and signature on this document certify to all viewers that this document was created by an actual State Agency, is not a forgery, and that the State of Hawaii accept it as a legal and valid document.

Both of these were offered up as "Birth Cretificates" when they are in fact legally-acceptable substitutes for the real thing. In most cases, this is not a big deal. However, in the case of a US President, I believe they are a VERY big deal.

An actual Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii, through the 1960s, looks like this:

http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

They are very specific about that, and there are boxes for the location, be it hospital, home, foreign country or otherwise.

This is the document that has been sealed by the Governor of Hawaii in 2008, in a special action that affected only Obama's Birth Certificate.

Because, I suspect, there is information on it which would directly contradict public statements about his birth and begin unraveling a number of lies told to the public about his true origin, and raise serious questions about his eligibility.

His sister, and Grandmother in Kenya have both spoken publicly, and made statements about his locale of birth that contradict his own statements.

What reason on earth would you have for asking the Governor of Hawaii to hide this document on your behalf?

Again, you fail to grasp the law and the concept of “original intent”.

I you bothered to read my previous posts with care, I said that I thought that Biden could make a case for his eligibility and his subsequent election.

The 20th Amendment provides that the Vice President Elect shall act as the caretaker President until a new President qualifies.

Presumptively, and based on “original intent”, Obama would be disqualified based on Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

Presumptively, and based on “original intent” ALL of his popular votes would necessarily be null and void since Obama did NOT participate in the election.

The election would then be based on the remaining candidates in the pool. All of McCain’s electors would then be seated since he had the highest number of qualified votes in each state.

I get the feeling that you DON’T want to accept this premise - for reasons, I know not why.

I agree, this WHOLE situation sucks. I can accept Obama, but ONLY if he won fair and square. If not - he needs to go.

Think of it as an ineligible athlete winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics (like underage Chinese gymnasts?). If proved ineligible, they don’t keep their medal simply because the judges (in our case, the voters) gave him or her the highest score.

Sorry, but I disagree. Section 3 states if the President-elect is unable to fullfill his term the Vice-President elect would take over. The candidate doesn’t become the President-elect until after the Electors have voted.

I think Article 2 is more appropriate:

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I am jumping on you - I'm not. This is lengthy - sorry ...

We are in uncharted waters here. This is where SCOTUS needs to man up and take charge - it could be one of its finest hours.

Constitutional issues like these come along sparingly. I can only think of 7 in the last 60 years (Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon, Bush v. Gore, and now Berg v. Obama).

The Founding Fathers never envisioned this - honorable men did not do dishonorable things in their time.

In this case, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 is clear:

“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 ...”

The Founding Fathers never envisioned this possible problem - honorable men did not do dishonorable things. They also knew each other pretty well and knew who had been born, when, and where (Chief Justice John Marshall swore in his second cousin, Thomas Jefferson - I assume he knew Jefferson's particulars).

They could not enumerate ALL possible scenarios in the Constitution, so they included Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 that empowered Congress to enact laws not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

A specific law was never enacted by Congress to verify office seeker's eligibility - and thats where we are now ...

SCOTUS has to look to the Constitution during these crises and determine the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

In this case, they CLEARLY DID NOT want a non natural-born citizen as President.

SCOTUS also needs to exercise common sense. Remember, one justice said, “I don't know what pornography is - but I know it when I see it.”

In this case, the facts are pretty clear - you must be a natural born citizen.

The issues to be decided are standing - who has it? I submit that, in this case, the United States has standing via the Constitution and that any citizen can bring it before SCOTUS.

There are also 14th Amendment Equal Protection issues, that the losing contestants were denied due process.

IMHO, SCOTUS should act for the United States and compel production of Obama’s birth certificate.

Assuming Obama is disqualified, The final question is remedy.

I suppose the fairest thing would be to order a new election with a new Democratic candidate, but that would in and of itself present problems. It would take time and cost a lot of money.

It would also likely necessitate Continuity Of Government, with Bush's term extended until the new election. Probably with the proviso that no new laws be enacted in the interim.

However, this scenario is IMPRACTICAL! The next scenario is the least complicated ...and this is where common sense (along with original intent)comes in again ...

It seems to me that, once disqualified, a candidate must be deemed NOT to have participated in the election. YES, 55+ million votes would be disenfranchised - they can go and bitch at Obama.

The original election would then be decided on the basis of the remaining qualified candidates. In this case, McCain would be POTUS.

The final problem would be Biden - would his election as VP be declared valid? I suspect so. Otherwise, his 14th Amendment rights would be denied. However, if his election was declared null and void as part of the Obama/Biden ticket, Palin would be VP.

Now, I know that there is the question of the 20th Amendment - would Biden serve as acting President for a while and how would the next qualified POTUS be chosen.

I think that SCOTUS would probably have skirt this issue and declare that the 20th did NOT apply in this extreme circumstance, due to the actions of an ineligible candidate.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

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.