Posted on 11/30/2008 7:24:51 AM PST by ckilmer
Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
When it comes to arrogance I’ll defer to your expertise in that area.
A state can’t force the electors in a FEDERAL election to do anything. I’m mean that’s the argument I’ve heard, and I do know that some 156 electors HAVE been faithless in the Electoral College vote.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm
According to Wikipedia “To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election. No faithless elector has ever been punished or charged with a crime.”
Yes, there is 1952’s Ray vs Blair. But just as Texas sodomy statutes got overturned after many precedents of US Law, why would not Ray vs Blair?
And since the "who is responsible for vetting" seems to have been left BY THE COURTS to the electors -- the electors have a DUTY to NOT vote Obama if they, individually, do not find him to be eligible. And that finding, by each one, is in my humble opinion -- not reviewable.
Unless you have something else to refute it, the implication behind their statement that they have the original copy of his birth certificate on file is that he was born in Hawaii.
No one ever suggested that his mother had Kenyan citizenship, until you just did by misinterpreting the conflated sentence in the ad.
Seems pretty clear to me. "In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen." Speaks of whatever Kenyan citizenship she or Obama may have. Never mind the fact that nobody has shown that she ever became an Indonesian citizen in the first place.
And I'm not sure how it is that you know that parents cannot make legal applications on behalf of their children.
U.S. Law. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1954. It details how a person, natural born or naturalized, can lose their citizenship. Long and short, a person has to do it on their own. Parent cannot do it for them. Look it up.
The simple fact is that most people who are merely renewing their drivers' licenses here in NJ where I live must produce a certified copy of their birth certificate.
I'm sure that's due to whatever New Jersey law governs applying for a drivers license. And if Obama ever applies for one I'll expect the state to enforce the law.
Obama should, and does have, to do the same to assume the office of President. Read the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
I have. And unless we're talking about different 20th Amendments you'll have to point out the part that requires Obama show his birth certificate. Failing that, point out the federal law specifying what person or agency is responsible for checking candidate credentials.
I applaud the group running this advertisement, and the Tribune for accepting it. The ad will certainly alert a larger group to the Constitutional problem which Barack Obama seems to wish to bring to our country.
I've no doubt that you do. But I pointed out that there is nothing new in any of the claims. What will the ad do that any of the law suits haven't? Those that haven't already been dismissed that is.
Your interpretation may not be correct.
You'll have to point out where the Constitution says that.
The take I read was that succession would go to the person who got the next highest number of votes for POTUS, that being McCain.
Impossible. McCain lost the election. Nothing in the Constitution changes that.
In order for the SCOTUS to rule that Obama was ineligible, they would have to rule in a way that would either make Biden legitimate or else make McCain legitimate.
Biden is legitimate, as is McCain. Regardless of Donofrio thinks.
And show me where in the 12th Amendment is says that the electors have to vote for a candidate who is eligible? "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..." That's the only restriction, one or the other candidates cannot be from the same state that the elector is casting the vote for. Nothing about casting votes for eligible candidates or certifying their citizenship. Obama could be dead, and the electors could still vote for him, and most likely would be expected to.
And once voting, their results are sent to the Senate for certification. And in there, according to the 12th Amendment, all they are supposed to do is certify the count. The whole purpose behind the 12th Amendment is to ensure the winning candidate has a majority of the electoral votes. Not determine eligibility, that's handled elsewhere. Obama has well over the required number of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment does not enter into the situation. If he is ineligible then the 20th Amendment handles that.
And since the "who is responsible for vetting" seems to have been left BY THE COURTS to the electors -- the electors have a DUTY to NOT vote Obama if they, individually, do not find him to be eligible. And that finding, by each one, is in my humble opinion -- not reviewable.
And please point out when and where the courts have done that?
And if they were from states with faithless elector laws they they could have been prosecuted. That's never happened to my knowledge but the laws are there, and none of them to my knowledge make exceptions.
Yes, there is 1952’s Ray vs Blair. But just as Texas sodomy statutes got overturned after many precedents of US Law, why would not Ray vs Blair?
Get it overturned and we'll talk.
(1) Common sense. The Constitution is clear as to what the requirements are, it is the duty of electors to inform themselves and make the finding for they are in the process at all only because of the Constitution.
(2) The courts have refused standing to citizens in these cases that challenge a candidate.
(omega) Big picture: “We, the People do hereby ...” is meaningful only as long as folks do not read it as “Somebody else has the duty to, but not me ...”.
We don't operate on your version of common sense. We don't base everything on what the electors think the Constitution means. We operate based on the rule of law. We expect the courts to interpret that law. And the law doesn't work the way you seem to think it should.
The courts have refused standing to citizens in these cases that challenge a candidate.
Because the citizens in question lacked legal standing to file the suit. Sorry if you think that's unfair but that's just the way it is.
Refer to Post 83.
Ok get real.
Yes Hawaii says thay have his BC on file. But anyone can get a BC in Hawaii as a record of birth. Even a non citizen can get a Hawaiin Cert of Birth. It does not mean it is valid.
If you think there is nothing to this, then why spend more than 800,000 dollars to keep it secret.
Answer that!
So if Obama appeared on the news tomorrow with his birth certificate, would you be saying, "Yeah but that doesn't prove he really, really was born there?" So why should he even bother?
If you think there is nothing to this, then why spend more than 800,000 dollars to keep it secret.
Because he can. And because as far as he's concerned he's proved his eligiblity so from his standpoint he's fighting nusance lawsuits.
I'm only reading the clear language there. I understand "interpretation", but I'm looking at the strict wording only.
He seems to be mixing the 12th and 20th Amendments together. The 12th Amendment doesn’t apply since Obama got more than 50 percent of the electoral votes. And the 20th does not limit the selection of an acting president or a replacement president to the candidates in the election.
You can't swear an oath to commit a crime, or even an oath to NOT uphold the Constitution. Why? Because such oaths go against the good order, they go against the very G-d we swear them to. And if we swear by something else beside our honor to be good, to be G-dly, what the heck is that oath? It is vain, nil, nothing -- empty.
Yet we can swear to uphold a contract, a promise, or a duty when those are honest and good duties. Then we bring the honor of G-d to our sides, our soul's honor. This gives us more inner strength to get through difficult tasks. What else is swearing of oaths for? It is only to draw up more spiritual strength and the hope of good guidance.
A righteous man or woman needs no oath to do a duty honestly. So it is that an honest elector who finds that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements by reason of defects in natural born citizenship, or age -- to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Obama meets them -- must withhold his or her vote.
The Presidency is no trifling matter -- to hold this office, questions as to qualifications must be resolved beyond any reasonable doubt. That is a solemn duty.
Clear language. OK, if Obama is found to be ineligible to be president after being sworn in on January 20th then "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President..." Per the 25th Amendment. Surely there is no dispute over that?
If it happens before January 20th then the 20th Amendment specifies what happens. Biden is acting president and Congress selects the president. Is there any doubt that the Democratic Congress wouldn't make Biden president?
So what does your clear language reading say?
Say what? Just how did you come to that conclusion? The Electoral College casts votes. They aren't a jury. They don't determine a candidate's eligibility. They cannot challenge a candidate or a vote, only Congress can do that. They vote. Period. That is the sum total of their Constitutional power.
You can't swear an oath to commit a crime, or even an oath to NOT uphold the Constitution. Why? Because such oaths go against the good order, they go against the very G-d we swear them to. And if we swear by something else beside our honor to be good, to be G-dly, what the heck is that oath? It is vain, nil, nothing -- empty.
Casting as vote for Obama may be a shame, but it's hardly a crime. Regardless of whether he's eligible or not.
Debbie Schlussel column about Obama’s Selective Service Registration raises questions:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
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.