Posted on 12/03/2008 8:14:35 AM PST by Scythian
This birth certificate issue has been going on for some time now and for those hoping for some kind of dramatic outcome you are in for another big disappointment.
First, there is always the chance that there is a valid birth certificate proving Obama to be a US citizen.
Second, enough time has passed such that the Obama cult has manufactured and installed a phony certificate that will re-route us back up to option 1 above, he will have a valid certificate. Who do you think works in these kinds of government offices? They're all democrats.
Third, no court is going to force Obama to prove himself to be a citizen, the burden is on those making the accusation that he is not a citizen. A criminal doesn't have to prove he didn't commit a crime, the state has to prove that he did.
=================================
Flame on, and sorry for the Vanity, but this is driving me nutz, this issue gets my hopes up but then common sense dashes my hope on the rocks, and this now is a daily occurrence. You are going to find a valid certificate at the end of this road if you are lucky enough to get a judge to demand it, and that is very unlikely, whether the certificate be real or phony it won't matter, and will never be able to proven either way.
If thegovernment is accusing you of a crime, yes, the burden of proof is on the State.
Obama is NOT being accused of a CRIME. The question, and I repeat for your benefit, is one of whether he meets the qualifications for the job. If there was doubt over whether he met the age requirement, wouldn't he have to show he was old enough? Well, now, the age requirement is specified in the Constitution too, right along with being a Natural Born Citizen.
This is not a criminal trial, but a finding of fact.
Any allegations of criminal behaviour would have to be dealt with separately. In short, Obama is not on trial, here, but the responsibility for vetting him in re his Constitutional qualifacations for the job has been passed from court to court and has ended up at the US Supreme Court.
It’s items D and G that have Freepers gabbing. Why did zer0bama try to have the definition expanded if he was so confident he’s natural born?
correction on post, it is #174, not 204 where I quoted the current law.
If he believes he is natural born based on A, then he would not to expand the definition of D or G. D or G only apply if we assume he was born in Kenya. If he was born in Kenya, D or G may apply. If he was born in Hawaii, A trumps all of them.
Which is just Donofrio's claim of what natural-born means, nothing more.
If Obama really had a forged copy on file in the gov’s office then he would have ponied up his “Birth certificate” already in one of the court cases. You don’t spend a million bucks unless you have something serious to hide.
***He does have something serious to hide, because a forgery could get found out. So he has to run out the clock as much as he can, hoping that he gets inaugurated first. After that, it will be much more difficult to deal with this on a constitutional level.
No, the 1790 law was repealed and a new provision stipulated. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141554/posts
I keep reading this contention posted throughout these threads ... would you kindly tell me just what you or the other members of FR who are typing opinions on a keyboard should/would have done as regards "focusing on BHO's nominees and bailout plans"?? Were you considering a run for the House, Senate but couldn't manage it? Did you spend too much time reading and typing and not out walking a precinct for a candidate who might block a proposed piece of legislation or nominee?? How can it possibly be said that consideration of this issue has detracted from anyone "focusing" on the other issues involved, as though none of the rest of us are able to contemplate more than one issue at a time??
Serious with this, I'm wondering what the beef is with so many.
That is not what Article II says. It makes no mention of the requirements of citizenship for the President's parents.
See #174, the current provisions that trump all of them.. my comment on the 1790 law was just to point out that the definition of natural born has changed many times.
I’m not an in-the-tank-shouter. What is, is.
My position is that the socialist faction controls the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judicial must hold the line or the socialists will have won.
I intend to stay positive. I believe in America - strongly. I believe in the goodness that underlies all this garbage. I believe in the Constitution.
Troll, are you telling me you are too stupid to even understand that the Electoral College is the real understanding? GTFOutta here if you can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the Constitution.
there is no exit clause except: death, resignation or impeachment.
Perhaps you should go study again .... 25th Amendment Section 4. There are PLENTY of ways to take down a President.
True, backed by solid legal argument, precedence, and language found in the Constitution.
We’re workin’ on it Kev!
Hey n00b, we tend to take seriously the opinion of a man who shows the facts from the law and case work. Go read a little before you expose any more of your agenda: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141554/posts
No, the 1790 law was voided in 1792. And you are correct, if in fact this little Marxist Chicago squirrel was born in Hawai’i we are stuck with that and arguing his father’s citizenship meant he held at birth a dual citizenship by his own admission.
What is in post #174 is the 1952 forward current provisions. The comment about the 1790 law was just a random example of how it changes.
What’s funny about this COLB is where it states the father’s race is African. Whoever forged this is either pretty dumb or is way too nostalgic for the motherland.
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.