Can't we just MoveOn.org?
It is not just his birth place. Per Article II of the constitution you are a “natural born citizen” if both of your parents (father and mother) are natural born citizens or US citizens or naturalized citizens and you yourself are born in the US or US territories. Barack Obama senior (if that is the father) was not a US Citizen- he was in the US on student visa. Stanly Anne Dunham could have given birth to baby Obama or baby Barry right in the Oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and still Mr. Obama will not be eligible to be President per Article II, period.
Let’s hope that our Supreme Court will look at legality of this issue and not the practically of it and side with the constitution. And let’s hope that the law of the land, the US Constitution, that has survived several wars in our history, depression, terrorist attack, natural disasters, civil unrest, etc will survive the fraud by one man.
If he indeed has documentary evidence that his fills the requirements of the Constitution, fine and dandy with me -- I will not feel any negative for insisting that he demonstrate he complies. I take issue with your opinion here, however, in that if he DOES NOT fill the requirements, yet is allowed to hold the office, ignore a portion of the Constitution at his whim even when challenged, then it sets the precedent that ANY citizen may ignore ANY portion of the Constitution at HIS whim. No court, local, state, federal, Supreme, can allow this precedent to be set, IMHO.
Can't we just MoveOn.org?
Wrong. The burden is on Barack Obama to prove that he's constitutionally qualified to serve as President. This is not a criminal case. This is the base requirement to be President.
If he fails to prove it, the burden then falls on every elected official, every Elector, every judge, to keep their sworn oath and keep him out of office. He can't be President if he's not a natural born citizen.
mark
So far as the puppeteers hold sway, they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. 0bama could kill someone and still be sworn in........it's worked for Teddy, hasn't it.
If the President-elect happens to tell lies on a legal document- or has dealt in lies, I wonder what will be the attitude of the MSM? I understand on his application to the legal system as lawyer, he stated he was not known by any name other than Barack Hossain Obama. Just a minor detail though, I will concede.
I can hardly wait for those two men, Woodward and Bernstein to get going (sarcasm).
Nobody's really gotten to the bottom of the evidence that Obama was born elsewhere either.
Here's what I was able to find out earlier:
__________________
There may be less in this than people thought. Sarah Obama, the step-grandmother, is 85 years old and doesn't speak English.
She said he was a "son of the village," or that's how the BBC translated it. It's been argued that she said "native of the village," meaning he was born there. That's possible, I guess, but how many people have gotten to the bottom of this? How many people have the language skill to figure it out?
One youtube clip claimed that finding the root "nat" for "to be born" in what she said showed how simple the translation was. But her language doesn't have Latin or Indo-European roots. And even in English we tend to through words like "native" around loosely.
On another clip, the interviewer is the one concerned with establishing that Barack Obama was born in Mombassa. Sarah Obama doesn't have much to say about it. You could argue that family members shut her up or that the translator wouldn't translate, but it's also possible that she really didn't have much or anything to say about where Obama (who isn't actually her grandson, but her late husband's, presumably) was born.
__________________
So all that is pretty shaky. Obama is a "son of Chicago" as well, but that doesn't mean he was born there. Where is this supposed birth certificate from Mombassa? Can we see that?
If Sarah Obama said that Barack was born in the village it would be shaky evidence -- so many of the things she's said look more mythological than factual -- but where's the hard proof that that's what she actually said? What's the real evidence at the bottom of all the speculation?
Still, the fact that Obama doesn't release his papers can only feed speculation that he has something to hide.
The individuals bringing these suits, if heard, will be able to subpoena documents and witnesses. This is the only way, absent a guilty plea, anyone presents evidence in court. No one will be forcing Obama to prove himself a citizen.
Point three is moot.
I've pinged Jim Robinson, the Master, on this denigration of Free Republic, on a half dozen occasions......but he seems to be content to let this site become a laughingstock by allowing all this conspiracy crap to continue. Damn shame, it is.
I am not hoping for any particular outcome except that the Constitutional mandate is upheld and the truth is exposed.
I will support those who question the legal status of Obama until his right to the office is verified.
Like any law and what is written in the Constitution, there may be a deal of research and considered opinions about the various amendments to come. Eventually there will be a hard and fast requirement for anyone who then puts their name forward on a ballot for the Presidency.
There is a silver lining to this whole business. Thank heaven for the First Amendment to the Constitution. Nobody can stop us discussing this subject. Even the screaming, jeering, "stop it, stop it, enough already" ninnies of the left. I am referring to the other websites.
To me the whole purpose of the Constitutional birth requirement was about mistrust. Is there anything rational in suggesting that a Finnish-born Professor with 10 Phds is not okay, but a Virginia-born drunken illiterate who works in a donkey-stable instead is?
What was in question was loyalty, trust. And wouldn’t you know it, those who love America now question Obama. The Constitution was prescient.
Trust, it’s all about trust. Obama is betraying the spirit of the constitution. It’s not even really a legal-logical issue, but a moral one. The man is keeping something as easy as 1+1=2 locked up as if it were the Coca-Cola formula. Many are debating pixels, the worthiness of COLBS, but as there is no real hard logic in the particular constitutional provision, (and the founding fathers must’ve known it) it is the spirit of it that must count. And the spirit of it is to be mistrustful, because whereas a foreign born can be even better mentally-equipped to serve as president it is more likely (though of course not certain) that his loyalties might not be right.
I cannot read anything else into the provision than mistrust. That’s the spirit of it and IMHO that’s what the supremes should consider and consequently demand to see the original BC.
But I’m not sitting on a bench in Washington. In fact I’m not even American.
Well, O.J. Simpson got off but became synonymous with “Travesty of Justice”... I fear that Obama will get off as well... but as far as I’m concerned, he will always be Mr. Coca-Cola-Formula Birth Certificate. He has already betrayed TRUST. If not the letter of the Constitution, certainly the spirit of it.
Nobody in his right mind retains the services of expensive law firms to hide 1+1=2. Nobody, nowhere, no how!
Read the inaugural addresses of the past presidents, all of them, Republican and Democrat alike, and all talk about extra-judicial things like courage, honor, charity, goodness, hope, new visions, etc.
When he’s sworn in, let Obama just make his oath and be gone, because he has no right to go beyond the letter of the law. Let him read the condominium rules for the State of Kansas.
The country wanted a leader of men and got itself a client of lawyers.