Posted on 12/03/2008 8:24:39 AM PST by ckilmer
Originally posted: December 3, 2008 Another thought about the `Where was Obama born?' dispute In today's story, Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office The Tribune examines allegations about president-elect's 'natural born citizen' status , my colleagues Sara Olkon and James Janega methodically take apart the arguments presented by Robert L. Schulz, chairman of We The People Foundation, in Tribune ads this week. Here's one passage • Schulz says that "U.S. law in effect in 1961 [the year of Obama's birth] denied citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age." If a child is born ... to an American parent outside the U.S., the law at the time would require the U.S. citizen parent to be at least 19, which Obama's mother was not. The provisions of this law were subsequently loosened and made retroactive for government employees serving abroad and their families. It appears that this would not apply to Obama's mother. Olkon and Janega point out that "the matter would seem to be academic: Hawaiian officials vouch for Obama's birth certificate," but even if it were to turn out that Obama's mother was actually in Kenya when she gave birth to him, the age requirement was and is absurd and unjustifiable; easily remedied, if necessary, with the passage of a retroactive law smilar to the law that applied to "government employees serving abroad and their families." Schultz is deluded if he thinks the Congress -- even those in Congress who opposed Obama -- or the courts would stand by and allow to unfold the crisis that would ensue if Obama were denied the presidency on a technicality.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.chicagotribune.com ...
Very astute analysis. A+
That would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be impracticable and highly unlikely. Moreover, the amendment would have to be made retroactive, if that's possible.
Hah! The Lefty/Obamunist BIG GUNS are being drawn into the game!! Look, they don’t even acknowledge any of the factual information that has come forward. They have not advanced their game an inch since the first disclosures of this. Check the MEDIA MATTERS website for details! Check the AOL News Blog, they call you guys the “cult of Obama’s Birth Certificate”
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/03/the-cult-of-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/
They are trying to get their Obamunist trolls to call and harrass Rush et. al.
They are not dealing with the issues raised in the ads in a substantive way.u
You can't say this isn't enlightening, though.
We're told by journalists that citizenship laws are "technicalities" -- exactly the view of transnational progressives -- no borders, no countries, what's the diff?
On the other side of the aisle, Republican Senator Mel Martinez of Florida sends a canned response to email inquiries on this subject in which he references an opinion handed down by the US District Court, Eastern PA:
"The court...noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office." [and therefore] "The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President."
So, according to Martinez, whoever wins the most votes is therefore qualified. Who needs the Consitution when we have American Idol?
I don't know where he was born, and at this point, it's no longer the point. The piece of paper he wants everyone to believe proves his identity doesn't -- it could reflect exactly the information on his original birth certificate, or, considering the various Hawaiian statutes concerning reporting of births or changing of records, it could simply reflect the latest of one or more changes and/or anomalies in his official birth record(s). The only thing it proves is that what Hawaii characterizes as an original record exists.
Sadly, I disagree. The Constitution does not define "natual born". Early in this debate we had lots of competing theories about what that means. Eventually many settled on the "Born in Kenay, Mom not 19" definiton. But that comes from US Code, not the constitution. US Code can be ammended by simply revising it. The clause that people are hanging their hopes on *IS* weird.
Thanks, Black Jack.
Check google for this quote: “The Constitution is just a XXX XXXX piece of paper”.
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 42,500 for The Constitution is just a XXX XXXX piece of paper
Ping.
-
Bonus stuff:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142165/posts?page=16#16
The disappearing google links:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2141909/posts?page=466#466
Interesting speculation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142165/posts?page=56#56
Long:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141554/posts?page=27#27
A response to #27:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141554/posts?page=33#33
I’m afraid that there are historical precedents that can be cited. Andrew Jackson was born to 2 immigrant parents. Obama would be like the 6th president with at least one foreign born parent. google “US presidents with foreign born parents”. It’s not as cut and dried as that. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a “natural born” citizen no matter where his father was from, or how old his mother was. The court will never interpret the Kenyan-british-subject interpretation against Obama. I doubt that unless someone comes up with a picture of Obama’s mamma giving birth squatted over a pile of leaves in a grass hut with a Kenyan news paper dated 8-1961 by her side, this thing is going anywhere. Flame me, call me a troll, anything you’d like, but there are going to be unanswered questions. Look up US Prez Chester A. Aurthur. No one ever found out the “real truth” about his place of birth.
When you hear the word ‘technicality’ regarding this situation, I want you to think..’pothead’ because that’s who thinks like that.(I’ve known a few over the years)
As bad as that AOL editorial is, I get the feeling that she has Rush-Ingraham-Hannity-Levin on her side.
It wouldn’t be Biden if done before the electoral college votes. They would choose from the next three with the highest number of votes.
If Obama is declared inelgible before the EC votes on Dec. 15, then can’t the DNC replace him with another candidate which could be Biden, Hillary or someone else of their choosing. This next three with highest votes comes into play after the EC votes and Congress is doing their ceritification on Jan. 8.
They’ll fix it with a “retroactive law”?
Have these guys ever heard of the Magna Carta? That’s all we need—retroactive laws!
Thanks for all the ‘pings’!!
Check my tagline.
“Our miltary must step in and uphold the COnstitution and fulfill their oath they took”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2142317/posts
Letters to Military Associations - File in US Federal Court Regarding Obama’s Citizenship
self ^ | 12/3/08 | BP2
Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:38:59 AM by BP2
And do what?
In our area, when a BC is altered the clerk must cross out the information and add the new above, below the old or in the margin.They also must date it....Therefore there is always a record on the original.
This is the boogey monster scare tactic that the left would like us to buy into. Those who say this are usually lefties.
Rather ironic when you consider what a racist statement it is. Essentially they are saying that blacks would be out of control and violent. (You don’t really think they are implying that East Coast liberals, the Hollywood elite, Ivy Leaguers, Scandinavians, or Mormons are the would-be arsonists, do you?)
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.