Posted on 03/12/2009 7:47:44 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
There are at least five ways that Barack Obama can be declared ineligible for the presidency. Here is a list:
1. Obama was not born in the United States. The Certification of Live Birth that he posts on his web site proves nothing. Only the original paper certificate can address this issue, Obama refuses to release it.
2. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have British and American citizenship due to his father being a British subject at the time of his birth.
3. Dual Citizenship issue: Obama could have dual citizenship with Indonesia if he was adopted. His school records from Inonesia indicate he was Indonesian. He also traveled to Pakistan, but under what passport?
4. Mother's age at birth. Hawaiian laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19. Stanley Ann Dunham was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.
5. Failure to formally renounce dual citizenship described above and reestablish American citizenship at some point and show proof of same.
Obama supporters have unrealistically simplified this issue down to the COLB. There are possibly more issues out there still to be investigated, perhaps willful misconduct on the potential forging of the COLB, etc.
I think that those who are bringing this issue to the attention of the courts need to step back and address the big picture first and then fill in the details.
Are there other potentially disqualifying factors missing from this list?
Legal hassles, however, are not and should not be part of the hassles of the presidency.That sounds almost Nixonian.
Not from what I read. If you can find where they said it, please let me know.
The original FactCheck article (Born in the USA) made several claims. Those claims were investigated by others. I am not going to trace the links to links this far away from the real-time events. I'm sorry that you weren't here at the time to debate it with us. You can chug through all the old threads if you like. What I recall is that they were invited and given very limited time to see the document.
Factcheck is not a partisan group.
The original facsimile of the document was released to the Daily Kos website. Everything from there is tainted fruit, as far as I'm concerned. They should have released it to the AP, or the NYT, if they wanted impeccable credibility.
-PJ
Certainly then, he deserves to be treated with the same contempt he's exhibited in this matter.
Yes, except instead of pointing to some secret in Obama's passport records being concealed, it seems more indicative of Rice's State Dept attempting to cover themselves for the actions of employees they outsourced the job to. Again, how does this add up to leading Obama to talk about the Indonesia trip, if indeed, according to the birther theory, he did it on an Indonesian passport? It doesn't make any sense.
No, I think he didn't think it was any more important to the story he was telling than the fact that my first trip out of the country was a weekend in Ensenada 20 years ago would be to any account of my life. On the other hand, the Kenya trip was important to the narrative, and he did talk about that. Do you want to know what he did every spring break during his college years? Maybe you could make up a story that he traveled to Yemen or something and demand he prove he didn't.
--------------------
Say bye-bye, Obama buttboy
-----------------------
Maybe because Michelle Michelle was a TROLL. Time for drink!
Raising money to “defend” the US Constitution is the economic stimulus plan of Keyes, Berg, and Orly.
***You think you're going to get someone like that to pay millions in damages?***
As long as people are willing to donate to “defend” the Constitution why not? Its a great get rich quick scheme.
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
From: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
The point is - no one accepts an imaged copy like the one posted by Obama for serious identification purposes.
Your last point agrees with me completely, and the facts I give are correct, thanks for the advice.
MM was banned. Not sure why, but that’s what happened.
_____________
WOOHOO
Trojan horse, that bastard is a Communist fraud and the obot blog team can deny all they want. It’s fun to laugh at them as they run over here and try to do damage control.
You subscribe to a very interesting strain of conservatism (belch).
To whom, exactly? And why is it that no other president has had to do the same?
But he is doing just that - paying his lawyers to answer several lawsuits. If he doesn't want the hassle, do like I (and millions of other Americans) and produce THE ORIGINAL.
First of all, he has to answer the lawsuits no matter what, so no matter how he responds, he needs lawyers. The easiest way to answer a frivolous lawsuit is with a motion to dismiss. It's simple and doesn't cost much.
Second of all, at least half the lawsuits are based on something other than his birth certificate. Therefore the best way to get rid of the all is to file to dimiss based on lack of standing.
Well, what you recall is wrong.
The original facsimile of the document was released to the Daily Kos website. Everything from there is tainted fruit, as far as I'm concerned. They should have released it to the AP, or the NYT, if they wanted impeccable credibility.
Yes, sending the firt fascimile to daily kos was a mistake, I agree. However, I fail to see how that taints the document. A document does not become invalidated just because an electronic copy of it gets emailed to some suspect group.
"Some" does not mean "all." The DOS clearly indicates that some short forms are not accepted because they do not have one of the following: a raised seal, registrar's signature, or date filed within one year of birth. Obama's, in contrast, has all those things.
As to the DHHL, did you even bother to read the context of your quote?
If you had, you would understand that the reason the DHHL requires more than the short form is because they require proof of Hawaiian ancestry, not just birth:
"To be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease, you must meet two requirements:"
"You must be at least 18 years of age;
"and You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian. This requirement remains unchanged since the HHCA's passage in 1921."
"The general rule of thumb in determining 50 percent blood quantum is to submit enough documentation tracing your genealogy to your full Hawaiian ancestor(s). "
The short form COLB has enough information to verify Hawaiian birth. It does not have enough information to verify ancestry.
You really should read the full context of documents you quote.
By the way, quoting Kurt Tsue from the DOH as reported by the Factcheck employee Joe Miller who touched the COLB:
...the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
ONLY for the President of the United States is it a requirement in the Constitution that the person be a Natural Born Citizen.
That qualifies for "reasonable doubt".
That qualifies for "reasonable doubt".
How? If the COLB proves he was born in the USA, how exactly does that leave room for reasonable doubt?
Just keep ignoring the substance of my posts. It's much more fun to call me names.
It doesn't feel good to get your Dept. of Homelands argument completely demolished, does it?
It doesn’t.
It doesn’t what? Prove that he was born in the US? It says right on it that the place of birth was Honolulu, Oahu County, State of Hawaii.
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.