Posted on 03/14/2009 8:14:23 AM PDT by AJMCQ
Rep. Bill Posey, R-Florida, introduced legislation this week requiring candidates to produce a birth certificate to be eligible to run in future presidential elections, triggering a sharp reaction from Democrats who accused him of "questioning President Obama's citizenship." Posey submitted a bill with no fanfare Thursday that instructs the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to be amended to add the birth certificate requirement. The Constitution requires that a president or a vice president be "a natural born citizen." Read: Posey's bill During the presidential campaign, some people — mostly Republicans — questioned whether Obama, who was born in Hawaii, was a U.S. citizen. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, while his father was from Kenya. Obama produced a certified copy of his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, but critics argued that it was a fake or had been altered. The Supreme Court has turned down several requests that it hear challenges to the president's citizenship. "Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as President," Posey said in a statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations are healthy for our Republic. "This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for President will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as President." Posey spokesman George Cecala emphasized several times to CNN that the congressman was "not trying to fan the flames" of the Obama citizenship dust-up nor was he "trying to jab someone in the eye." Instead, Posey was "just trying to clarify the law,"
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Thanks for the thoughful reply. It appears to me that the Court just does not have the political backbone to tackle the citizenship issue at this time. The Court is running a great risk in that, if it somehow comes to light that Obama was not qualified to be president, it will suffer historical damage to it’s reputation as it stood by while the Constitution was being violated on this most fundamental of issues (i.e., the qualifications of the chief executive and commander-in-chief).
Even if he were a dual citizen (assuming he is a US citizen), he would still meet the constitutional requirements for a US Senator.
Compelling video. However, I couldn’t access the website referred to at the end of the video.
Oh please—— Menendez “claims” American birth?
As if we can believe anything this skank says......he’ll do and say anything to retain power.
I would agree. But the Founding Fathers gave all federal judges lifetime tenure ("during good behavior") to see to it that "political backbone" would not be a factor in carrying out their responsibilities to rule on controversial cases.
Historical damage to the SCOTUS's reputation? It would not be the first time that the SCOTUS's reputation was injured. Better to repair the damage sooner than later or not at all.
That is the oath of enlistment. The only time I took that one was when enlisting in the Air Force Reserve, inactive status. They make all scholarship, and all "professional program", (last two years of AFROTC) cadets do that. After that I took the Oath of Office as a commssioned officer, and was released from the enlited assignment and oath.
The officers' oath, does not contain the "obey the orders" or "UCMJ" language. That oath, the same one taken by the Vice President and other federal officers, is:
Officer Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The enlisted oath only added the "support and defend the Constitution" language in 1962. The officers' oath is unchanged since 1868.
A nice history of both oaths can be found at: Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2002 (The Professional Journal of the United States Air Force). This article was by then Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF(USAFA; MS, University of Florida)
She hasn't. Unless you consider that all Hawaiian birth records and other vitial records are "sealed", in the sense of being unavailable to the general public. Birth Certificates can be sealed,even from the person themselves, by court order, and in the case of an adoption, usually are. In that case, it would take another court order to unseal them. But as far as anyone but a very short list of people getting access to anyones birth records, by law that takes a court order.
Read the State of Hawaii's own page on the matter.
The only people who can get a certified copy of a birth certificate are:
* the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
* the registrant’s spouse;
* the registrant’s parent(s);
* a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
* a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
* a legal guardian of the registrant;
* a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant; * a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
* a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
Yes, Dems in Congress have been known to lie about their basic biographical facts to a much greater extent than Pubbies. There should be a statutory obligation for all candidates for both houses of Congress to submit documentation of their constitutional eligibility to hold the office they seek before the election is held.
The first was for something I had quoted from an article someone else had posted that Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981. Instead, several others pointed out that there was a US State Department Travel Advisory for Pakistan in 1981, No. 81-33A, not a ban.
Thanks again.
” Hmmmm ... just thinking out loud ... a little trip to granny’s the week before the election (maybe to round up a couple of loose ‘documents’?) ..”
“Obama visited his grandmother several times at her apartment on Punahou Circle where
she has lived for about four decades.”
I’m sure the timing was purely coincidental and he was just being helpful by cleaning out drawers...
Over at Atlas Shrugged-they have an extremely long piece, with apparent documentation, that adds even more mystery into the mix.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
This is totally irrelevant!
Barry's father was a British Subject!!
'Nuf said!!!
On a slightly different note, I've been reading Epicenter 2.0 and am enjoying the reminder that God is writing this story. As someone who believes that we are living in the time told in Ezekiel, I've wondered why the US, given our long friendship with Israel, doesn't seem to be mentioned. Perhaps it is due to the repercussions of our electing the obamessiah.
While this is certainly true, the consequences of ignoring the Constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land are so great that it would do incalculabe damage to the country, and by extension to the Court itself. It may well be shown at some point that the Court turned a blind eye toward one of the greatest frauds of all time.
Quite possibly worse than an illegal alien. Quite possibly the Cuban Spy that was mentioned by John Bolton.
You’re not to blame. People have hypotheses or beliefs, and they present them as facts. Someone reads it, and assumes it IS a fact and then they go on to post it as if it’s a fact.. I see people posting that Obama isn’t an NBC - but we don’t have that proof. We have LOADS of reasons to believe something’s not right, that he may not be an NBC, but we don’t KNOW. Or the stuff about the amount of money being spent for attorneys. Now, I don’t believe the story that his lawyers are working probono (I think lawyers only do that for poor people, they do it for their brownie points, why would they get brownie points for doing free work for a rich man???), so I believe that he is paying attorneys to deal with these cases. But we don’t know how much! It started out as thousands, then tens of thousands, then the number 800,000 became really popular, and now it’s over a million. We don’t have facts for any of this - but people state it as if we do. It gets frustrating. I’m very interested in these threads, but I want to read facts. I also want to read people’s hypotheses, but I’d like them presented as such - otherwise the (alert) reader has to do a mental search to see if they’ve missed something, ie, was there some documentation about a new costs for attorneys and I missed it being posted? etc
Menendez has always had a soft spot for gangs. Especially terrorists.
Mayor aided murderer
Menendez glad to help an ‘innocent man’
Hudson Dispatch
Wednesday, October 7, 1987
By Douglas Lavin
UNION CITY – Mayor Robert Menendez has contributed funds for a convicted Cuban-American terrorist and murderer who was the kingpin of Omega 7.
Menendez, the city’s first Cuban-American mayor, said he supports the use of violence and breaking the rule of law in the fight for a free Cuba, but also said his contribution made at a Friday fund-raiser was intended only to supply Eduardo Arocena with legal counsel.
“I endorse the fact that there are times when what one looks at as a law at a given time has to be broken,” Menendez said, adding that the fight should be carried out “wherever the enemy may be.”
Bernard F. Kenny, Menendez’s Democratic running mate in the Assembly race to represent North Hudson’s 33rd District, also was at the dinner, but said yesterday he did not know the event was a fundraiser or was linked to terrorists.
Kenny said public officials have an obligation to uphold the law.
“I think any public official has to take a strong stance on that,” he said.
Jose O. Arango, the Cuban-born Republican assemblyman who is opposing Menendez and Kenny, said he would contribute to Arocena’s legal defense if asked. Arango said he did not endorse illegal activity in the United State, but said he would contribute money to help ensure “an innocent man is not convicted.”
Menendez took a similar stance and said Arocena needed a new trial because he did not have proper legal counsel during his trial.
Micahel L. Tabak, the asssitant U.S. attorney who was in charge of the prosecution, said Arocena rejected a free, court appointed attorney from own of Manhattan’s best law firms and instead chose two of his own attorneys, who represented him during the trial.
“The record is clear that Arocena was represented by counsel,” Tabak said.
Arocena, a former New Jersey longshoreman, was convicted in 1984 of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy bombings and perjury.
In December 1985, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan denied an appeal, calling the government’s case, which included 85 witnesses and “copius” physical evidence, “overwhelming and impressive.”
The court also called Arocena the “kingpin” of Omega 7 and said the group financed its crimes of bombings and murder through drug trade and extortion.
Since 1973, Omega 7 has claimed responsibility for more that 30 terror bombings in New York, New Jersey and Miami. The bombings have targeted such groups as a pharmacy in Union City that sent medicine to Cuba and local travel agencies that booked flights for Cuban emigres to return to Cuba to visit their families.
Arocena was found guilty in November 1984 of 25 of 26 counts. He was convicted of organizing the murder of a Cuban attache in Queens and arranging bombings at Cuban, Soviet, Venezuelan, Mexican, and Nicaraguan missions in New York and Miami as well as at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan and John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens.
Menendez said that as a public official he has an obligation to uphold the law here, but that he also has a responsibility “to listen to the people, if it is their belief collectively that this is a good man.”
“I don’t look at it that I am supporting ‘a murderer,’” Menendez said, “I look on it that I am supporting a goal, which is the liberation of Cuba.”
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.