Obama's Birth Certificate (new info?)

Western Center for Journalism via WND email | 25 March 2009 | Floyd Brown

[Big_Monkey]

"Our best hope is to set up a control process which bars the mountebank from reelection.

I think your post is one of the best reasoned arguments I've seen or heard on this subject.

Whatever the case may be, it's too late now to do anything about this term. I'm a firm believer that impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate is the only way to remove a sitting President, regardless of what the extenuating circumstances may or may not be. The time to fix this was before January 20th.

But, I also believe the steps several states have taken are absolutely correct and justified. A state has a duty and an obligation to verify the eligibility of the candidates it allows on it's ballots. Sadly, not a single state took this very seriously last year, and now were in the predicament that we're in.

[Big_Monkey]

"Only an actual birth certificate has the additional information. Why did they say a COLB does, too?

You're confusing "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Certification of Live Birth". A VERY common mistake here at FR. The phrase "Certificate of Live Birth" is a phrase that the Centers for Disease control uses on a document that it provided to all the states. That document, although not binding, was to be used by the states when designing their own proprietary (for lack of a better word) "birth certificate" Almost all states today use an EXACT copy of the CDC's "Certificate of Live Birth" - sometimes called a "birth certificate" or a "vault copy birth certificate" or a "long form birth certificate".

A link for the CDC form is below. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the document.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf

The "Certification of Live Birth" is what has been bandied around by various websites, including Obama's own campaign website. It is a computer generated document that uses information that is stored in a state's database to fill out, automatically an "official" copy of a resident's birth certificate.

It is true that every court in America be it, City, County, State or Federal will use the "Certification of Live Birth" as a prima fascia evidence of citizenship. But, it certainly leaves out information that might be critical in determining a Presidential Candidate's eligibility for office.

[Big_Monkey]

"You do realize that if you sack Obama you have Biden at the helm ? And behind him stands Nancy Pelosi.

If Hilary Clinton charters a plane for Biden, Pelosi and Byrd, you'll know that the jig is up.

[KarenMarie]

ok, question... if you don’t mind.

I am a bit confused on the ‘natural born’ requirements.

I read in some places that BOTH parents had to be citizens and in others I read differently.

What is correct, please?

[little jeremiah]

bookmark.

[nathanbedford]

Courts write opinions in support of orders. The Case or Controversy requirement of the Constitution means that an actual person (or artificial person) must come before the court stating a claim for relief of the kind which should result in the court issuing an order. The court might or might not write an opinion justifying the order. But it will never write an opinion without an order. That would be called an advisory opinion and such are eschewed by the court.

In fairness, it ought to be observed that the court will often write opinions which touch on matters far beyond the actual necessity to justify the opinion. That was the situation in perhaps the most important case ever decided by the Supreme Court, Marbury versus Madison, where the opinion gave the court the power to issue an order (which the court declined to issue, finding an excuse.) In other words, Chief Justice John Marshall knew that Jefferson would not obey an order concerning his appointees, so Marshall wrote an opinion saying we could issue such an order if we wanted to, we can decide this case if we feel like it which means that the court could decide the constitutionality of federal actions, but we don't feel like it today, at least not in this case, thank you very much.

So if a litigant goes to the federal courts and says, give me an advisory opinion, that is an opinion in the air, unattached to an order, the court will throw him out. But on its own, the court might undertake an excursion afield and lecture the world about what is right and wrong, prudent or imprudent, fair or unfair, and then issue an order very limited in scope as it affects the rights of the parties. Such excursions are usually called dicta and have not the force of law but are warning signs to litigants and lower courts about the thinking of the author who may be in the majority or the minority.

So it is conceivable that the court would accept one or more of these cases, not dismiss it for want of standing, not dismiss it as a political question, and nevertheless decline to issue the order that removes Obama from the Oval Office. This was much the situation in Marbury versus Madison. In between the acceptance of the case and the issuance of the order, the court could conceivably lecture the country about the definition of a natural born citizen, the proper venue and mechanics for determining same, but nevertheless decline to order the Kenyan born Obama to relinquish Air Force One because the claimants have failed on some technicality.

This would preserve the reputation and power of the court because it would not have issued an order which could be ignored. It would set out the Court's desire as to how these matters should be treated in the future which would probably be observed in practice. It would spare the country riots.

It would, however, certainly diminish the moral authority of the president. Chief Justice Marshall actually wanted to diminish the real and moral authority of President Jefferson. They were political enemies. I do not believe that we can find five members of the present Court who want to leave the nation with a crippled President in the nuclear age when we are making war on two fronts, when we are threatened with terrorist attacks in the homeland, and when we face one of the greatest financial crisis in history, just so they can unburden themselves of dicta .

[nathanbedford]

please see my post number 126.

[reasonisfaith]

But what is the court?

The court is justice. Justice cannot be separated from truth. (Politics on the other hand seems to dissolve truth into nonexistence.)

You are suggesting the justices are potentially weighing truth against the prevention of either nuclear devastation or some other horrible national crisis, and that they choose in favor of the latter. This protects national security.

But does it uphold justice?

[sam_paine]

Otherwise any law repugnant to the Constitution could not be overturned, since it would have been enacted with all the proper procedures, votes and signing by the President and such as that.

This is what the judicial oligarchy would want you to believe. But it is completely untrue on face.

ANY law whatsoever can be overturned, redressed and corrected to be in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution by any Congress at any time.

Any law passed by Congress which is not in the spirit of the Constitution can and should be vetoed by the President, and can use the bully pulpit to press the issue to the public.

It was never intended that Judicial Review loft "9 unelected lawyers" above the Constitution, nor should it be where all your attentions are directed.

Jefferson wrote:

“Nothing in the Constitution has given [judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them”; “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy”; “I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison [the 1803 Supreme Court case establishing judicial supremacy] brought before the public, and denounced as not law…”; “At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous...”.

[Polarik]

Obama's Certification of Live Birth does not exist and never has.

What he posted on the Internet is a totally fabricated image made from someone else's COLBs.

[John Leland 1789]

For later.

[nathanbedford]

Justice cannot be separated from truth.

We divorce truth from justice all the time and we do so quite consciously. For example, a policeman stops an automobile and makes an impermissible that is an unreasonable search of the automobile and finds a huge quantity of illegal drugs. The drivers arrested and charged with possession. The defendant does not deny that he was in possession of the drugs but claims that the drugs cannot be used as evidence against him because it is contrary to the fourth amendment. The Court throws out the evidence-the drugs-because the search was contrary to the Constitution. By definition, a guilty man went free. Indeed, by definition suppression of evidence for improper search and seizure is contrary to truth because the defendant, by definition, is guilty.

It is a deliberate policy of the courts that to discourage the police from making unreasonable searches and seizures, that is to protect the privacy of our citizens, the fruits of unreasonable searches cannot be used in evidence. Truth suffers for justice.

If we really wanted to equate justice with truth we would simply water board every witness and check out their stories and confessions and proceed very efficiently to find "truth."

I'm simply trying to say that there are always countervailing values to be weighed. In a search and seizure case the Court holds that "justice", to the degree that it is defined as the search for "truth," must take a back seat to a higher value, in this case, privacy.

If the Court declines to intervene in the matter of a mountebank in the oval office for political reasons or reasons of national security, it certainly will not be the first time the Court has so behaved. The court will say there are higher values at stake. Beyond the obvious overwhelming value of national security is a matter of judicial restraint which is regarded to be a virtue in some quarters.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“I see Obama being removed from the Presidency before Christmas.”

I pray you are right!

[ConservativeMind]

You are the very first person I’ve ever heard addressing something that seems so simple a nuance.

Thank you.

[motoman]

And I must be missing something from your position on this issue because your comments seem to be missing the point.

If Governor Schwarzenegger so clearly can articulate the status of his U.S. citizenship, then why can’t this President do the same?

Hint: Obama needs to release his original birth certificate documents, currently under seal by the state of Hawaii. That’s all that millions of Americans simply want from him to clear concerns over this issue. Get it?

Just release the original B.C. - no invasion of privacy, no civil rights violated, just a simple act to provide the necessary evidence that he meets the most basic of all requirements to hold office of the POTUS.

How and why anyone would want to defend this man in his effort to conceal his original birth documents is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent our Constitution.

[conservativegramma]

How and why anyone would want to defend this man in his effort to conceal his original birth documents is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent our Constitution.

Amen!

[Big_Monkey]

"You are the very first person I’ve ever heard addressing something that seems so simple a nuance.

I live in Atlanta. Someone from the CDC (it's in Atlanta as well), explained it to me. Without that explanation, I still would be confused.

[El Gato]

This is what the judicial oligarchy would want you to believe. But it is completely untrue on face. ANY law whatsoever can be overturned, redressed and corrected to be in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution by any Congress at any time. Any law passed by Congress which is not in the spirit of the Constitution can and should be vetoed by the President, and can use the bully pulpit to press the issue to the public. It was never intended that Judicial Review loft "9 unelected lawyers" above the Constitution, nor should it be where all your attentions are directed.

Of course laws can overturned by Congress, or just not signed by the President in the first place. But those not the only check on the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. That's where the courts come in. They were not lofted above the Constitution, but rather are supposed to enforce it. Even if the people support such a law, it is not allowed, but in such an instance, the Congress and President, rather than having an incentive not to pass it, have every incentive do so.

We are are a Republic, with a written Constitution. Depending soley on what are in essence "democratic" forces to enforce the Constitution is a losing proposition.

[AJ in NYC]

BTTT!

[cajungirl]

Those are the same SS number, not multiple different numbers. So I don’t get it,,he had multiple addresses?