Posted on 07/26/2009 7:09:59 PM PDT by null and void
What's the worst that could happen?
Much ink has been devoted to the ongoing controversy about the constitutional legitimacy of the Obama presidency.
Briefly, there is fringe of True Believers that asserts Barack Obama was not born on US soil, of two American citizen parents, and is therefore not a "natural born citizen" making him ineligible to hold the office of the president.
These so-called "Birthers" assert that Barack was not born in the United States, that is was born in Kenya, making him a Kenyan by birth or Canada, making him a Canadian citizen or even that he's a British subject.
Indeed, they assert that the mere fact that Kenya was a British colony when Barack was born gives him at best dual citizenship as a British subject, under British law, and American citizen even if he was born in Honolulu, and that this dual citizenship at birth fails to meet the constitutional requirements.
In point of fact, any citizenship claims another country wishes to impose on an American are utterly irrelevant. To say otherwise would be to buy in to the absurdity that North Korea declaring that everyone on earth is a North Korean citizen would mean that no one is eligible to become the president of the United States!
For most people the image of Barack Obama's short form birth certificate posted on FactCheck.com suffices as a release of his true record of birth and as iron clad evidence that he is, in fact a "natural born citizen".
But for the Birthers? They insist that a computer image is not a valid legal document, that FactCheck is owned by the Anneberg Foundation - the same people who hired a young Barack Obama to be a community organizer, that even if the FactCheck document reflected reality, the short form is not even sufficient to qualify a 9 year old to join a Pop Warner team.
Birthers have tried to get a certified copy of Barack's long form birth certificate release by the state of Hawaii. They view access to this original document as crucial for making their case, as the State of Hawaii will release a short form certificate showing an Hawaiian place for birth for foreign born children and adoptees of Hawaiian residents.
Sighting quite reasonable privacy and identity theft concerns, Hawaii will not release a birth certificate except to the individual in question, or a small group of close relatives, or by court order.
Obviously Birthers could simply sue in any US court to have the real long form birth certificate released. Various Birthers have sued. So far, every case has been rejected on procedural grounds, mostly for "lack of standing". No court has heard a single case on its merits.
Individual citizens lack standing. Political opponents competing for the office of the president on the very same same ballot lack standing. People directly affected by fiat tax increases lack standing, etc.
The closest any case got to being heard was Cook Vs Good, where a reserve officer requested clarification of the legality of deployment orders. Rather than allow the case to go forward, his orders were instantly revoked, removing his standing.
Federal and private attorneys have burned through nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer and campaign funds in a so far successful attempt to prevent Barack from being compelled to show a $10 document any lesser being would need to show to get a job flipping burgers.
It all boils down to "standing". To have "standing" one needs to be able to demonstrate to an American court that they, personally have been damaged.
So far, with the temporary exception of Maj. Cook, no US court has found that any American has standing.
What's the worst that could happen?
In the absence of certainty of Barack' ability to hold the office? Plenty.
No government employee, no member of the military, no citizen can know if any presidential order, finding, signature on any law, or treaty has any legal validity.
Worse, any foreign power sufficiently motivated can force the United States into a constitutional crisis at any point in a time and manner of their own choosing.
If, for example Barack Obama, acting as the president of the United States, imposes sanctions on North Korea, or Iran, or even Australia, the leader of that country would clearly have standing, and even more crucially, could go directly to the World Court to press their case and bypass all the legal nuancing a US court would suffer. No amount of courtroom shenanigans will keep the World Court from doing its duty.
It is very probable that in the absence of proper documentation, the World Court would find that the Barack Obama has no legal authority to act on behalf of the United States, and every treaty, agreement, and presidential finding he ever signed is null and void.
Every act of war engaged in under his illegal orders potentially becomes a war crime.
For the want of a $10 document, any hostile foreign power can, at any time, potentially take down the American government.
An honest president would find that this risk would far outweigh any personal embarrassment disclosure of the truth would cause him.
My hope is that some Democrats will wake up and realize the long-term implications of BO's presidency, its threat to our standing among other nations, our national security, and (yes, they will do this selfishly) the future of their own party. So many people and institutions have tried to ride on BO's coattails and they won't want to damage their own legacy. So yes, I hope Dem party members are thinking about the big picture, and are quietly and furiously working behind the scenes to rectify things. They have pushed themselves and our nation to the very edge of the precipice.
You out there: Wake up, before it's too late!
Multiple marriages cannot be performed in UK. However, multiple marriages occurring elsewhere are recognized, and multiple wives and their children are a big drain on UK welfare resources
The state run media is going mental trying to discredit anyone who asks questions the BC of the Islamo-Teleprompter.
Like Shakespeare’s queen in Hamlet said “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
The liberal news media is protesting far too much which tells me he was probably not born in the USA. It does not matter because he is not NBC because of his British father.
As much as I want Obama to be the disaster that destroys the democrats, I don’t want to sacrifice American soldiers to do so.
ping
“On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born. Obama’s original birth certificate (whether it was filed in 1961 or later) was a very different document from the Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.
FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.)”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
Our country and its welfare and the welfare of its people come first.
The law has become insulated. It has achieved the purity of legal process that Justice Tanney worked so hard for in Dred Scott!
More troops and more cases need to be filed by former JAG officers who are practicing attorneys.
I think ORly may have hit the jackpot with the Marine judge. She may have found possibly the only judge who will move this forward.
More credible to believe is that the statement should be construed to mean the state put document images on electronic filing and now instead of having to go find the actual paper document and make a copy they can merely access the imaged version to print an official copy. Since the issue the official raised was in regards to speed of getting the copies out, it is not as likely that the comment meant the paper documents were destroyed, they’re just not dug out each time someone requests a copy.
thanks...good post...
“Why can’t ordinary citizens have these questions answered in a court of law?” Because we the people no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. We live in a federal oligarchic enclave where the powers have decided to not grant standing for a citizen to challenge the lying bastard the federal oligarchs chose to be head of state.
Isn’t it fascinating that a foreign power would have standing? But an American citizen apparently doesn’t, to see the birth certificate of their own president?
How could that possibly be?
And why doesn’t some judge explain it?
:: crickets ::
Ok - fair enough -
...if they just went “paperless” in 2001 - then why was that fact used (in effect) as an “excuse” in response to CNN as a “reason” for inability to provide at least an “electronic” (scanned) image of the “original” long-form document??
Why didn’t CNN just ask OB to see the copy of the original BC that he has?
Because - just like the rest of the government run lap-dog leftist media, CNN does not care to clear up the muddy waters with “facts” -— when “spin” and more “spin” will better serve their agenda
We need to find someone like Judge Sirica, who pushed the Watergate discoveries and prosecution. We don’t have anyone like Sam Ervin who used the Congress to discover the facts of Watergate, but that could change in 2010 if the Republicans take over the Senate. Here’s hoping!
Seriously? You mean you’re asking why CNN and reporters are lying for the affirmative action little nettle-in-chief?
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.