Having seen some of your responses, I don't expect you to understand, but for the sake of those attempting to: any candidate, including Obama, who presents a valid U.S. birth certificate, who is 35 and has lived in country for 14 years, but both of whose parents were not U.S. citizens is not eligible to be president.
I've seen the argument and I understand what the people are saying who make that type of argument -- which is definitely a different type of argument than the strictly "show me the birth certificate" one...
With this one, you're basically saying that on the basis of the certified and known information that we have -- and which no one is really disputing (just on the basis of the parents, themselves) -- that Obama can't be qualified.
And that would be fine, if that's as far as it went -- for that argument. However, that's not as far as it goes. There's another factor in there -- that the general public (the wide body of the voting electorate) takes into account too.
That other factor is that this information has all been known (as you state, for the parents) for a long time and there's been ample opportunity for anyone (who is in a position to do so) to "make a case" and prevent someone like that from being in that position (to be elected).
But, we see that even with all that information fully known, every state accepted that sworn and signed statement from Obama that he was qualified, per the Constitution, according to the three criteria that it specifies. Every state accepted that and none of them objected. In addition, all the Electors accepted that and none of them objected.
In fact the Republican candidate accepted that and he did not object. In addition, the Republican Party, itself officially accepted that and no one objected to that. And we add the Republican President, George Bush, of the United States (at that time) accepted that and he did not object. The Vice President, Cheney, accepted that.
The Electors were given an opportunity after the election to object and withdraw their votes and none did, they all accepted that. Even the entire Congress of the United States, accepted that, with not even one Republican Congressman objecting during the Certification process. Even Vice President Cheney, who was also there and had the capability of objecting officially at that time -- did not and he accepted that.
SO..., when the greater voting electorate sees all that happen, and sees a candidate make it through all those "processes" and no one who has the ability at every step of the way -- to object -- does object, at all, including even all the Republicans in a position to say and do something about it -- that tells the voting electorate -- that there is something mighty wrong and fishy about that assessment that you're making of Obama's "qualifications" from the reasons you gave.... :-)
Oh..., and there's no need for Obama to "manufacture" a birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has already gone on record saying that they have the birth certificate on record and that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born citizen (they said all that on official State of Hawaii letterhead). So, when the greater voting electorate sees that kind of official statement from the State, itself, who says that they have it on record -- that pretty much cinches it for the greater majority of people.
The Hawaiian official did just what you said, and then defied Hawaii's Office of Information Practices statue which required that she provide information to support her claim. Chicago politics has triumphed in Hawaii. They are, and will likeley remain, in violation of their own laws. Many petitions were filed with the OIP, which the Hawaii Department of Health has chosen to ignore, though one key official resigned (coincident with some millions of dollars of federal money for new health projects).
You are correct. The Republican didn't object, because he too didn't satisfy the “jus soli” requirement. He did provide his long form certificate. He was born in Colon, not on the Coco Bolo, or such has been asserted. But were he born in Canal Zone, "McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president." (I will resist the impulse to quote the reasoning from the excellent Gabriel Chin analysis in his paper "Why Senator John McCain cannot be President". The Republicans, as with many insults to our republic, are complicit. Because they all respected McCain's service, they chose not challenge. There were three law suits which died in district courts for lack of standing. But McCain still had a problem. Had anyone brought up Obama’s problem you know the scream would have been “You've overlooked the white candidate's problem and attacked Obama because of his skin color!”
If we still want a nation of laws, and not one based upon popular sentiment, Obama must be held to the laws. The evidence was provided by Obama himself.
You are observing the right inconsistencies. We are not a nation governed by the sentiments of “the general public (the wide body of the voting electorate)”. This is precisely why our founders specified a representative government based on an almost immutable foundation of laws - almost because the process of changing those laws, constitutional amendment, is exhaustive by design.
Gee, that’s terrific. Maybe you could give us a link to that statement on the official letterhead of the state of Hawaii. I don’t think that we’ve actually seen that here.
Gee, that’s terrific. Maybe you could give us a link to that statement on the official letterhead of the state of Hawaii. I don’t think that we’ve actually seen that here.