Posted on 04/20/2010 12:47:47 AM PDT by hope
House votes to check candidates' citizenship Updated: Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:45 PM MDT Published : Monday, 19 Apr 2010, 4:44 PM MDT
PHOENIX (AP) -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxphoenix.com ...
“Another false assumption by you. You take the lack of actions by Congress to mean that there was no wrong doing by Obama. Those people in Congress either lack the political courage to do the right thing because they are afraid of the redicule by the overwhelming leftist press or for other reasons of preservation. Or, they are part of the same party of enablers, Democrats, who will not act because they lack integrity.”
My exact statement: “Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.”
Then offering real proof should be pretty easy...exactly where can I find it?
You are full of false assumptions. We've had this same conversation before where I spanked you illogical behind.
Plain old lying on the Internet is not crime. Anyone can point to a image online and say anything about it as they like without breaking the law. Now, if Obama used that image everyone calls a Certification of Live Birth in an official capacity as to falsify government documents using it as proof, then he could be prosecuted for wrong doing if it is not genuine. Alas, Obama and his sycophants can lie to their heart's content without retribution. Obama has never publicly associated himself with that silly image that you think as real. He keeps his distance for a 'plausible deniability' excuse and lets his koolaid drinkers promote it as real.
You can take it to the bank Obot that Obama will never show that forgery in a court of law.
My exact statement: “Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.”
It may not be a false assumption on your part, but I believe you wish it to be so that Obama will never have his records subpoenaed by Congress even if he is criminal.
The court requires Obama be served so he doesn't have to keep a staff on the lookout, he just has to wait to be served.
Here is the statement in conflict with the Constitution
It needs to exclude anyone not born to both parents being U.S. citizens. That way it WOULD cause a legal fight that would make it to the SCOTUS and finally be decided.
The federal government defines citizenship, not the states.
Oh, I remember it just like it was yesterday. As far as I'm concerned, he suspended his campaign and then put it in neutral...effectively throwing the election.
Now he wants to get all gung-ho against a principled conservative and expects us to buy it.
Elephants never forget.
Just like there is no proof that Obama sweats everytime another birther case comes up.
LOL!
;)
What I don’t understand is why not a single Senator has demanded proof that he is eligible for the chair he now sits in. IMHO, our Senators are traitors for not fulfilling their duties in Office. They all need to be removed also.
I’ve already debunked the rational that Ankeny put forth. They undermined their decision by acknolwedging Wong Kim Ark declared no specific person to be a natural born citizen. Second, their decision (and the Indiana Supreme Court’s) to affirm the motion to dismiss was based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,not their infirm interpretation of natural born citizen or any claim of eligibility. That was tacked on nonsense.
States defined citizenship before our federal government ever did, and at the time of the founding of our Constitution, so I'm sorry, this notion of a supposed conflict is pure nonsense.
That should be at the time of the founding of our nation, not the founding of our Constitution. The Articles of Confederation have been replaced by the Constitution which gives the authority to Congress to establish uniform rules of citizenship.
Lucy, I wrote what I meant ... at the founding of our Constitution. This is the instrument that gave naturalization powers to Congress. States still had the power to define citizenship in their states. It's not until the 14th amendment that citizenship powers became consolidated at the federal level.
Let me get this straight, you think the states have the power to decide individually what the meaning of NBC is as it pertains to eligibility to hold a federal office?
Do you know what the 10th amendment is??
So? How else are babies born outside of hospitals supposed to get birth certificates?
This says nothing about whether the child was born in or outside of Hawaii.
Sure it does, in so far as the person reporting the birth would have to have committed fraud in order to get a foriegn birth registered. There was no provision under Hawaiian law at the time for the registration of births outside the state.
That is why any timely birth registration accurate unless it can be proven that fraud took place.
Do you have any proof that Obama's birth was fraudulantly registered?
Nonsense. You haven't disproven that a foreign birth can be registered within a week's time frame.
Perhaps it could be. My point is that such an act would involve felony fraud and possibly pergury.
More nonsense. The motive was to ensure that the child would be a U.S. citizen.We already know SAD was too young to pass on U.S. citizenship to her child if born abroad.
It is you who are spouting nonsense. While it is true SAD was too young to automatically pass her citizenship on to her son, as the child of a US citizen, he was eligible for naturalized citizenship. If he was born, all she would have to do get him naturalized would be to fill out an application at the nearest consulate and provide proof of her own citizenship and maternity. See my profile for the relevant references to the immigration laws in effect at the time.
Why commmit a felony to secure his citizenship, when it could all be done perfectly legally?
Never mind the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that such a fraud took place, or the she ever set foot in Kenya, let alone gave birth there.
Do you know what Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is?
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.