Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand

Let me run something by you.

Lakin has given numerous interviews where he discusses Obama’s dual citizenship, in fact Anderson Cooper from CNN interviewed Lakin where he touched on that very issue. Lakin also argues that Obama has never produced any documentation showing where he was born which seems to be what his team is concentrating on as a first line of defense.

Could the defense tactic be to first force Hawaii to produce their birth records for Obama; which not only answers the location of birth question but is a prerequisite to make the argument that Obama is not a NBC?

Obama has not produced any legal documentation proving his birth narrative. At the end of the day all “we” really have Obama’s word as to his place of birth and his parentage, specifically that BHO Sr. is Obama’s legal and biological father.

I may also be looking at this backwards but it seems if Lakin stipulates that BHO Sr is Obama’s father he validates a Hawaii birth. Stipulating a Hawaii birth validates BHO Sr. as father. Neither parentage or place of birth can stand alone when both come from an image uploaded to the internet.

Wouldn’t Lakin (or anyone else filing suit) not have to first establish the legal identify of Obama’s parents and their citizenship status before any eligibility argument could begin?

I can’t help but think Obama and his legal team(s) have fought tooth and nail to keep his birth certificate sealed not because of what it says but because its release would open the door to a Constitutional challenge.


116 posted on 08/06/2010 5:31:05 PM PDT by Brytani (There Is No (D) in November! Go Allen!!! www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Brytani
"I can’t help but think Obama and his legal team(s) have fought tooth and nail to keep his birth certificate sealed not because of what it says but because its release would open the door to a Constitutional challenge."

Obama's alleged ineligibility is something that will never be heard in any court of law, let alone a military court of law, with respect to the current term. There is a chance that some Secretary of State could deny Obama ballot access for 2012, then we'd have this case heard on the merits, should the SoS not blink.

In the eyes of the court this is a political question, not a legal question. Why is that? Because to have access on the merits in a court, the court must be able to provide relief to plaintiffs. If there's no relief possible, then there's no trial. It's that simple.

With respect to this particular case, since Obama's eligibility to hold office has absolutely no relevance on Lakin's commanding general's ability to issue orders, it's not a question for the court to entertain. Again, it's that simple.

Let me guess, that's not the way you see it. That's fine. We'll have our answer sometime in October.

387 posted on 08/09/2010 7:56:23 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson