Posted on 03/07/2011 1:40:38 PM PST by devattel
The "birthers" who insist that President Barack Obama does not meet the citizenship requirement to be president represent a fringe of public opinion.
Then there are some whose views represent only a fringe of the fringe.
That's where the bill proposed by Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial comes from.
The charge that Obama failed to meet the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" of our great country was dismissed as invalid long ago.
The director of the Hawaiian state agency that handles birth certificates issued the following statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen."
Various attempts to challenge Obama's citizenship have failed in court. The U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has let stand lower court rulings that Obama met the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born citizen."
Yet the "birthers" keep the myth alive.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
A bill that establishes a process for fulfilling a constitutional requirement is not “fringe.”
It’s actually very reasonable.
It's not really relevant, once birth on American soil is established.
They keep trying to paint the “birthers” as fringe but yet the lone Cindy Sheehan managed to have the whole flippin media at her request wherever, whenever, reporting her every screech and twitch.
Right. It shouldn’t be a problem.
I did a search for the original article and could not find it before posting this here.
“Dismissed by whom???”
And based on what evidence? Heresay from a state official with no concrete documentation or other tangible evidence to support his assertion?
.
I see March 7, 2011 signups on this thread
Spouting “birth on US soil” BS
It is amazing how many people that think they are intelligent cannot - or - will not comprehend the what a ‘natural born citizen’ is
They either have not read the strict scrutiny words or they have read the Constitution and cannot understand it - or they ignore it - or rewrite it in their minds
.
And then the law in 1964, not allowing 18yr olds to confer ‘citizenship’ upon their child.....
And, I never really kept up with it all well.
.
Excellent point about 0pansy’s mommy’s age potlatch
Details Details
.
For instance, did he have to provide a long or short form copy of his birth certificate?
If he told the company that he attended college, did he have to provide an OFFICIAL copy of his college transcript?
Or, did the company simply take the writer's word that he was who he said he was and that he was born where he said he was born?
Just wondering.
all he needed was to show his Democrat Voter Registration and he could get the job....if he had a conviction for fraud it would elevate him in the ranks...
Listen newbie, before you start calling people ignorant Americans you need to read up on the miles of information that has been compiled on this site before you appeared a month ago.
Yep, “the devil is in the details”
.
LOL!
Excellent post potlatch!
.
This would include every law school in the country and the editors of Black's Law Dictionary.
The Journal-Star would post that drivel but said, “The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us, so we’d take those out ...” when presented with this letter to the editor:
“FACT: Voters do the only security check for elected
officials. The vote IS the security check.
But voters have no legal standing to see critical records - even for the wannabe CEO of foreign policy, military, Supreme Court, and all law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Judges say not enough is at stake for us - even for active military. Legally it’s “none of our business”.
Even with proof of ineligibility, voters can do nothing about it legally. When the NJ SOS put a non-citizen on the Presidential ballot the courts said the rule of law was “none of our business”. It never will be until our laws
specifically say it is.
LB 654 requires proof of eligibility & allows NE voters to challenge eligibility legally. This bill will be challenged, & the courts will define “natural born citizen, leaving only Constitutional provisions.
A hearing is March 10th. Please ask Senators Avery, Price, Brasch, Janssen, Karpisek, Pahls, Schumacher, and Sullivan to support LB 654. Voters need a definition for “natural born citizen”, access to critical records, and standing to hold politicians legally accountable. The rule of law, national security, & our Constitution ARE our business.”
When I asked them what in particular was confusing to them, they responded:
“The reference to a “security check” and “legal standing” are unclear. The court rulings that I saw don’t refer to “legal standing” as such.”
It’s too late now to get the letter in the paper, but I do intend to send this to the senators on the committee - and make sure they know that the editors telling them how “stupid” this bill is were not able to comprehend even those few basic facts I gave them. And I intend to send them, for their perusing pleasure, the brochure I wrote up on my site to explain why the PROCESS is broken and needs fixed.
These media bastards are despicable.
My apologies. I misunderstood your argument. I assumed you were insinuating that being born in the U.S. mean natural born citizenship.
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.