Posted on 11/14/2008 7:05:09 PM PST by solfour
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I have studied this man for four years. I will not retract one opinion that I have expressed about this man, while acknowledging that they are just that, my opinions. (opinions that are founded in extensive research)
But this also is an irrefutable fact, this counterfeit president elect has not provided one iota of indisputable proof that he is a natural born citizen!!
Wow Nice post. That is a keeper.
“If McCain was born on a military installation in another country, he IS an American Citizen.”
“He wasn’t. He was born off base. None-the-less he is still an American Citizen.
Whether he’s a Natural Born Citizen is, as of yet, undefined.”
My understanding is that a natural born U.S. citizen means born on U.S. soil. McCain born in Panama of to U.S.citizens means McCain is a U.S. citizen but not a “natural born” U.S. citizen.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
no?
“What a waste of time and money. Who cares? The election is over. Get over it.”
Welcome to FR!
Many DO CARE that our Constitution is upheld and if McCain and Obama do not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office, then neither one should ever be sworn into the Office of President! :)
I'm in all those categories. You left off one, don't have health insurance. I'm in that one too.
Oh, and did I mention that I'm also "underwater" since my home's value plummeted?
Have you read his book?
I haven’t so if I’m completely off the wall or even halfway, disregard me :)
Someone posted that in his book he says he has never seen his BC and doesn’t want to because he fears to find out that he is illegitimate.
Based on that post, the following has been bugging me:
~ If he has never seen his BC, how would he know where and when he was truly born?
~ If it’s found out that he was born in Kenya, could he then plead innocent because of ignorance? and thus he’s off the hook?
~ Is there a record kept when someone requires a copy of a BC, be it long or short form?
~ If Obama Sr was already married, is his marriage to Dunham legal in the USA?
~ When BhO married, did he need a BC? If yes, then why didn’t he show us that one instead of one dated June 2007? BCs don’t change.
Thanks, Calpernia
Ping.
Hmmm
“Someone posted that in his book he says he has never seen his BC and doesn’t want to because he fears to find out that he is illegitimate.”
It has also been posted that he stated in one of his books that he found his birth certificate folded inside (a book or something)in the attic and remembered the time of his birth being 7:24PM. Interesting!
He doesn't. He says he found in in an attic.
~ If it’s found out that he was born in Kenya, could he then plead innocent because of ignorance?
Maybe. I've recently found out that I wasn't born in the city I thought I was. My BC clearly says one city, with the hospital name given as [that city's name] Naval Hospital. Problem is [that city's] Naval Hospital is physically located in [adjacent city]...
and thus he’s off the hook?
Maybe. In terms of intent to commit fraud, maybe. But he'd still be unable to hold the Office of the President.
EVER.
Senate Res. 511, not 551. I printed off a copy of it and just went to look it up. There were three copies of it found at the Thomas site, but only the ATS version was passed. I don’t know what the ATS stands for.
S 2678 is another one, but that one got hung up and was not passed, so they did the resolution instead.
Someone mentioned that there was a third attempt, but I haven’t seen a number for that one and I couldn’t find it.
bookmark
Yeah, what DMZFrank said! New member? Troll?
From what I have read since this all came out a couple of days ago, the following paragraphs I think summarize the gist of the Donofrio suit.
There is no definition of the term “natural born” anywhere that can supercede what is contained in the Consitution itself. No law, statute, etc. can amend the U.S. Constitution, since it is the Supreme law of the land. (Or at least it is suppoesed to be.) Only an amendment can change what was originally writen in the constitution.
The only place the term “natural born” is defined (that can be considered legal) is within the Constitution itself. It is in the section refering to the president and that definition must be inferred by the fact that the founding fathers by adding the only exception to the “natural born” clause. The one exception allows for citizens at the time the constitution was adopted to be eligible to be President as well as “natural born” citizens.
The inference is pretty clear since the Founding Fathers were not “natural born” citizens because they were born as British subjects. This enabled them to be the early leaders of this country and get it started on the path they had laid out, but to deny the future leaders from having divided loyalties by birth. Hence to be a natural born citizen you must be born on U.S. soil and not have the possibility of foreign citizenship at birth to any other country.
Please correct me if any of you others who have read his suit feel my interpretation is missing something, but I think it sums up what Donofrio’s stance is regarding the term “matural born” citizenship status.
I would note that when I studied the Constitution in grade school as a child, this is pretty close to the example my teacher provided to us. I will explain that in another post.
Donofrio mentioned the 1790 and 1795 laws in one of his telephone interviews that were posted earlier on this site.
He stated that the writers realized that they could not supercede the constitution without an amendment and rewrote the law as a result.
For years, I read my BC as saying, “Reno, NV”
It doesn’t. It says, “RURAL NV.” That could be anywhere without the qualifying “Washoe County.”
It would be even more confusing if there was a town named Rural, NV...
I think my mother said we lived between Reno and Sparks, and that would have put us in the county. And me being delivered at the county hospital. Still....it was part of Reno...
Of course, back then, folks were not much for formalities. They tell me....;o]
*ducking* and running for cover...
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.