Posted on 12/18/2008 4:27:03 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
Unedited and messed up response from Saxby Chambliss to a request that he demand that Barack (Barry) Obama (Soetoro) have a certified long form Birth Certificate sent to the Senate to prove his eligibility. Try not to bust a blood vessel.
Email.BeginHide.merge
Mail.date_on_letter_for_printing.merge
Mail.name_based_on_salutation.merge
Mail.address.title.merge
Mail.address.org1.merge
Mail.address.addr1.merge
Mail.address.addr2.merge
Mail.address.csz_translation.merge
Email.EndHide.merge
Dear mail.salutation_for_merging.merge :
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over President-elect Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Donofrio , regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship. Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship, which claim he was really born on foreign soil, Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii but contends he still held foreign citizenship at birth. Mr. Donofrio's lawsuit argues that since President-elect Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of President-elect Obama's birth, then Obama was a British citizen at birth and not eligible to be President of the United States.
Another attorney, Mr. Berg, has filed a lawsuit regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship and is waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case or not. A federal judge in Eastern Pennsylvania threw out Mr. Berg's lawsuit in October, saying he lacked legal standing to bring the challenge since he could not show he faced individual harm even if he could prove his claims about President-elect Obama's citizenship. The judge did not get to the merits of the case. Mr. Berg is appealing the standing issue to the Supreme Court.
If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
Email.BeginHide.merge
Very truly yours,
Saxby Chambliss A
SC : bs
Email.EndHide.merge
With all due response, Star, that's somewhat of a half-truth. Will the constitution still be intact? Yes. Will the notion that it must be upheld, that it is indeed the governing document and foundation for our rule of law be intact? No. It will have been shown that when politically incorrect, that pesky old constitution is best left unconsulted. It's an utter travesty to think that a foreign national can assume the Oval Office because the right "process" isn't in place.
It's not the lack of process. If it was, then courts and others in power would be pointing that out and fighting to see the constitution consulted even despite an imperfect process, because the critical nature of this is more important than any process. The problem is a lack of SPINE. Thus far, one lone Georgia Congressman is the only voice who has stated a willingness to challenge the Electoral College. ONE.
MM (in TX)
You said — “Thank you, because when I say these things it’s attack city.”
Well, believe me, it’s been “attack city” on me, too ... :-)
I got the same email from Saxby a few weeks ago. I agree it is a lame response however, he is a much better choice than Jim Martin and a filibuster proof senate.
The only news story I've seen says that Hawaii confirmed that the birth certificate was authentic. Period.
I saw the news article at the time that Hawaii reacted to the many requests for copies of the BC about a month-and-a-half ago.
Constitutional tests?
Some People Are Too Big To Risk Failing: SCOTUS
"Little people" must continue to pass tests, says court spokesman
Famous quotes?
Barack Helmsley Obama says: "We don't show proof. Only the little people have to show proof."
(Leona "Queen of Mean" Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.")
You said — “I agree that the Constitution most likely won’t be changed but it sure can be ignored by these people. If this comes true, then the people will loose all respect for any laws enacted by Obama and his people. If Obama’s people do not follow our Constitution, then why should the people respect any laws?”
Well, I’m going to give you an “around the back way” sort of support that Obama *does* give the Constitution. You’re saying..., “What!!??”
If Obama was intent on ignoring the Constitution, he would simply say that he wasn’t born here and it doesn’t make any difference. That would be Obama not giving support to the Constitution.
But, Obama doesn’t do that. He *actually supports* the Constitution — at least “on the surface” he does. By him saying that he is qualified and that he meets the qualifications of the Constitution — he *is* giving support to this Constitution (even if he was lying, you see...).
Even a liar recognizes that he can’t violate the law, so he *gives support to the law* — by saying “he’s following the law”. That’s how Obama is giving support to the Constitution.
And that is *precisely* the reason why the Constitution won’t be trashed — because *even Obama* recognizes that he can’t trash the Constitution or he would be put out of office.
Therefore, my conclusion is that the Constitution survives any lawbreaker and any liar and any crook. It still remains intact.
—
I know that’s sort of an esoteric argument, but it’s true, and it shows that the Constitution is gong to remain intact.
The constitution is nothing, if it is ignored. Obama can resolve this by requesting Hawaii send his certified long form Birth Certificate to Congress. He won't. He knows he wasn't Constitutionally eligible and so do a lot more politicians and judges who are just going along. It is a SAD day for the Republic.
I am beginning to have my doubts. Who's to say he isn't going to line up with Obama on everything? I would have rather not received a response than this. It set my blood on fire. What the heck is he thinking?
There is no proof that he does qualify, and all kinds of indications that he does not. Way too many of our elected official do not know the Constitution, what it says, and many who consider it a stumbling block. It sounds like Saxby doesn't know the difference in birth certificates or Hawaian laws. This issue and this man does need further vetting.
Oh please! That is very naive and twisted thinking. Who would throw him out?
You said — “With all due response, Star, that’s somewhat of a half-truth. Will the constitution still be intact? Yes. Will the notion that it must be upheld, that it is indeed the governing document and foundation for our rule of law be intact? No. It will have been shown that when politically incorrect, that pesky old constitution is best left unconsulted. It’s an utter travesty to think that a foreign national can assume the Oval Office because the right “process” isn’t in place.”
Well, with other laws, the fact that a crook “gets away with it” does not invalidate the law. And in fact, the law continues to be used in the same way with other crooks that it applies to.
Now, the first point here, is the really big one — in that there is no proof that Obama does not meet the requirements of the Constitution. If there was, a court would have ruled immediately on the presented evidence. No court has, so the evidence is lacking.
In fact, Obama asserts that he meets those qualifications and he has presented some document that he says supports his assertion. Therefore, it’s going to take some strong evidence to dispute this. I don’t see it, so as it stands, Obama is considered qualified, in practice and by law.
But, if we were to speculate that Obama is lying (and that is a speculation because of no proof), then Obama is obviously a crook. But, as I said above, no crook getting away with something invalidates a law that is on the books. It never is that way in real life. We’ve got lots of crooks “getting away” with things all the time and still the laws remain on the books and those same laws still convict other crooks by going through due process.
If, perchance, a prosecutor sees that a certain law is not “tight enough” so that it lets too many crooks get away, he petitions for the tightening of the law through the legislature to close the net on these crooks. That’s exactly what we have to do with vetting a Presidential Candidate — i.e., “close the net” and not allow crooks to get through. The law remains the same as far as the Constitutional requirements are concerned and the vetting process makes sure another crook does not get into office.
That’s how it works..., and the Constitution is still just as viable as it was before — and *more enforceable* than it was before (with new state vetting laws).
You said — “Oh please! That is very naive and twisted thinking. Who would throw him out?”
It’s a way to say and show that the Constitution is not trashed if someone lies about something. The lie is given because of the strength of the Constitution to *eliminate* someone — *if* — the truth were known.
Hence, the Constitution is just as strong and viable as it has always been...
You mean the one where one guy says his name is Ken Shuhubia and that he talked to Obama's grandmother and the other one, from the American evangelist, telling us that Ken Shuhubia isn't really the other guy's name? What's the legal value of a falsely signed affidavit?
PLEASE NOTE: The only way you can educate these spineless idiots in Congress is to hit them in the pocket book!
All fund raising letters we get from RNC are returned with comments that as long they are NOT asking for all of Hussein's sealed records, BC, Passport, college records (application forms) they will not receive one single dime from us!!
I recommend that everyone do the same!!!
You said — “There is no proof that he does qualify, and all kinds of indications that he does not.”
There’s no requirement, in law, that Obama give any more proof than he has. And therein, lies the problem. You’re asking for something that he cannot be compelled, under law, to do. And that’s why no one is getting anywhere with this issue.
And also, that’s why state laws are needed to require proof in the vetting process for the Candidate for President of the United States, to close that “loophole” in the law.
From this view it certainly looks like the only way the Constitution will be defended is by the People Patriots, just like in 1776.
Another moroon weigns in. No doubt star travler will be right behind you.
Sec. 11-120-2 Application for Hawaii certificate of foreign birth. (a) An application by a legal parent or an adult adoptee shall be filed with the state registrar of vital statistics before a new certificate of birth entitled a "Hawaii Certificate of Foreign Birth" is issued. (b) Application forms shall be provided by the department of health. [Eff. FEB 19 1981] (Auth: HRS Secs. 321-338-2) (Imp: HRS Sec. 338-20.5)
Here is the official Hawaiian government pdf link; How to get an "authentic" Hawaiian Birth Certificate without be born in America
You said — “The constitution is nothing, if it is ignored.”
Obama has not ignored the Constitution. On the contrary, Obama says he meets the qualifications for President of the United States under the Constitution. So, “from Obama” — he’s not ignoring the Constitution.
And for the other voters in the election who voted him in, by a large margin, they don’t see Obama as violating the Constitution.
It seems to be only certain people who are saying that Obama is violating the Constitution — however — they have one big problem in that they cannot prove it. Therein lies the problem with *that case* that they are trying to make. They’ll never “make the case” without the proof.
—
You said — “He knows he wasn’t Constitutionally eligible and so do a lot more politicians and judges who are just going along.”
It’s your “assertion” that he knows he’s not eligible under the Constitution. However, you can’t prove that assertion and that’s why you (and others) have the problem that you do. Until you provide the solid proof — this “qualification issue” will go nowhere.
The new congress takes office on January 6 and proceeds to count the electoral votes on that date. Senators who lost their seats won't be there.
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.