Obama is Still an American, Still President

Scripps News ^ | 3/6/2009 | Dale McFeaters...etal.

[AJ in NYC]

It is an article of faith in the loopier precincts of the Internet, impervious to evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president of the United States because he is not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires.

All this would be quite harmless, like believing in the Illuminati or alien abduction, except that the extra-chromosome true believers have taken to filing suit in the federal courts basically seeking to overturn the election.

[El Gato]

in a court of law one needs proof...obama has shown prima facia evidence to his birthplace and constitutional eligibility in his digital copy one, it would fall if someone found definitive proof that it was a fake, or that he lied on it...but you haven’t yet so it still stands

I think this must be the weekend crew.

Anyway, one does not need absolute proof to make a criminal charge, let alone a civil one. There only need be sufficient "reason to believe", the proof needs to be submitted to the court during the trial, in either instance. In fact in a civil trial, only "preponderance of the evidence" is required to prevail. The court will provide the means, (court orders, supoenas,etc) to obtain he necessary evidence, if it is not already in hand. It works a bit differently in criminal matters, with the "reason to believe" required to obtain a warrant for either arrest or search to obtain evidence.

Your argument would be like a Judge saying to the police "you haven't proven that the stolen merchandise is in that location, so I deny your warrant application to search there", even though witnesses saw boxes of something being unloaded at the address shortly after the robbery, boxes with the logo of the store which was robbed on them, etc, etc.

[El Gato]

Wonder how many Freepers we can get deputized?

Quite a few I would imagine. However I also imagine that no small number already are LEOs, police, sheriffs, constables, etc.Some may even be military police/investigators. Investigators like AF's OSI, Army CID or Navy/Marine NCIS

[El Gato]

Being gay and a coke head is not a disqualification to the office of President. Not being a Natural Born Citizen is.

[usmcobra]

Ok let say the burden of proof is on those trying to prove he wasn’t born in the United States, under the rules of discovery for civil cases, those trying to prove there is something wrong with his original birth certificate get the right to view it.

This is not a criminal case, the rules are different, both side get to view the evidence before a judge which is why every case so far has been shunted out of court before the discovery phase can begin, once a Judge insists that the documents be shown, it’s over.

[Dante3]

I agree.

Obama appears to be hiding something. What else would explain the secrecy?

[El Gato]

I don’t understand, then, why there would be a reason to either write an incorrect date on the BC back in ‘61, or to hide the incorrect date now. What significance would his birth date have? I don’t believe it’s really something that would hurt him now - let’s face it, none of us really knows when we’re born - we’re told by our parents and the paperwork.

Just speculation, but a reason could have been to make the date of birth about the same time the Certificate of Live Birth was filed. That possibility is one reason that it is good to see the original document, or a certified copy of it. It will show if the birth occurred in a hospital, or was reported as a home birth. If BHO was born outside the US, his mother and grandmother would have wanted him to be a citizen, and they would have wanted to somewhat legitimize the circumstances of his birth.

There was nothing terribly unusual about first babies being somewhat "premature", even in '61, so that alone would probably not be cause for "fudging" the date. Hard to do for a hospital birth anyway.

I've been going through "pages" of some of my high school classmates. It's amazing how many have children born the same year we graduated ('68), and we did not graduate until June. I had no idea so many of the gals were pregnant at graduation. Some of those marriages continue to this day, others ended tragically in death of one of the spouses. Others ended in amazingly amicable divorces, often after one or two other kids came along. The only ones I know of that ended in ugly divorces, the kids were born a year or more after graduation and/or the marriage.

[usmcobra]

In these motions, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They argued that revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” The source of that embarrassment was not specified.

The source of that embarrassment was not specified.....

In other words if it was discovered that Obama was indeed ineligible it would be the source of particularly serious embarrassment maybe even criminal charges.

Obama cannot be forced to show his original birth certificate because he won't be president if it is revealed that he should not be the president.

[El Gato]

What is a good source to get the facts?

I heard a recording of Jindall himself saying that his mother was already pregnant with him when his parents came to the US. Unless they really got fast tracked to citizenship, it seems unlikely that they were citizens when he was born.

[El Gato]

What it attests to, what it certifies, is the information on the "original" that everyone's screaming for.

Only *some* of the information. And of course being a computer generated document, it's much easier to "fake" than would be a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth, which contains the place of the parents, the hospital or the address where the birth took place, and the signatures of a parent, the doctor, DO, nurse midwife, or "other" person attending the birth. Each of those signature, along with that of the "local registrar" for a hospital birth, is separately dated.

Some states "Certification" of birth is not even accepted by the State Department for purposes of getting a passport, becuase they contain insufficient, and in some cases misleading, information to prove citizenship. Even a certified copy of the Certificate might not be sufficient to prove "natural born" citizenship, depending on exactly what criteria a court would put on that status.

[El Gato]

But he has done so indirectly by providing the Certification of Live Birth to Obama and Obama subsequently releasing a scanned image and allowing photographs to be taken of it and made public.

You are assuming a couple of things not in evidence or not proven.

1. The Registrar really did provide such a Certification to Obama, there is no independent evidence of that, and

(2) The scanned image, is unaltered, or is even actually a scanned image of anything.

The only independent evidence is the statement by the Hawaiian officials that there is a "Birth Certificate" on file for BHO, and a separate statement by a lower level official, that the image of the Certification "looks like one of ours".

[BP2]

Michael, over the past few weeks, your argument has shifted from the "ALL CITIZENSHIP of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment" to "It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." I've proven you wrong on these and every other ludicrous statement you've made.

Now your soup de jour is focusing on Common Law, and I assume the other Obot talking point of the day making the rounds regarding a Blackstone Natural Born Subject definition.

If you're going to cite Common Law in the era leading up to the Framing, you cannot ignore the impact of the "Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Issue of her Body" was an Act of the Parliament of England (4 & 5 Ann. c. 16.) in 1705. It followed from the Act of Settlement 1701 whereby the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover and heirs, were declared to be in the line of succession to the throne (her son George I later became king).

However, Sophia was not considered to be an Englishwoman as she had not been born in England, i.e., she was NOT Natural Born. This Act naturalized her and "the issue of her body" as English subjects. Also note that Naturalization was restricted to those of the Protestant faith. However any person born to a descendant of Sophia could also claim to be the "issue of her body". Incidentally, that Act was revoked in totality by The British Nationality Act of 1948.

So, the importance of Bloodline AS WELL AS Birthplace held great importance in Common Law in their "natural born" status. Just as there are different "classes" of citizen and subject today, the same was certainly the case back in the 1700s under Common Law -- and "Natural Born" had special meaning, otherwise the Sophia's naturalization act would NOT have been necessary in the first place!

I can't wait to hear your next Obot talking point. It'll be something laughable like:

"Because Vattel is French, the 'Law of Nations' is only
applicable in Louisiana because only their state law based on
the Napoleonic Code."

Michael, with you around, who needs a court jester. LOL

[BP2]

Bottom line, the Gomers who drafted this resolution with regard to "certificate of live birth" are utterly clueless.

First of all, I'd say less than 5 percent of the American public know the difference between a CertificATE and CertificaTION of Live Birth.

However, since you seem to be so distressed by it, it may comfort you to know that I and others are communicating with sponsors of the Missouri Bill. We are are working with the "gomers" and getting them up to speed on this complex issue. As a result, the language of the Bill has been corrected.

Thank you for your concern...

[Sylvester McMonkey McBean]

My final thought to you on the matter.

Now tell me, why would Obama, or most anyone else for that matter, be inclined to respond to the demands of all these nut cases with anything more than a big "FU** YOU!"?

Too easy. Because to date, he still hasn't satisfied the Constitutional requirement to hold the office to which he claims title. This really is a simple matter involving a simple solution. It seems to me those who wish to complicate, obfuscate, or ignore it have ulterior motives, or a vested interest in doing so.

[Scanian]

Then what Bobby needs to do is be a great governor and think about serving in the next Republican cabinet. He is knowlegeable in several areas. No presidential run for him.