Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
I have never advocated a birth place other than the USA.
However, secretiveness over small, insignificant things will lead to speculation on the part of those who become suspicious. In response to unnecessary secretiveness, I don’t have a problem with speculation. Any politician secretive over a minor detail deserves suspicion and secretiveness.
To be honest with you, WOSG, I’m personally interested in his selective service filing as well.
Are you afraid to release your birth certificate? Probably not. Neither am I.
The secretiveness does stink up the place.
If he was conservative I would agree. He is a radical leftist. The courts won't do a thing. The Congress won't do a thing. Who is going to force him to produce it? The media? They keep putting him on their covers and bow down to him.
If he produces his birth certificate, then THAT particular issue will most likely be resolved,...
The whole issue probably started because he took offense that someone would dare to ask for it. He is an insecure, arrogant, elitist.
He is insecure because he's afraid people will realize he is no where near as smart as people think he is. He's terrified people will realize he got where he is because he speaks nicely, smiles and makes himself out to be an easy going guy. He's arrogant because it's the best protection he has to keep people from realizing what an idiot he is. He's an elitist because of his political beliefs. When confronted with anything this type of personality usually reacts by saying no. Having done so initially, the controversy got started and then someone with a devious mind (Rahmn Emanuel) probably told him lets use this to our benefit.
Nor do we have a single copy of anything penned by him as editor of the Harvard Law Review (or whatever they call that student journal.) This is odd since every other editor has written something.
I understand we don't have his SAT or LSAT scores. Do you recall the absolute God-awful mud-slinging that came about as a result of GW's SAT scores? Obama has "said" what his were, but no one has insisted he provide them.
Remember the national crisis brought about over GW's National Guard records? Why, they had to be totally released, and they were examined down to the hour by hour level. Remember Dan Rather's contribution?
I guarantee you I had to produce an original birth certificate in order to get a security clearance when in the military. They would not have been satisfied with an abstract. And if they went to the street address I gave, and it was not the proper address, they would demand that discrepancy be cleared up.
In the process every legitimate criticism will get laughed at. A perfect example is Tina Fey portraying Gov. Palin and saying "I can see Russia from my kitchen". Now people think she actually said that.
IIRC, a birth certificate or certified copy of one is REQUIRED to obtain a passport and I am certain that passports list the place of birth.
False premise. Clinton and her supporters brought up the issue first and the idea that Clinton could break Hawaii privacy laws and obtain a vault copy birth certificate is ignorant. Pointing to McCain or Clinton campaigns' "investigations" and their reluctance to press the issue publicly as some sort of proof that Obama is a natural born citizen defies logic.
There is a source document and Obama has tried to block its release. Either he agrees to release or a court order will have to compel him to. Simple as that.
I'm not so sure there's one guy behind the curtain. Liberalism is a religion. Radical leftists are just the strongest practitioners of this secular humanist faith. It's all about having govt do everything and control everyone.
I didn't think they would. By saying it is Obama that has his back to the wall on this dead end, I am saying that what he is hiding will probably be devastating in the court of public opinion.
I'm beginning to think that Barack Hussein Obama II did not exist anywhere until 1981, when Obama decided that he wanted to be "black". Prior to that he went by "Barry" and his school records from Indonesia (the only records I have ever seen) show his actual name to be Barry Soetoro.
So I'm going to "speculate" that the name on the "Original Birth Certificate" (if there is such a document in existence) would show that his original name (Barry (Dunham-Davis-Obama?? Whatever) is not the name that was on the ballot in November of 2008.
If the people of America are engaging in wild speculation, then it is Obama who is to blame. When you hide something, the natural reaction of everyone is to look for it. Pretty soon even the MSM may get a little curious. Maybe.
For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. Mark 4:22
Yet we don't hear anything about this do we?
All I can say is it is wrong.
I completely agree that GW was raked over the coals and all the media does is bow down to the 0. It's a good starting point when talking with those misguided fools that voted for him the first time.
Hillary Clinton is on record as co-sponsoring a proposal to amend the Constitution, allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the office of President, with no restriction other than age and length of residency. So, she has no issue personally, with that particular requirement being undermined. She's also Secretary Of State in an administration filled with her and her husband's former cronies. Sometimes you don't have to literally win, to get what you really want.
And, John McCain had and still has his own, well-scrutinized problems in the area of Constitutional eligibility, no matter what that ludicrous, nonbinding Sense of the Senate SR 511 attempted to convey. Review the several proposals for Constitutional amendment, over just the past five years alone, sponsored and co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike, and you'll see that they're quite certainly aware that John McCain was not eligible, and that Barack Obama is not eligible.
Perhaps McCain was chosen to be the candidate because he was also ineligible, and therefore (a) could not touch obama’s ineligibility and (b) had to throw the election because if he had won, his eligilibity would have been dragged into view.
I am convinced he threw the election, just haven’t figured out why. The entire thing stunk.
The reading I've done has folks coming down on both sides of that. Some concluding that that Congress can (your opinion) and other that it can't override by statute what was done by this phrase in this constitutional amendment.
Popular opinion seems to desire opening the office of president up to all citizens, regardless of they come to that status. Again, my impression is that nationalism is destined for the trash heap, and we're more likely to see the office opened up too all citizens, than we are to see it limited to children born of citizens.
-- It's less a matter of 'was it intended?' and more a matter of 'what does the law say?' --
Seeing as how this is constitutional interpretation, the rhetoric of the founders (what does it say), plus the meaning of certain terms of art at the time and any record of rationale for the choice of certain words and phrases (what was intended), will all play into applying the words of the constitution to a fact pattern.
I speculate that the drafters of the 14th may have been focused on issues other than opening the door wider for the presidency, hence they did not make perfectly clear how "natural born citizen" was to be applied. While the base constitution uses both "citizen" and "natural born citizen," the 14th amendment does not expressly confer "natural born citizenship" to all persons born in the country. It could have, just as the Wong Kim Ark Court could have said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.
And too, should a federal court, ultimately appealed to SCOTUS, decide to clarify the point, the holding of Wong Kim Ark may be extended to say just that. It's a very short clarifying jump; although IMO it is contrary to the principle of reserving the office of president to a person with undivided loyalty. If my father was the King of Saud, and I was both the prince, and the president of the United States, well, you get the picture.
Only if the media would ask the question, "why won't he produce it" and they won't. Anybody who does ask will be smeared for having done so.
If the people of America are engaging in wild speculation, then it is Obama who is to blame.
I can't disagree. I don't think he has the ability to see how he could use this to his benefit, but don't put it past Emanuel or Axelrod.
How is it "abuse?" The constitution says anyone born in the US, whose parents are subject to US laws while on US soil, is a natural born citizen - period. The only people immune to US laws are diplomats and some members of certain Indian tribes.
Was Wong Kim Ark wrongly decided? Or is it wrong to apply its holding to an inquiry about eligibility to the office of president? I think at least the second question is answered "yes, it is wrong to apply Wong Kim Ark to the issue of eligibility." And my initial impression is that the answer to the first question is also "yes - the dissent got it right." I would think that legal residency/domicile are at least required, in order to "be under the jurisdiction" for 14th amendment purposes.
I noticed then, that the old goat looked oddly relieved, even happy. The only sad faces and the only tears shed on that stage, belonged to Sarah and Todd Palin. And, they were not allowed to speak.
Did he literally "throw" the election? I don't know that I'd go so far. But, there were plenty of cues all along, that McCain was aware of what was to come, whether it turned out to be him in the hotseat, or his opponent Barack Obama.
You are right to be interested. Frankly, a much much bigger deal of getting his real past history should have been made during the Dem primary and election season. He got way too many passes.
There is nothing, as far as we know, after he became Editor/President of Harvard Law Review.
Barack Obama's Case Comment on Abortion for the Harvard Law Review - Orin Kerr, August 22, 2008
Obama's Case Note - Eugene Volokh, August 22, 2008
Obama's lost law review article - Politico (8/22/08)
... an unsigned - and previously unattributed - 1990 article ... was published a month before he became president [of the Harvard Law Review] ... Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship
I call the tourist visa baby business ‘abuse’ because while these are legally US citizens, its abusing the intent of the 14th amendment. those who come here on tourist visas for the express purpose of having a baby, end up going back to their home country, and raising them in their own country. They are in effect ‘birthplace shopping’ for some future benefit. That’s not what those who wrote these provisions could have envisioned. Congress could perhaps legislate this out, if the SCOTUS allows it.
I’ve been in half a dozen discussions/ go arounds on Wong Kim Ark in the past week, so not caring to go over that ground. Whether good or bad decision, consider that it is precedent for 100 years. will it change? Good luck.
“The reading I’ve done has folks coming down on both sides of that. Some concluding that that Congress can (your opinion) and other that it can’t override by statute what was done by this phrase in this constitutional amendment.”
True. I’m all for Congress at least trying. WOnt ever happen until we get a GOP majority back though.
“So is every naturalized citizen every much a citizen as a natural born citizen”
Clearly, no. Naturalized citizens cannot be president.
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.