http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Re: “The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...”
I take some issue with that. While the Constitution does not explicitly address that particular issue (NBC), it does have the “methodology” for confirming the eligibility of a President. First, the states determine who electors are and they vote (left to states to determine how to determine electors and how they vote). Second, Congress either confirms that vote or rejects it. I know many people here take issue with that, but I think McCain had this right when he made this argument.
Yeah if the Kenyan doc is fake, and it was based on the Aussie doc, why wouldn’t the maker of the doc change Miller, Lavender and 44b 5733? The maker of the Kenyan doc would have to have been extremely lazy and accepting of risk.
If the Aussie doc is fake, Miller, Lavender and 44b 5733 are the reason for the existence of the document. They would have created the Aussie doc in order to say “look, the Kenyan doc must be bad, because of Miller, Lavender and 44b 5733”
The media / Obama has what they want right now, which is something, anything, to say which would possibly discredit the Kenyan document, especially to those who aren’t paying attention. On Sunday, “47O44” was what they had, and it wasn’t working at all. They’re still trying “Republic”. “E.F. Lavender is a soap” didn’t work. So, they created, or revealed, the Aussie doc.
They don’t want to win the argument, they simply wanted something that wasn’t clearly ridiculous to say, and then they would call the Kenyan doc a fake. They weren’t going to spend 15 minutes on the subject, fairly analyzing each side, they were going to say the “Kenyan doc is fake” and their because became “because it was based on this Aussie doc”. And that was good enough for them. The Kenyan doc may very well be fake, but not because it was based on the Aussie doc.
It is much more likely the Aussie doc is fake than the Kenyan.
Unrelated to this, does South Australia use the book/page format of birth recordkeeping?
I remember someone saying a couple days ago that that book/page system was common in 3rd world countries like Kenya. Is South Australia a 3rd world country?
It was said that no real BC exists in Kenya, only those books, and the Kenyan doc is what you get when you ask for a BC. People have been looking for old South Australian bc’s, and they’re finding them. If there are real South Australian bc’s, it seems to me that they are using a more familiar system similar to the US, and not a book/page system.
Someone from South Australia should be able to answer this.
Has a Rain Man quality to it.
If you don’t have time to read any of the posts, you should not take the time to post idiocy.
You must allow an A for persistence despite it being explained to here by half a dozen or more posters.
My earlier question is where in the constitution does it autorize the president to transfer troops by plane? ST cannot answer that simple question.
Yeah, you’re right for those things you note. I was constructing my statement a bit more narrowly than that, as you have noted, by reference to the NBC... :-)
I was talking about how everyone else had framed this issue in that the “Constitution” was not being followed. And, of course, they were saying that on the basis of the three requirements specified. So, that’s the area I was talking on...
But, I will probably still keep saying it that way, because if I started including the other things you’re mentioning, while correct, they’ll be “off topic” of this particular issue...
Thanks for pointing that out...
Well, one would think that someone might want to “get the birth certificate”... LOL...
[... but that seems to be a side issue here... :-) ...]
I have started a Free Republic *trend*... LOL...
***living up to your new nickname I see
BFRCoLBTWAWLOL
“get the birth certificate”... LOL...
***hey, BFRCoLBTWAWLOL, maybe you could start a fundraising thread to pay for that medication that you so obviously need.
Well, instead of just having 215,000 instances of “LOL” from posters here on Free Republic..., we’ve got to get everyone going on it... LOL..
StarTraveler, you've won top of the troll list, what are you going to do now?
Well, you said ---- I should go to Disney Land but I think I'll go make a State Law that say my man Obama needs to show his BC, lol
To: Star Traveler
The personal attacks will stop now or you can find another galaxy to troll, duuuuuuuuude. Your choice and I await your response. 239 posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:30:08 PM by Admin Moderator [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Ohhhh yeeah, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Well... you know... since there is *no legal requirement* for a candidate to show their birth certificate... it seems that you would want to figure out a way to get it... :-)
That's from 8 USC 1401. If you look at the "notes" tab at the link above, you'll find:
Amendments
1994—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–416 added subsec. (h).
1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
IOW, in August of 1961 the requirement read:
ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:>
The change to the law was not retroactive. IOW, Stanley Ann was not eligible to pass on citizenship to Barry, IF he was not born in the US. (Assuming she was married to BHO Sr.).
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.
ie You can argue whether or not Barry is a natural born citizen, but natural born citizens are not the only class of citizens eligible for POTUS.
Are you saying Barry was a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution? That's the only other class of citizens that were eligible to the office of President.
The last President who was a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died in 1850 while serving in his second year as President. Zachary Taylor was born in Virginia in 1784, about 4 years before the adoption of the Constitution. He was the 12th President under the Constitution. Some earlier Presidents had been born after the adoption and were natural born citizens. But since him there have been 31 Presidents, 32 if you count The Messaiah, 30 if you don't count him and Chester Arthur. It's quite likely that Chester Arthur was not natural born, but the facts that make that likely were not demonstrated until well after his death. He was born in the US but at the time his father was not a US Citizen, although he became one when Chester was about 14.
Barack H. Obama Sr was never a citizen of the US, nor even a permanent resident alien.
It's arguable that sine he was born in the United States, that Taylor was natural born, and thus fit into both categories. If so, the next previous President who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was William Henry Harrison. He was the 9th President under the Constitution, but unfortunately he died in office of pneumonia, only about a month after taking office.
Oh.... you’re talking about that “flame fest” you started... LOL...
—
“Get fitted for new offical zero kneepads today, did ya?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304850/posts?page=170#170
—
I havent seen anything as looney as you since the dude on June 4, 1967 laying in the gutter at Haight and Masonic beating his head against the curb.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304850/posts?page=183#183
—
Ah, you admit you went to get another pair, eh?
I’m sure you wore the first set out, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304850/posts?page=198#198
—
When you go insane... that’s all ya got left... LOL...
Well, you know I showed you this before, but for the benefit of “Sibre Fan”, I’ll give it here for him, in regards to what you were saying...
It’s a slight bit different that you say. I mean by that... the Constitution says what the candidate must *be* and then it’s up to the officials to carry out the “methodology” of determining that.
Now, the conflict here is that people here have said that they want a “methodology” of “seeing the birth certificate” while the officials have simply (and with all candidates in the past) had them sign and swear an oath they are *are* what the Constitution says that they must *be* — and that is their “methodology”...
The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...
And here’s the Constitution for you...., the *basics* of the Constitution on this qualifications issue...
And yes, there is a Constitution, it’s to follow — and here is what it says, in regards to qualifications. The Constitution says that a candidate must be the following in order to qualify for the office. The candidate must ...
*be* 35 years or older
*be* a resident 14 years or more
*be* a natural born citizen
And Obama has sworn under oath that he *is* (as the Constitution says he must *be*)...
It does not say what is necessary to show it, prove it or what any means for “vetting” is. That’s up to the states themselves to vet and make sure that the candidates meet the qualifications.
And what they have done is sworn an oath that they are qualified..., Obama has, the other candidates have and they have in the past...
—
And in addition the State of Hawaii says that he *is* exactly what the Constitution says he must *be*...
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
“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. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
This shows that there is no Constitutional issue or question. So, when there is no Constitutional issue at problem here with the Qualifications for office, why would the Supreme Court get involved? Which is why they didn’t get involved.
—
And if you want to get Obama to show his birth certificate, you’re going to have to get a state law to that effect, which is what I’ve been proposing since the election.
And you’ll notice that no one is saying to ignore the Constitution...
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703
Got a link for that post? It brightened my day.
To: Star Traveler
The personal attacks will stop now or you can find another galaxy to troll, duuuuuuuuude. Your choice and I await your response. 239 posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:30:08 PM by Admin Moderator [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Also, you’ll note this is what I said in post #5904, in regards to my current position...
Well, I’ve got a pretty basic position mapped out for myself. It breaks down into three areas...
(1) I’m going to go by the official Hawaii pronouncement, unless something solid comes up (in a court of law) that disproves it.
(2) Since everyone wants to see the birth certificate, I’m going to continue to work for enacting a state law for that purpose (Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Azrizona already working on it).
(3) The issue of natural born, as far as parents and their citizenship, I’m going to let the Supreme Court decide on it and I’ll take their decision.
That’s where it boils down for me right now...
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.