Posted on 02/27/2010 5:02:33 PM PST by spacejunkie01
If a person has a British Father and an American Mother is that person a natural born Citizen and qualified to run for POTUS?
The answer as far as I am concerned is no, he is not a NBC.
The posters answer in part was:
For that reason, I would predict, and I think most of the Constitutional Law bar would predict, that if you had your facts with respect to a person who was born in the US, there is little doubt that the Court would hold the person a natural born citizen for purposes of the Constitutional requirement.
The poster is suggesting that there is ambiguity in the law and how the courts may view it, no one can say for certain how they will rule, including you.
Unfortunately what you and I say doesn't matter, I would predict though that if it did, we'd be living in a better, Country.
You are correct though, poster did not say yes or no for the reasons he stated, he was looking at it through the lens of an attorney.
The posters answer in part was:
No, the poster didn't answer the question. The poster offered an opinion.
The poster is suggesting...
Thank you for the admission! A suggestion isn't an answer. The poster is avoiding answering the question directly!
...that there is ambiguity in the law...
That is another opinion...
...and how the courts may view it, no one can say for certain how they will rule, including you.
Nor did I ask him what he thought the courts would do.
You are correct though, poster did not say yes or no for the reasons he stated, he was looking at it through the lens of an attorney.
Ok, you go ahead and believe that.
Why are you knit picking this?
...is that person a natural born Citizen and qualified to run for POTUS?
Anyone can run for POTUS, qualifying for the office is different story, Obama has proved that.
...that there is ambiguity in the law... That is another opinion...
Through the eyes of an attorney every law can be made to sound ambiguous and guess what, everyone ends up with an opinion on it.
IMO, bammie is a fraud and a usurper based on what the Constitution, historical writings and previous SCOTUS decisions.
What can you say for certainty about this that is not your opinion?
This is really a simple issue. He is our highest elected public official. He should open his records, passport, selective service, school, and birth. Until then, the truth is unknown and he is demonstrating guilty behavior in refusing. I have to question the motives of those who nit pik the issue and don’t just call Mr. Transparency on his hiding information.
It took years to get Nixon out of office! ;-)
A better example is how fast the majority Democrat legislature of Illinois impeached and removed Governor Blagojevich.
If any conservative prosecuting attorney in the nation (US Attorney, state Attorney General or a District Attorney) had the guts to launch a criminal (not civil) Grand Jury investigation into Obama’s eligibility and subpoena his birth records, perhaps we’d have a national “Blagojevich”. But I guess we’re in a situation of “no guts, no glory.”
You would think so and I couldn't agree with you more, so simple yet....
ECOMCON is sounding better everyday.
Well, at least e don't have riots in the streets..../s
IMO, bammie is a fraud and a usurper based on what the Constitution, historical writings and previous SCOTUS decisions.
What can you say for certainty about this that is not your opinion?
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
In your statement there's no ambiguity, no waffling and no attempt at diversion.
If others unequivocally state the same thing as you have I have no problem with them either. The problem arises when they don't.
Thanks for the chat and you have a good day.
Ditto that, you too.
Because it would then not be microfiche. It would be microfilm.
The more important issue for me is the language “Date filed by Registrar” vs. “Date accepted by Registrar” on some of the certificates that have come to light. Plus the one which showed up on Obama’s campaign web site is either a copy of one that originally showed up on the Daily Kos web site or, at the very least, is a lately reissued copy.
I wish someone with national legal or research credentials would look deeply into this mess and publish a book on the topic. Vincent Bugliosi comes to mind but I think he is a big liberal.
I wish somebody in law enforcement would look deeply into it.
Janice Okubo has confirmed that the “Date filed” is the date the certificate was given a number. She says after they switched to having hospitals file electronically they rolled the “Date accepted” and “Date filed” into just the “Date filed” field since submission, acceptance, and filing happened at the same time. (Looking at the US standard birth certificate information, the software is supposed to have built-in checks that will not allow a record to be sent until everything required is completed.)
And it had been happening at the same time before also, except on the outlying islands where there was delivery time for the certificates involved. The local registrar collected certificates for a week (as the rules at the time said) and then signed and delivered them on the same day to the state registrar who then gave them a number and filed them.
If Obama’s was given a number on Tuesday, Aug 8, he was not born at Kapiolani. And there’s no way his number was given on Tuesday and 3 days later the Nordykes were given earlier numbers than his. We know that either the number or the filing date or both are forged. I suspect that it is the number.
And maybe more importantly: NO “Woodwards/Bernsteins” investigators either!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
The quote you attribute to Fukino is false. That is the headline from the falsely framed USAToday story. Fukino did not validate the Factcheck COLB, as you imply. Fukino only said she had seen the "vital records" in the HI DOH file. Those records could include an initial filing of a foreign birth to an HI resident similar to the Blaine BC or the actual Blaine BC application.
That original vital record could be subsequently amended, based on affidavits from the Obama/Dunham family, to remove the foreign birth reference on the pretext that it was in error, leaving only the home address of Stanley Ann's parents in the vital records.
HI officials would then be legally obligated to defend the amended HI vital records and legally obligated to hide the amendment until and unless Obama released the amendment.
So the fact that HI officials affirm an HI birth does not remove the suspicion generated by the fact that Obama is withholding release of any amendments.
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.