Posted on 04/21/2010 11:27:28 AM PDT by pissant
Edited on 04/21/2010 11:29:49 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
(Excerpt) Read more at ac360.blogs.cnn.com ...
States don’t have rights to ask, I guess.
Why so socialist?
bump for later!
More bad news for Barack, the 40th anniversary of the Pentagon bombing is going to fall in 2012. Wonder what Bill Ayers will say when he’s interviewed about his actions and his association with the President?
Clearly you have not heard our President speak. EVERYTHING is all about him.
Arizona legislators should tell the WH to stop meddling in state business. AZ can determine what they require for their state ballot. Candidates can either meet the requirement or not appear on the ballot.
fan meets turd
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?
So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.
As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”
Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.
More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.
Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.
Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?
Yes. Of course, technically, the actual candidate on the ballot is the elector pledged to vote for Barack Obama. I assume this law would be to qualify someone to be the name the elector candidate is pledged to. So the ballot could be worded so as to avoid mentioning Obama’s name. But the effect would be the same. His reputation would be in tatters.
“personally, I was stunned to learn that there was NOT an existing mechanism in any state to verify that candidates for POTUS met the constitutional qualifications.”
This really is the point. Many here were surprised that, even though it’s a Constitutional requirement, no mechanism existed to verify. That made no sense, this law just closes the loophole - for EVERYBODY.
Agree with the requirement mentioned - but that it must be sent directly by one state’s Vital Statistics office to the S.O.S. in the other state without the candidate even being involved. Agreeing to run should also mean agreeing to open your records and showing you are eligible to run — not that others will have to prove you are NOT eligible!
Then again, there are also adopted folks like me out there whose original birth certificates are sealed by law, and we can’t request those. I assume that I am a “Natural Born Citizen” but I could not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt because I cannot access my original birth certificate.
I only have access to my amended certificate that indicates my adoptive parents as the Birth Mother & Birth Father (and includes hospital, doctor (typed not signed), time, date, height, weight, etc... too — on the long form I was able to specifically request for a little extra money).
Of course, if I were to run for office which required these documents I would file with the court to have my original birth records UNSEALED — not sealed as Obama has apparently done. Barring my having it available to ME, I would be very upset, but would not object to having the records reviewed by the S.O.S.’s and for them to verify while still maintaining the privacy of that record (even though, as I said I completely disagree with them being able to see what I cannot legally see about myself!).
Every state’s laws regarding these Vital Statistics records vary, BTW. Just like election laws vary in each state.
People may be interested to know that it wasn’t until (IIRC) the 1930s??? (sometime after 1900) that Birth Records were NOT maintained as PUBLIC RECORDS (meaning available to all). It was supposedly because of the “stigma of adoption on the child” when in reality it was more a problem of powerful families not wanting records of their bastard children available to the public. (Sorry if that sounded crude — I don’t like the word, but couldn’t think of any other way to convey the truth behind the law...).
I am thinking that just one state is all thats needed.If he refuses to qualify in just one state then people in the other 49 will want to know whats up. More may be better but one i think is victory.
Showing his birth certificate will not end this. The pertinent facts are already widely known and well documented, i.e. Obama's father was not a US citizen, and his mother had lived less than five years in the US past her 14th birthday at the time of his birth, thus could not pass US citizenship to him.
Obama never was, never could be, and never will be a Natural Born Citizen, just based on the facts already widely known and documented. It doesn't matter if he produces twenty million birth certificates; none of them will change the already widely known facts.
Recall back in 2003 when she stood on the floor of the Senate holding up the "Bush Knew" NY Post headline...
“This is a question that has been answered exhaustively,”
That’s great - so they have nothing to worry about. Seems like the “not guilty” reaction would be “yawn!” - instead they’re going into apoplexy.
hehehehe
I have a few questions about this “birther” stuff.
I really don’t feel one way or the other about this. I guess I’m what you’d call an “on the fence” birther.
I understand that The King has shown some form of birth certification. I know it’s not an “official” birth certificate. I am also under the impression that the Governor of Hawaii (a Republican) has his “birth certificate” sealed...for whatever reason.
The questions I have are:
1. What exactly has “the regime” released for His Highness’s birth records?
2. Is there any proof, other than hearsay, that he was born in another country?
3. If all he needs to produce is a Certificate of Live Birth, why hasn’t he done it?
4. Is it possible that this guy is so devious that he likes to have this controversy out there just so that one day he will make “birthers” look silly? With his deceitful mind, I would not put this past him.
5. Why do so many conservative commentators refuse to address this? It seems like the majority of them refuse to think that this scenario could be possible and that anyone who thinks it is a possibility is a “whacko”.
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of have and know to be a “Birth Certificate”.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BC’s and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something. That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process. “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.” From “Dreams From My Father” (Pg. 26 last paragraph) So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate? He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mother’s belongings. Why wouldn’t he just slap that one up, for all the world to see? It seemed important that he found a document that is called a “Birth Certificate” and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that “fishy” event.
Does anyone know whether Obama could just walk into Federal court and say that the Arizona statute is void because Arizona can’t establish such procedures for Federal elections, only Arizona state elections?
Exactly... He could have been born in the White House itself, and STILL would never be eligible due to his status as a Subject of the British Crown at birth. A fact he himself has admitted and stated several times. At the very least he is a dual-citizen and NOT a Natural Born American Citizen.
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.