Posted on 04/20/2011 5:42:56 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Skip ahead to 2:55 for the key bit. I think I know what’s going on here, but it’s better that you watch and form your own judgment. The key exchange:
Stephanopoulos: Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says ‘this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.’
Bachmann: Well, then that should settle it.
Stephanopoulos: So it’s over?
Bachmann: That’s what should settle it. I take the president at his word and I think– again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on.
Stephanopoulos: Well this has been introduced. So this story is over?
Bachmann: Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
She caved on the BC issue faster than Boehner caved on the so-called budget cut. Not a good sign as a conservative leader.
This is our last chance to try to save our country. We need a fighter, someone who attacks the communists on all issues. No quarter for “social compact” dictators and their media enablers.
That doesn’t answer my question.
The question is “What is the constitutional standard of proof”?
A COLB doesn't prove "natural born citizen" status. Many people are confusing the issue by saying "Obama is not an American citizen." Whether or not he is currently a US citizen is not of relevance here. The issue is whether he is a "natural born citizen" in the legal meaning of the Constitution.
The "citizen" vs "natural born citizen" issue is a common misconception. The framers of our Constitution used the legal phrase "natural born citizen" ONLY for the office of the President. Nobody questions "citizenship" any more than Schwarznegger (gov of CA and born in Austria) or Granholm (former gov of MI and born in Canada) are citizens. Nevertheless, they are not "natural born citizens."
There is good legal evidence that "natural born citizen" requires TWO AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS. Regardless of where Obama was born, he would NOT be a "natural born citizen" by that definition. It is beyond question that his father was a citizen of the UK, making him a dual citizen at best.
"Where's the Birth Certificate, The case that Barrack Obama is not Eligible to be President."" by Dr. Jerome Corsi is already #2 on Amazon and it won't be released till next month. Expect a devastating report.
"When Donald Trump said he sent PIs to Hawaii to get to the bottom of all this, he meant this book," declares an insider."
“Everything that I outline was carried out in the 2008 election, as has been the procedure for hundreds of years in this country.”
Except the whole Pelosi submitting 2 different ‘certifications.”... Which caused a big chunk of the problem.
Also, IF NBC meant that anything was good enough to qualify as proof, why did they even bother to include the requirement at all? Obviously it means something.
“Bachmann: Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over.”
Stephy’s getting played.
Obama only imagines he has something that''s good. Michelle is really in no position to dispute it, whatever it is.
Now, about the Natural Born Citizen clause, there's dispute over what it means. That can be settled with legislation. Most of the "legal references" seem to be opinions in law text books ~ hardly the most authoritative sort of thing to point to.
Frankly, I'd do it this way, you have to have an up to date genealogy back about 10 generations ~ and we'd start there with discussions of "natural born".
Obama only imagines he has something that''s good. Michelle is really in no position to dispute it, whatever it is.
Now, about the Natural Born Citizen clause, there's dispute over what it means. That can be settled with legislation. Most of the "legal references" seem to be opinions in law text books ~ hardly the most authoritative sort of thing to point to.
Frankly, I'd do it this way, you have to have an up to date genealogy back about 10 generations ~ and we'd start there with discussions of "natural born".
Yup. He lost his big “birther” question. That’s all that was about. I am suspicious of the legitimacy of the complaints we see on this thread. Some of these people need re-veted Fur Shur.
I don't think that folks suspect that Obama's lying. I think they know so.
This is also why he's not going to release his LFBC unless he's forced to. You know, he didn't release that jpeg image of his alleged COLB. Someone in the Obama campaign did. He's had plausible deniability since day one on that.
Notice that you've never heard him say, "I released my birth certificate." He doesn't dare say that, although his mouthpieces and his drones in the MSM repeat it daily.
If it were proved that the COLB is a fraud, he can't be touched, because he's never personally vouched for its authenticity.
That leaves us with the need to see his original LFBC to prove who he is, and whether he meets the constitutional requirements to be president.
As long as that document is under his sole control, we'll never see it, and we'll never prove that he's ineligible.
So Michele Bachmann and other elected conservaives who do not agree with you are in on the scandal? They’re stupid? They’ve been blackmailed? Or do they realize that there is nothing to it and want to focus on much more important things?
133 posted on Monday, April 18, 2011 8:15:49 PM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
They didn’t write it down and so, constitutionally, it is up to the states to decide. Since a jpg off the web isn’t good in any court of law, the states and the courts need to figure it out. Remember, he hasn’t even shown a COLB, a leftist website showed a jpg image and everyone printed from that image.
Highest office should require the greatest proof.
But again, he admitted his father was non US born, so he’s not eligible regardless. And that, they were quite clear about.
He doesn’t.
Agree with your point. The Dems are loving all the attention that is paid to this foolishness while they are running the country into the ground. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that they came up with this whole thing.
Just wanted to remind you ~ or, if you're not American born and raised, to make sure that our law is far different than that used throughout most of the rest of the world.
So Bachman said nothing about something ~ that means nothing.
I'd like to conduct these debates using American conventions. If the funny little foreign guys want to do it different, they can go back where they came from and do it. Their choice!
1. plan to or intend to 2. will have to or is determined to 3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must 4. (used in questions)
Michele Bachmann answered the question perfectly.
What is “is?”
IMO, Bachmann’s words are carefully crafted, and left wide open to speculation.
Did you just accidentally bump into this controversy about Obama's birth certificate and his alleged eligibility, or do you truly not understand what Bachmann just conceded to?
The piece of paper Stephanopolous showed her was nothing more than a photo of Obama's forged COLB. It's the same piece of junk that's been floating around cyberspace since the 2008 campaign.
That thing has been thoroughly debunked for over two years now. What do you think all the clamoring for Obama's birth certificate is about?
For Pete's sake, try to keep up.
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.