Posted on 02/14/2012 12:51:08 PM PST by Kukai
OPINION –Opponents of Barack Obama have long questioned the legitimacy of his citizenship. They claim that Obama’s birth may have taken place outside of the United States. If Obama were born in Kenya, as some claim, he would be in violation of the Constitution’s requirement in Article 2 Section I that a candidate for president must be “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
To this end, the so-called “birther” movement has spent much of the last four years demanding that Obama provide his original birth certificate as definitive proof that he was actually born in the U.S. After inexcusable foot-dragging, the Obama administration last April released a copy of the president’s certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii.
Not surprisingly, birthers are dismissing the Hawaiian birth certificate as a fraud and have redoubled their demands for clear proof of the president’s eligibility to hold office.
Now a judge in the state of Georgia has given the controversy a new twist by agreeing to hear a case challenging Obama’s ability to appear on the ballot in several states unless he proves his eligibility. Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had earlier labeled the hearing as “baseless, costly and unproductive.” During the packed hearing in a Georgia courtroom on Jan. 27, 2012, the defense table was conspicuously empty as neither the president nor his attorneys were present.
The case is noteworthy for a couple of reasons:
First, the birth citizenship question is not as remarkable as the allegation that the president initially exerted considerable pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State to drop the matter, then openly ignored the subpoena summoning him or his legal counsel to the Georgia courtroom. The question this raises is whether the president is still subject to the laws of the land or whether he can simply ignore the legal process at his whim.
Secondly, the mass media has shown a clear reluctance to lend any degree of legitimacy to the issue, by refusing to cover it at all. This may be one of the strongest indicators yet of how the press increasingly exists to sell the agenda of the political class rather than informing the public. The questions around Obama’s birth citizenship could be examined thoroughly and objectively without creating a bully pulpit for the president’s detractors. But the silent treatment on the part of the press serves to raise more questions than it puts to rest.
There is far more important question that deserves serious consideration; what if both the president and the birthers are wrong?
From the standpoint of proper government, the president should be subject to the very same laws and legal protections as any American citizen. He is not a unitary executive who is permitted to act above or outside the law when he pleases. If a president’s policies include engaging in unjust wars, torturing or killing without due process or infringing upon liberty, those policies don’t become more or less legitimate based upon where he was born.
The birther movement appears to be straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The president’s birth citizenship issue is a classic example of technicalitarian thinking. This is the belief that the problem with government is that someone in a high position isn’t following a technicality of the written law. Where are the concerns about the real abuses of executive power listed above? These are actual policies and powers being claimed by the current administration, not just some magic loophole by which Obama got elected.
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror.
Via Orly Taitz:
Yesterday I addressed Gingrich and demanded answers, why a person, who is not eligible to pick tomatoes and clean toilets, is still sitting in the WH?
Posted on | February 14, 2012 | 11 Comments
Redd
Yesterday I was invited by some TeaPac leaders to attend a meeting with Newt Gingrich. I actually missed picture taking and the beginning of the speech, as I was busy making sure the Superior court in GA has all the documents for the appeal and I actually had to work with my patients prior to the event.
I heard most of his speech, which was pretty much like all the other speeches. After the speech I introduced myself and stated that I am a Republican candidate for the U.S. senate and I am also an attorney, who is leading all the legal challenges to Obama.
I stated that I had Obama recently cornered in Georgia, where I issued a subpoena for Obama to show up and produce all of his records. The judge upheld the subpoena and Obama was in contempt of court, as he never showed up and never produced any documents, as he has nothing to show. I put a senior deportation officer on the stand, who stated, that Obama is committing fraud and using a forged Social Security number from CT, issued to someone born in 1890, and is using a forged birth certificate. I asked Gingrich, why a person, whose papers wouldn’t qualify him to pick tomatoes and clean toilets, is sitting in the White House? (at that point a lot of people started applauding and cheering)
Nice thing about this event, a real icing on the cake, is that it preceded Obama’s big fundriser which is scheduled for today in the morning, right here in Southern California, in Newport Beach. All the networks were there. Cameras were rolling. Channel 5, Channel7 Los Angeles and others were there. Obama could watch it unfolding on TV.
Bien venitte to Los Angeles senior Obama!!!
Submitted on 2012/02/14 at 6:16am
Orly tells Newt…dunham not qualified to pick tomatoes!…
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/gingrich-im-not-going-anywhere/
Yes, according to both the republican and democrat parties, as well as the media (FOX News and the so-called 'Conservative radio' included).
Yes, according to both the republican and democrat parties, as well as the media (FOX News and the so-called 'Conservative radio' included).
But Congress can NEVER modify the NBC eligibility requirement without resort to the amendment process. John McCain was not a citizen when he was born in Panama, but was made a citizen retroactively by statute. He was not NBC at birth or retroactively. Therefore he is ineligible to be POTUS, IMO, but SCOTUS has never ruled on an on-point case.
The fact that the Senate passed a non-binding resolution waiving a wand and declaring McCain to be eligible was NOT a determination by "Congress" that McCain was eligible.
The resolution was sponsored by Leahy, Obama and Hillary...so it was probably a clever trap. The ACLU wouldn't be bound by such a resolution of eligibility and could have challenged McCain if he had won the election.
As to Congress certifying the election, the NBC issue was clearly given a pass (nullification, IMO) and the birth documentation never allowed to undergo legal discovery.
A "determination" by Congress based on sloppy legal research and blatant suppression of evidence gathering is shameful. I am hoping that Sheriff Arpaio has found something "shocking" as he claims.
The fact that no elected official agrees with you, proves that you are wrong.
You are wrong.
The fact that your crusade finds no venue of support, anywhere in this country, proves that you are wrong.
Congress had EVERY right to certify the eligibility of Obama.
Congress had EVERY right to certify the eligibility of McCain.
Congress did so, in both cases.
No Court will challenge Congress on those decisions.
This case is closed!
Clearly, you are WRONG!
Please name a Conservative legal foundation that agrees with you?
Please name an elected official who agrees with you?
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and NOTHING ELSE!
Congress does not have to define Natural Born Citizen, specifically, as there are only two forms of citizenship, in this country:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Naturalized Citizen
Congress has defined the rules for obtaining birthright citizenship.
Nothing else is required.
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror.
No one I know of assumes that removing Obama from the presidency will correct all the problems with the government. Presumed futility is not an excuse for inaction. Removing this man from the office upholds the Constitution. It sets an example for others to follow. It puts other politicians on notice. And it's a small step, but it might help hinder the so-called societal decay. There's no point in having our Constitution if all the people simply decide to ignore it.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and NOTHING ELSE!
Congress does not have to define Natural Born Citizen, specifically, as there are only two forms of citizenship, in this country:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Naturalized Citizen
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
The entire Birther argument requires Judicial Supremacy, in order to win.
Judicial Supremacy is a LIBERAL idea!
Yep.
He's just as natural born as his neighbors Billy and Bernardine, and just as anti-American. It's the Sheeple's fault, not that of the Founding Fathers.
Removing him would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate (ignorant, drooling birfers somehow think it's a judicial magic bullet or something).
If we had (an unattainable) two thirds of the Senate (and an attained majority of the House), our problems would be largely over. Repeal all the crap, downsize the government, and start over.
But we don't. So, there's no sense in pursuing the birther cause, because it's insane. We need to put all our efforts toward the 2012 election.
Technicalities are a diversion!
Re: “America cannot be saved on a technicality . . .”
Since when has the U. S. Constitution been considered a “technicality.”
The writer is a ditz!
So any tom dick and harry who was born in USA when his parents came over, then taken back to his parents’ country (Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Mexico..), then comes to USA again, lives 14 years, be 35 or older, and he can be the president?
Even people with no brain know the president must have sole allegiance to USA.
Natural born citizen is defined by 4 supreme court precedents and by historical documents.
The constitution clearly states the unique qualification for pres/VP - natural born citizen, one whose citizenship is acquired by nature, i.e. by birth place AND by parentage, a birth status that cannot be altered by law or anything else.
Congress tried 8 times to change it but failed every time!
Most legal foundation, elected officials are silent or randomly define nbc the way they want, not according to the original intent of the founders!
Why did the Resolution 511 senators have to ‘resolve’ McCain a nbc? According to your defintion, McCain was not born in USA so he is not a birthright citizen and not nbc!
Yet they have to ‘resolve’ that he is nbc because he was born to 2 USA citizen parentS!
So the Resolution 511 senators don’t agree with you - they decide a nbc must be born to 2 USA citizen parentS! Yet they conveniently ignore that obama was not born to 2 USA citizen parentS!
THINK!
He/she can if he is a Democrat and the ruling establishment want him to be. In fact, he does not even have to be 35 years of age. He/she can be 5. The operative phrase is, “If the ruling establishment want...” The media and Republican Party will follow orders and not rock the boat.
Please name an elected official who agrees with you?
What?
Atty Mark Hatfield is a GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE who has previously introduced legislation in the GA legislature to make the election laws een stricter.
How about a number of NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVES which signed onto the ballot challenge against the usurper in NH?
There are a number of elected officials around the country who have AT MINIMUM requested Obama to release all his birth related records. You just don’t hear of them because Media Matters and the Obama Truth Squaders rule the mainstream media airwaves.
He’s just as natural born as his neighbors Billy and Bernardine, and just as anti-American. It’s the Sheeple’s fault, not that of the Founding Fathers.
You mean the interloper is as natural born as Al-Awaki, you know the muzzie that was assassinated by president zero.
Impeach Them All
...”I have no solution to this problem other than to Impeach Them All. That is the correct solution, but not a practical one.
Thus we are left waiting for the collapse. Perhaps in rebuilding from the ashes a Constitutional Republic that worked and we wasted, can be re-instituted. But a collapse of the economy, the government and much of society is very dangerous and opens the door for a demagogue to assume power. That was the recipe used by Hitler.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/impeach_them_all.html
Please name a Conservative legal foundation that agrees with you?
Van Irion / Liberty Legal Foundation
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/
Larry Klayman / Freedom Watch
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/cases
McCain was a US Citizen at the moment of birth, according to the laws on the books at the time McCain was born:http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&EXPANDED_TOPIC_TREE_NODES=&ARTICLE_IN_NEW_WINDOW_FLAG=&ARTICLE_ID=9694&CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000
I can respect the considered legal opinion that Obama meets the eligibility requirements - I didn't say i agreed, but if a person has come to that conclusion that's one thing.
And if it is far easier to get Obama out of office by discussing his record than educating the public on the Constitution, then I can understand that argument as well. Again, I can understand, if not necessarily agree on the merits.
But to call the qualifications for the highest office in the land a technicality goes way too far. If this is a technicality, what would not be? How about a 25 year old president? Why not a foreigner? Times have changed since 1787, and it's a slippery slope.
Obama’s status is one of many issues. We need to start educating the people about the Constitution, and fast. I doubt even half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights would pass if a referendum were held on them today. We had a sitting governor (in North Carolina) actually bring up the subject of canceling the elections! And when was the last time you heard anyone express the sentiment that “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it”?
The article seems to say to me that, to paraphrase a Vietnam soldier, “we need to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.” Shameful.
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.