Posted on 06/27/2015 8:12:51 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
Two of the five votes concerning same sex marriage are totally illegitimate. They were cast by Elenor Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer acting as though they are legal members of the United States Supreme Court. Any challenge to this ruling should include a challenge to their legitimacy as they were appointed by a Usurper, not a legal President.
It's time to take the gloves off and get the courage to confront the evil that is before us. I can prove that Obama is illegal just using the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and have made this case many times on this forum. The charade has gone on long enough. We the people have the "reset" button in our hands with the Obama eligibility issue and we need to use it.
That the current federal government has declared war on on every one of us cannot be disputed. Obama's weak spot is his legitimacy as a legal President. Attacking it is our nuclear option. Someone please, hit the button.
Yielding the ridiculous rulings that secretaries of state don't have to do their jobs unless they feel like it.
In Kansas and Arizona, Secretaries of State took the additional step of having Obama’s credentials verified by the state of Hawaii.
They did not. They merely solicited and received a non-determinative statement that reduces to "no you can't see it, but take our word for it, there is some sort of record in our files."
No proof, merely state officials being cagey while trying to pass off obfuscation as actual evidence.
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
That isn't the issue. The state didn't submit a record for which any full faith and credit question could be brought to bear. They did not submit and attest to an original birth certificate.
Letters, statements, etc. are not substitutes for proof. It is tantamount to offering a plumbers license when you need to see a medical license. They are the WRONG documents. The correct ones exist, but the officials refuse to show them. You don't have a "full faith and credit" issue until the correct documents are shown, but not respected. That is not what has happened here.
As a matter of fact, as an argument, the appeal to "full faith and credit" in lieu of the CORRECT document is nothing but a liars tactic, only intending to confuse, not clarify the issue.
The stubborn fact remains, the only thing that comes close to being actual proof is an original birth certificated witnessed, signed, dated correctly, and attested to being THE ORIGINAL by the responsible state officials. (not an abstract thereof.)
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jloneil1/Random/PapaMitt.pdf
Thanks. Yes, I believe that is it. I remember this next to last sentence.
"Finally, it could reach the most simple, but perhaps least likely conclusion that anyone Congress makes a citizen from the moment of birth is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President."
There is no state in the union that has a Secretary of State’s office with an investigative unit. They have no budget and no statutory authority to perform that function. A Secretary of State could turn that duty over to the state Attorney General’s office. Attorneys General can convene grand juries, issue subpoenas and get discovery.
In most states, whoever a major political party nominates MUST BY LAW be placed on the ballot. However there is no state that doesn’t also allow either average citizens or at least registered voters to challenge the credentials of a candidate both in courts of law and via state elections boards. The best and most successful eligibility challenges always come from opposing candidates who have standing to file suit.
Barack Obama’s eligibility has been challenged 226 times. 97 of those challenges went on to state and federal appellate courts and 27 of those appellate rulings went on to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That’s a grand total of 350 challenges to Obama’s eligibility.
Barack Obama’s birth certificate was introduced into evidence in the Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama eligibility challenges. It was never rejected by any judge. In Alabama and Mississippi the birth certificate was accompanied by a Certified Letter of Verification from Hawaii’/ Registrar of Vital Statistics.
Why do you persist in this subterfuge? It does not require an "investigative unit" for the SecState to demand to see a birth certificate.
They have no budget and no statutory authority to perform that function.
Appeal to "Budget" is more subterfuge. No budget is required to look at a document. The cost of that can come out of the normal salary paid for them to sit behind a desk.
Appeal to "statutory authority" is utter nonsense because they can exercise such "statutory authority" when the whim takes them, as it did with Roger Calero.
Why do you present these dishonest arguments? Even more to the point, why do you insult our intelligence?
In most states, whoever a major political party nominates MUST BY LAW be placed on the ballot.
No law trumps constitutional law.
Barack Obama’s eligibility has been challenged 226 times.
I'm not interested in once more hearing your history lesson on the dysfunction of our legal system. Here you can't hide behind nonsense technicalities. Here you are subject to an actual debate on the facts.
You are not doing very well when your arguments butt up against the actual facts.
Since you are using FR to promote homosexual marriage, answer this one question: why haven’t you been banned?
Oh, and there’s no point in pretending not to understand my comment. I explained it to you previously. Though in point of fact, it is so simple and basic, you really should have been able to grasp it on your own.
Isn’t it interesting, NG, that you are the ONLY poster on FR arguing that if many different courts and judges reach the same conclusion, there is legitimacy & validity in their consensus. That makes you the ONLY poster on FR arguing for the legitimacy and validity of the courts’ consensus re: homosexual marriage.
How liberal of you.
“Facts are stubborn things.” The number of failed attempts to adjudicate this non-issue is an indisputable fact.
I don’t mind being a lone voice in the FR birther wilderness and being called names by anonymous user names is of no consequence. Insult away!
Question: Do you question his [Obama’s] faith and citizenship?
Response: “I don’t, and those are distractions, What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”—Sarah Palin
Secretaries of State are not included on the list of who can inspect a birth certificate under Hawaii law.
Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
Am not interested in perusing Hawaiian law. US Constitutional law trumps it.
Beyond that, the point is simple. If you feel the Secretary of State of a State does not have a legal right to see your birth certificate, then don't show it to him!
You don't have to be on the ballot.
I oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage. Always have, always will. I only posted on that isdue once and that was to say exactly what I just wrote.
I’m guessing that accounts for why I haven’t been banned.
You might be closer than me to being banned if you are opposing Senator Cruz’s natural born citizenship eligibility since he was born in Canada to a Cuban and Canadian citizen father.
No Secretary Of State ever asked Obama to show his birth certificate because he is not in possession of that document. It is the property of the state of Hawaii.
If anyone, be they Secretary of State or taxi driver wants to see and inspect Barack Obama’s original, vault copy birth certificate, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) (point 9) permits that to happen under “an order from the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Convince a judge that you have a tangible interest in inspecting or receiving a copy and you get to see it.
Two Republican Secretaries of State in Arizona and in Kansas made the decision that “Certified Letters of Verification In Lieu of Certified Copy” were good enough and both cleared Obama for the Arizona and Kansas ballots after receiving those letters from the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.
“Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett satisfied Obama was born in United States”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/arizona-secretary-of-state-ken-bennett-satisfied-obama-was-born-in-united-states/2012/05/23/gJQAN1czkU_blog.html
“I have no doubts now,’ Kobach says of Obama’s birthplace”
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1099175.html
Your inconsistency is staggering. The courts decide your way on an issue favorable to Obama, and you cite their consensus ad nauseum. The courts reach consensus on an issue that could get you banned, and you ‘disagree.’ You are not sufficiently astute to see that your second position invalidates the first.
You remain the only poster on this cite that elevates the findings of a corrupt and leftist court system to the level of independent authority. Conservatives don’t do that, but liberals do.
But as you no doubt remember from your constant perusal of Hawaiian Law, such documents can be made available under many circumstances, and certainly under the direction and efforts of a man who needs to submit it to be placed on the ballot.
Barack Obama could have easily gotten a certified copy of his original birth document to submit as he ought to have been required to do.
cite - site
There is no state in the union that has a statute and there is no federal statute that requires a presidential candidate to present a birth certificate in order to qualify for the ballot. Federal administrative law states that a U.S. Passport is primary evidence of citizenship and identity and a birth certificate is considered to be secondary evidence.
Arizona’s legislature passed a birth certificate bill in 2011 but Governor Brewer vetoed it.
In Arizona a candidate must personally sign a notarized statement that he/she is a “natural born citizen of the United States.” That attestation can then be challenged in court and Obama was challenged.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
So? You act like people are stupid, and unable to recognize that a constitutional directive grants a tacit and consequent authority to enforce it.
Whatever authority is granted to enforce "freedom of speech" is likewise granted to enforce Article II, and no State Law is capable of gainsaying it.
You can’t please all of the people all the time. Somehow I will just have to find a way to live with your scorn and derision.
If just one judge, from local small claims courts to the Supreme Court’s conservatives: Alito, Scalia and/or Thomas would write an opinion favorable to the Obama is ineligible movement or if any of the Tea Party caucus in Congress would call for Congressional hearings on Obama’s eligibility, I would gladly change my tune, even six and a half years in.
But until then I will continue to believe that this failed issue helps Obama much more than it damages him. I’m not going there.
At my last count there were 21 judicial decisions that explicitly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, every state cleared him for the ballot, twice and Congress certified his electors unanimously, twice.
“Barack Obama could have easily gotten a certified copy of his original birth document to submit as he ought to have been required to do.”
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, GOVERNOR
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 27, 2011
HAWAI‘I HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANTS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF
‘LONG FORM’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
HONOLULU – The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.
“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”
On April 22, 2011, President Obama sent a letter to Director Fuddy, requesting two certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth. Also on that day, Judith Corley, the President’s personal attorney, made the same request in writing on behalf of the President. (Letters from President Obama and Ms. Corley are attached).
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama’s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.
President Obama authorized Ms. Corley to pick up the documents. On April 25, 2011, Ms. Corley appeared in person at the Hawai’i State Department of Health building in Honolulu, paid the requisite fee, and was given the two certified copies, a response letter from Director Fuddy to President Obama, and a receipt for payment. (Letter from Director Fuddy is attached).
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.