• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OT would have you beleive the BC is enough

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.

(a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.

2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.


Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship -- birth within the United States.

Actually it is YOU that are wanting to throw out 200 years of the law and precedent history whereby over the years for government business the government and the courts have accepted even Family Bibles and Birth announcements as proof of birthplace/date- because there is no standard "national" birth records law or birth certificate-and many were never born in a hospital ------and they have accepted the sworn records of State Registrars as proof..


OT, you're talking about probative value, correct?

Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate's probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama's birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier?

Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii cannot be regarded as "verified" until these questions are answered.

The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)

A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be Hawaii-born.

In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate", which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)

* If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

* If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional's name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama's birth took place in Hawaii.

The posting of the BC on a blog is not verifiable proof of anything.

OT would have you believe as the one court that ruled that the issue "had been blogged, twittered and massaged"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybe you will answer the question Sandhusker avoids:

Who does the Constitution say decides if someone is qualified to be President ?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Maybe you will answer the question Sandhusker avoids:

Who does the Constitution say decides if someone is qualified to be President ?

I've answered that question TWICE for you today. Do you want to see it a third time?

Who's side are you on, OT?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Constitution itself lays out the qualifications.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Are you asking who has the authority/responsibility to interpret the Constitution? I hope you know the answer to that.

In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

Maybe you should ask. "Who ignored the Constitutional requirements for eligiblity?"

Or maybe this will also help answer your question.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Maybe the people have "Standing" afterall.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The only ones that come close to being named in the Constitution as a decider of qualifications is the Electoral College- and historically they have followed the vote of the voters (altho not required to in some states)- and they have made their decision under their Constitutional duty that Barack Obama was/is qualified to be the President of the United States- and which said Electors vote was verified by the Joint Session of Congress and certified by Vice President Cheney acting as the President of the Senate- with no objections from any of that congressional group- or the Vice President- or the Department of Justice....
And said Barack Obama was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court....

Good enough for me.....

But we know that it/nothing will never be enough for the rightwingernuts and crazies that can only survive thru fearmongering and hatemongering and want to further divide the country...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What was the Oath you took OT?

The only ones that come close to being named in the Constitution as a decider of qualifications is the Electoral College

Why would they name a "decider", there is nothing to decide. He either meets the requirements or he does not.

They chose to ignore the Constitution, plain and simple. They also decided to ignore Supreme Court precedent.

And Obama broke his Oath, before he even took it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
What was the Oath you took OT?

Thats what I'm doing.....Following the law of the land and the rule of law- and not going out trying to stir up anarchy just because I oppose a persons political stance or the color of his skin.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Good, so do you have "doubt" that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?

If you are going to respect Supreme Court precedent, then you will say "yes, I am doubtful he is a Natural Born Citizen, making him ineligible to be President, due to his Dual Citizenship at birth.

This has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Is that what you base your decisions on in court.

(a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Good, so do you have "doubt" that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?

If you are going to respect Supreme Court precedent, then you will say "yes, I am doubtful he is a Natural Born Citizen, making him ineligible to be President.

Nope- I'm following 230 years of precedent in how a President is chosen- and have seen nothing that is out of the ordinary or wrong with the process the way it happened...The voters vetted the candidates- of which there were many- made their decision on qualifications and who was best qualified- and this vote was affirmed by the Electoral College...

If there was anything to this rightwingernut conspiracy it would have been raised/challenged by one of the other candidates- or the Bush Administration and their DOJ who were the sworn persons at the time to uphold the Constitution....

I had more questions with the Bush election- even tho I supported Bush...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The only ones that come close to being named in the Constitution as a decider of qualifications is the Electoral College- and historically they have followed the vote of the voters (altho not required to in some states)- and they have made their decision under their Constitutional duty that Barack Obama was/is qualified to be the President of the United States- and which said Electors vote was verified by the Joint Session of Congress and certified by Vice President Cheney acting as the President of the Senate- with no objections from any of that congressional group- or the Vice President- or the Department of Justice....
And said Barack Obama was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court....

Good enough for me.....

But we know that it/nothing will never be enough for the rightwingernuts and crazies that can only survive thru fearmongering and hatemongering and want to further divide the country...

How is demanding that the Constitution be followed fearmongering or dividing the country?

You can't provide a logical explaination to Obama running from the law, so you're trying to create another arguement. Basically, that arguement is "If nobody caught the murderer, then a murder didn't happen".

You won't argue that there wasn't a crime, you want to argue jurisdiction. That tells me that you know there was a crime. You're using a lawyer trick to defend your client that you know is guilty, all the while ridiculing the prosecution that you know is right. Why are you doing that?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
There is no precedent for qualifying a President that is a Dual Citizen.

So you would have to revert to past legal precedent, defining a Natural Born Citizen.

2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

You want more precedent, read the Congressional Statement in my signature.

Can you show me where they overruled the precedent in a court of law? Or did they just choose to ignore it, as you are doing.

You are surely winning points with the readers of PB, and showing your grasp of law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The fact that the courts and the SCOTUS have thrown out or refused to look at all the cases tells me there is nothing there....

Unless you believe all the Judges and Justices are part of this massive conspiracy that would have had to begin back in 1961...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If there was anything to this rightwingernut conspiracy it would have been raised/challenged by one of the other candidates.

I'm glad you finally realize there is something to it. Alan Keys did raise a challenge.

If there is nothing wrong with Obama's citizenship, WHY-THE-HELL-IS-HE-DOING-ALL-HE-CAN-TO-KEEP-THE-DOCUMENT-THAT-WOULD-SETTLE-IT-HIDDEN?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So far, every lawsuit challenging Obama's presidential eligibility has been dismissed on a technicality -- lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, etc.

So far, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has considered, in an open hearing, the actual substance or merit of any of these cases.

No court has ruled on whether or not Barack Obama is a Constitutional natural born citizen.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The fact that the courts and the SCOTUS have thrown out or refused to look at all the cases tells me there is nothing there....

Unless you believe all the Judges and Justices are part of this massive conspiracy that would have had to begin back in 1961...

How can they of known that there is nothing there with they have refused to look at the case?

You're twisting yourself in a blind defence, SH, er OT.

IF THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CERT, WHY IS OBAMA DOING ALL HE CAN TO KEEP IT HIDDEN?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
If there was anything to this rightwingernut conspiracy it would have been raised/challenged by one of the other candidates.

I'm glad you finally realize there is something to it. Alan Keys did raise a challenge.

If there is nothing wrong with Obama's citizenship, WHY-THE-HELL-IS-HE-DOING-ALL-HE-CAN-TO-KEEP-THE-DOCUMENT-THAT-WOULD-SETTLE-IT-HIDDEN?

Was he actually a contender candidate? He only raised it post election- long after he lost- and just so he could be in goose step with the rightwingernut crazies like he is..

Do you think Bob Barr or Ron Paul- two of the biggest Constitutionalists- would have left it go unchallenged if there was anything there...They had standing....

And do you believe GW Bush and Darth Vader Cheney- with all the resources they had available of CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ etc. etc. wouldn't have checked this out to its fullest- and had their puppet AG and DOJ filing directly in the Supreme Court for supervisory control if there was anything to it?.....

My God- now you want us to believe a whole opposition Party was part of the conspiracy to allow Obama into office.... :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Funny Sandhusker, there was one US Attorney General asked that question, through many quo warranto letters.

He also refused to file a quo warranto, and then resigned, May 28. All quo warranto letters, were passed along to the WH.

OT, what's a quo warranto?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
If there was anything to this rightwingernut conspiracy it would have been raised/challenged by one of the other candidates.

I'm glad you finally realize there is something to it. Alan Keys did raise a challenge.

If there is nothing wrong with Obama's citizenship, WHY-THE-HELL-IS-HE-DOING-ALL-HE-CAN-TO-KEEP-THE-DOCUMENT-THAT-WOULD-SETTLE-IT-HIDDEN?

Was he actually a contender candidate? He only raised it post election- long after he lost- and just so he could be in goose step with the rightwingernut crazies like he is..

Do you think Bob Barr or Ron Paul- two of the biggest Constitutionalists- would have left it go unchallenged if there was anything there...They had standing....

And do you believe GW Bush and Darth Vader Cheney- with all the resources they had available of CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ etc. etc. wouldn't have checked this out to its fullest- and had their puppet AG and DOJ filing directly in the Supreme Court for supervisory control if there was anything to it?.....

My God- now you want us to believe a whole opposition Party was part of the conspiracy to allow Obama into office.... :???:

You mentioned any other candidate and I gave you a candidate that was on the ballot. Now you change your request.

Why won't you answer my question, OT? Are you finding it hard? Impossible to rationalize, itsn't it? Yet you taunt and call names.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
As for the Senate, this is what they said.

As I've said before. Who chose to ignore the Constitution and Precedent?

Should it matter to you? That's up to the individual, I guess.

It is obvious it does not matter to OT, a "man of law".

But now he is trying to label those that respect the Constitution and the rule of law, "Rightwingernuts" or "Conspiracy Theorists" or "Racists"

Who is disregarding 230 years of history, and what affect will it have on the future of the US, if gone unchallenged?

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Funny Sandhusker, there was one US Attorney General asked that question, through many quo warranto letters.

He also refused to file a quo warranto, and then resigned, May 28. All quo warranto letters, were passed along to the WH.

OT, what's a quo warranto?

Never heard of a quo warranto- the internet says its an old English law practice that doesn't exist in the Federal Courts but is still used by some state courts....

A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

quo warranto definition
quo· war·ranto (kwō′ wə ran′tō, -rän′-)

1.Historical a writ ordering a person to show by what right he exercises an office, franchise, or privilege
2. a legal proceeding undertaken to recover an office, franchise, or privilege from the person in possession, initiated as upon an information
 
Top