Obama Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward

[Pitbull]

I don't see what's unfair about using taxpayer money to defend the president from lawsuits which otherwise would not exist if he were not president.

Your lack of understanding doesn't surprise me

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Fredric Woocher wasn't handling the majority of Obama's eligibility cases. Woocher's silly statement about millions not being paid to them is funny, because it still doesn't change the fact that well over a million has gone to other Obama eligibility lawyers.

Woocher has been working pro bono to protect Obama from the radical birther claims. He has not been paid "millions" (as Kreep claims) and, according to Woocher, if Kreep continues to make this claim then Woocher may ask for his disbarment. Am I the only one who thinks that lawyers shouldn't lie? Orly Taitz held up a fake Kenyan birth certificate (included in her suit against Obama) and she has yet to be disbarred. Why is this allowed? Where is the accountability? This is anything but 'silly.'

Obama now has the DOJ on the taxpayers money handling his cases which will probably make it easier to bring a Quo Warranto if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney continue to ignore requests...due to conflict of interest.

I hope that this does go to court. Obama proved his status to the State of Hawaii when he applied to run for President. I'm sure that the Birthers will continue to seek new angles of attack against Obama, but at least we'll have all of this lawsuit nonsense laid to rest.

 

[jason_els]

Demonstrating your qualification for the position you are running for or hold is a personal responsibility of the candidate or office holder.

If Mr. Obama presents his long form certificate of live birth and demonstrates that he is a Natural Born Citizen then TAXPAYERS/AMERICAN VOTERS who have every right to demand the transparency Obama promised will stop suing.

Actually, it isn't. There's no Constitutional provision requiring any such thing. It doesn't say that someone must provide proof of any sort. It merely states that someone must be, "a natural born citizen." Hawaii says Obama is, has released an official document stating such, Congress certified the election so they believe he is as well, so it's a done deal.

I think it ridiculous that birthers are angry that Obama's actually defending himself against their charges. That's like a mugger getting angry that his victim is actually fighting back.

You have to understand that even if, by some Twilight Zone circumstance, Obama was born abroad and by a woman other than Ann Dunham, he is still legally recognized as a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter if it's proven beyond any scientific means that he's the love child of Princess Margaret and the Emperor of Japan, Congress recognizes him as the legal President.

Birthers really have a poor grasp of law in this instance and the various courts they have been thrown out of have affirmed that.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I don't see what's unfair about using taxpayer money to defend the president from lawsuits which otherwise would not exist if he were not president.

If Birthers stop suing then taxpayers will stop paying.

True. He wouldn't be attacked by the Birthers if he hadn't won the Presidency on his own merit. If he were Joe Sixpack then he wouldn't be continually attacked like this. I think that he should be defended in court just as the Secret Service defends him out of court; he shouldn't have to pay for his own legal defense (or offense, if needed) just as he shouldn't have to pay for his own security.

Your lack of understanding doesn't surprise me

After continually proving how impossibly ignorant you are on this issue, and all related issues, I find this statement laughable.

Go back to your PSP, little boy.

 

[Pitbull]

There's no Constitutional provision requiring any such thing. It doesn't say that someone must provide proof of any sort. It merely states that someone must be, "a natural born citizen."

A requirement that doesn't need to be proven...

And do you buy bridges in Brooklyn without asking the seller of the bridge to prove ownership?

 

[jason_els]

I could write yours:

"Its because he is black."

See, I don't think that's necessarily true. I don't think all birthers are racist though some probably are. Taitz is an AIPAC shill who is very concerned that Obama isn't Israel-friendly enough. I don't think they care much what color he is so much as his views on Zionism.

 

[Pitbull]

I find this statement laughable.

You probably go into a fit of uncontrollable fits of hystrerical laughter when someone farts.

If you had a small fraction of the intelligence you think you have then you might not be so amused by Mr. Obama

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

You probably go into a fit of uncontrollable fits of hystrerical laughter when someone farts.

If you had a small fraction of the intelligence you think you have then you might not be so amused by Mr. Obama

Another positive, constructive and informed contribution to this thread. You're on a roll.

 

[jason_els]

A requirement that doesn't need to be proven...

And do you buy bridges in Brooklyn without asking the seller of the bridge to prove ownership?

You'd have to ask the founding fathers why they didn't make proof a requirement and about their bridge purchasing habits.

 

[EboniGoddess]

my guess is that they dont do the long form birth certificates anymore.....if they do im fucked....got damn 80's baby

mine is like 1/3 of the size of a sheet of paper. I'm a descendent of africans. maybe my mom smuggled me in the country. even if he was illegal the republicans wouldnt run the white house....joe biden would

 

[MercyfulFate]

my guess is that they dont do the long form birth certificates anymore.....if they do im fucked....got damn 80's baby

mine is like 1/3 of the size of a sheet of paper. I'm a descendent of africans. maybe my mom smuggled me in the country. even if he was illegal the republicans wouldnt run the white house....joe biden would

Then he would be a white man, so I'm guessing the majority of the birthers wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Pitbull]

You'd have to ask the founding fathers why they didn't make proof a requirement

Maybe because they could not envision someone running without meeting the requirements.
And then could not envision courts that would find reasons not to make such a person provide proof.

A requirement that doesn't require proof is worthless.
The founding fathers did not write the constitution and include worthless provisions.
That one must provide proof is understood by the mere fact that it is a requirement.
But understanding does not seem to be your strong point.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The founding fathers did not write the constitution and include worthless provisions. That one must provide proof is understood by the mere fact that it is a requirement.

Your interpretation of what the founding fathers envisioned is just as flawed, disgusting and repugnant as how some religious zealots interpret the bible. The sad thing is, you don't even know it.

 

[EboniGoddess]

Then he would be a white man, so I'm guessing the majority of the birthers wouldn't have a problem.

so they don't care whether or not he might do a good job? Its all about having a white person? how fucking stupid

would white supremicsts fell this way if whites were the minority in this country? Would they then say that white people shouldn't ever get elected as president?

 

[MercyfulFate]

so they don't care whether or not he might do a good job? Its all about having a white person? how fucking stupid

would white supremicsts fell this way if whites were the minority in this country? Would they then say that white people shouldn't ever get elected as president?

White supremacists feel that way already, and by 2050 whites are supposed to be a minority. I forsee a lot of racial attacks when that rolls around, a lot of those groups are ballooning already.

Think of it this way, many Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to give Arnold a shot to be president, but with Barack they claim he's not an American?

I don't think every birther is racist, but many think he's a "secret muslim" and such, so it goes with the territory.

 

[jason_els]

Maybe because they could not envision someone running without meeting the requirements.
And then could not envision courts that would find reasons not to make such a person provide proof.

A requirement that doesn't require proof is worthless.
The founding fathers did not write the constitution and include worthless provisions.
That one must provide proof is understood by the mere fact that it is a requirement.
But understanding does not seem to be your strong point.

Not necessarily. Just look at the Second Amendment. Is participation in a militia really necessary to allow ordinary citizens to own firearms? Or do citizens have the right to own arms because they might need to participate in a militia? This is of no small debate even today. Not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way. Even the court itself didn't have cert to review the Constitution until it took that task upon itself in Marbury vs. Madison. The Constitution has a few, "Wha?s" in it. It's not a perfect document by any means.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret what the meaning of things are in the Constitution. Even among esteemed justices of long judicial tenure, there are substantial differences of opinion. Your guess as to what the FFs intended is as good as anyone but it is up to the Supreme Court to decide what it means legally.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Some of the Birthers, including Taitz, believe that Obama would not be eligible for POTUS even if he were born in the U.S. because the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of vague phrases on this matter. One of those is this restrictions of who can be president is: "No person except a natural born citizen." The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on what "natural born citizen" means, so the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition: someone born to two citizen parents. They found a source, "The Law of Nations," a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to prove their claim. There are a few problems with their tactic, however:

1. Obama is not the first president with a non-citizen parent: the 21st president, Chester A. Arthur’s father was from Ireland and did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after Chester Arthur's birth. Secondly, in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wont Kim Ark, the Supreme Court concluded that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.
2. Although British common law can be legally argued in U.S. Courts, Swiss philosophy books aren't legal precedent in the United States.

 

[EboniGoddess]

Ok....so if obama had his long for birth certificate and was raised a very strict catholic so there was no controversy would the white supremecists be happy then? What else could they say about him then as to why he shouldnt be president?

 

[jason_els]

Ok....so if obama had his long for birth certificate and was raised a very strict catholic so there was no controversy would the white supremecists be happy then? What else could they say about him then as to why he shouldnt be president?

Nope. White supremacists don't like Catholics either. In their view, Catholics believe in the pope as their supreme ruler (this was an actual fear among some when John Kennedy ran for president) and confession is (as you might imagine) dangerous when it comes to illegal activities (like cross burning, lynching, hate crimes, etc.).

 

[Industrialsize]

Ok....so if obama had his long for birth certificate and was raised a very strict catholic so there was no controversy would the white supremecists be happy then? What else could they say about him then as to why he shouldnt be president?

I'm not sure if I've ever met a happy white supremacist.