Obama Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward

[vince]

Well even my old Rottie would have got this by now. After over a 1000 times of saying, "No Rufus, no boy, drop it, drop the shoe. Good boy!!!" He got it. This is no more difficult a concept to understand.

 

[jason_els]

Yeah, there is no legal vetting process at all. It's assumed that the place of birth is general knowledge or that the parties wouldn't offer a candidate who didn't meet the requirement. It's silly but it's true. It's one of those things like, "promote the general welfare," that's left open to interpretation.

What galls me beyond anything is that McCain clearly was born outside the United States yet little to nothing was made of this fact despite it's the same claim used against Obama when he has legal documentation stating he was born in an actual sovereign state. It's interesting to note that this question of the vetting process has arisen before with Barry Goldwater, FDR, Jr., and George Romney. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, FDR, Jr. was born in Canada, and Romney was born in Paris, France to American parents. When each considered presidential runs their advisers said that this wouldn't be a problem because in each case, one or both of their parents were American citizens (and in one case, president!). There is no cut-and-dried rule that parties follow about this sort of thing save that if someone is born outside the US to parents who are neither American citizens, that person (like Governor Schwarzenegger), is considered ineligible.

Obama not only has a COLB which has been verified by Hawaii, but an unquestionably American mother. It seems that what is accepted as the standard has been met and exceeded. That's no small thing either because this continuous recognition of an unlegislated standard is grounds for being accepted common law.

 

[Trinity]

Yeah, there is no legal vetting process at all. It's assumed that the place of birth is general knowledge or that the parties wouldn't offer a candidate who didn't meet the requirement. It's silly but it's true. It's one of those things like, "promote the general welfare," that's left open to interpretation.

That's why it should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

What galls me beyond anything is that McCain clearly was born outside the United States yet little to nothing was made of this fact

Simply not true. As we have discussed in explicit detail on this board, McCain's eligibility was an issue each time he ran for President. McCain was sued in several lawsuits over his eligibility and included in legal cases regarding Obama's eligibility as well. In addition to that, you know very well unlike in Obama's case, McCain's eligibility was taken up by the Senate prior to the election.

despite it's the same claim used against Obama when he has legal documentation stating he was born in an actual sovereign state.

If Obama has legal documentation stating he was born in an actual sovereign state then Mr. Obama should release that documentation openly to the media and it should list the hospital and doctor of record. McCain released his long form Certificate of Live Birth and he was born way before Obama and in another country. Obama should have no problem obtaining and presenting the same documentation. As a leader who promised transparency he has an obligation to put all questions to rest.

It's interesting to note that this question of the vetting process has arisen before with Barry Goldwater, FDR, Jr., and George Romney. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory, FDR, Jr. was born in Canada, and Romney was born in Paris, France to American parents.

George Romney was born in Mexico and FDR, Jr. never ran for President. As the New York Times points out, Romney's and the others candidacy was not tested:

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada.

New York Times

And just because some aide assured Weicker (someone you didn't mention) that he was eligible means nothing.

When each considered presidential runs their advisers said that this wouldn't be a problem because in each case, one or both of their parents were American citizens (and in one case, president!)

That was not even stated in the New York Times article. In fact it specifically points out that the son of a U.S. President was seen by some as ineligible because of where he was born.

There is no cut-and-dried rule that parties follow about this sort of thing save that if someone is born outside the US to parents who are neither American citizens, that person (like Governor Schwarzenegger), is considered ineligible.

It should have been addressed to clear it up.

Obama not only has a COLB which has been verified by Hawaii,

Hawaii never verified the scan of a Certification of Live Birth posted by Obama on a third party website.

but an unquestionably American mother.

If his mother could not pass on jus sanguinis citizenship that means nothing.

It seems that what is accepted as the standard has been met and exceeded.

No it hasn't.

That's no small thing either because this continuous recognition of an unlegislated standard is grounds for being accepted common law.

This pertains to interpretation of a qualification required by the Constitution. It's unlikely that should it be reviewed by SCOTUS that they will say "sure, just keep doing whatever you want...interpret Natural Born Citizen as you see fit....we only sit on this bench because we like the robes."

 

[jason_els]

Hawaii has stated that there is verification of his Hawaiian birth on file and Ann Dunham was unquestionably an American citizen.

I realize Trinity, that you don't believe that but I didn't write that post for you because I know nothing will change your mind as nothing will be proof enough for you as it is impossible to prove a negative argument. Obsessing about it when there is no hope of remedy is also so illogical that it makes me believe there is more to your objection than what you've stated particularly since you promised to support Obama. I know that's a tactic that Rush Limbaugh proposed to disrupt elections in favor of the Republican party. Too bad for him and his followers that it backfired though even he has dropped the whole birther thing.

Yet more bizarre still is that you've chosen to believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and isn't qualified to be president when there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Here you rail on and on about demanding evidence from Obama when the birthers have provided no evidence of their argument at all. At least Obama has a short form COLB, several Republican Hawaiian officials, the US Congress, his party, and even some of his most vocal critics to vouch for him. The birthers have nothing but Orly Taitz and her ultra-right Zionist backers.

This is what you don't get no matter how many times it's pointed out to you. It's YOU that has no evidence of your argument. It's YOU who have to prove your allegation because the Hawaiian government says otherwise. It's YOU who have to provide something other than rumor and innuendo to prove your point and in 1,084 posts, you have yet to do that.

Which means either you're a flack, a hack, or a quack... OR you believe what you do for some reason other than, well, reason.

Thank you for correcting the Romney mistake and citing the NYT article. I should have checked before typing.

 

[vince]

That's why it should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Yes it should be. It should have been years and years ago. Or better, Congress should have legislated into on it or amended the Constitution.

As we have established, the way it stands now, there is no official authority that a candidate and can show his or her credentials to. The "Media" doesn't count.

Asking the press or experts to verify presidential credentials would have no standing legally and would not quiet any controversy. That's been tried by the Obama campaign and there are still a small groups of die hards that refuse to accept it.

Wasn't it Politico.com that examined the official document printed by the State of Hawaii and said appeared to be authentic? Yet that's not good enough for some people and if Fox News had got it's mits on it, that wouldn't be good enough either.

So stop talking about the "media" verifying the qualifying documentation of Presidential candidates. It's a ridiculous notion that is not practical and has no basis in law.

And that is point. The horns of the Birther dilemma. There is NO LAW. There is a requirement in the Constitution, but there is no statute to regulate the process. There is NO official with the authority to vet a candidate for President or a President-elect.

Like it or not, Barack Obama is legally the President of the United States until 2013.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Oh, I can't believe it! This thread has amassed 1.085 comments. I somehow missed the 1,000 post milestone....

Anyhow, to pay homage to this long-running sitcom, I'd like to take a stroll down Obama Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward Memory Lane.


All quotes, in brown, provide by the lovely Miss Trinity.

--------------------



You are confused. I didn't pollute this forum with links to white supremacist websites. I cited a quote. You weren't asked to click any link nor were you subjected to ANYTHING but the fact that Obama's eligibility challenge is moving forward.

(by the way, is it still valid to say this eligibility challenge is "moving forward" when there's been nothing but court defeats? Is there really so much "forward motion" going on?)


The case was dismissed and Taitz was given a warning today. Taitz will likely appeal the decision as she just filed an appeal for her other case which was dismissed by the same Judge.


Obama sealing documents and playing the legal game only postpones the verification of his eligibility.

what's done in the dark will come to the light.


One person has died connected to his passport records...one of his Czars was connected to his passport records. Obama has spent over a million on legal battles just not to show he meets the constitutional requirement to serve as President as a Natural Born Citizen.


The man would have perpetrated the biggest lie to the American people in our history. He lied everytime he claimed to be born in Hawaii. He lied when he said he was qualified to be President and he wasn't. The DNC lied. They falsied federal documents. If they didn't impeach the Democratic Party would be finished.


There are several pending cases against Obama. Each case reveals that Obama only has a matter of time before the keys to standing, jurisdiction and discovery are made clear...


Calling me a liar only makes you look stupid.


Lovely article however it validates nothing. And your "Source"...blown out of the water. Snopes.com had another hospital listed as Obama's birth hospital that contradicts the school teacher's hearsay.

Add to that all of the contradictions that Obama, his campaign and his administration have insulted the American people with.


You are just mad that all that nonsense was blown out of the water and all you can do is call names. Your response to the bogus nonsense presented by Snopes.com that was blasted out of the water by the facts presented in the WND article...now that's crazy.

(oh yes, that WND is the world famous smearing WorldNet Daily, which keeps its readers apprised of the appeals briefs in the "eligibility challenge:... Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge)


Under the Quo Warranto lawsuit the elected official if declared ineligible, would not need to be impeached because they were never eligible to hold office.


You are simple minded dunce who rarely comprehends the simplest information and constantly attempts to discuss topics way above your reading and comprehension level. Your recent ascension into cartoon talk where you channel elmer fudd was your coronation.


You don't like the facts so you are attempting to dismiss them by attacking me. That does not work. Reconsider that.

 

[Pitbull]

Under the Quo Warranto lawsuit the elected official if declared ineligible, would not need to be impeached because they were never eligible to hold office.

My favorite. :smile:

 

[vince]

Under the Quo Warranto lawsuit the elected official if declared ineligible, would not need to be impeached because they were never eligible to hold office.

My favorite. :smile:

Mine too. Hilarious isn't it? No basis in reality.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

In February, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, filed a lawsuit against Barrack Obama, The U.S. Senate, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, and various other individuals and institutions.

As I am sure you all know, it is a Quo Warranto lawsuit which claims that there is no verifiable proof that Obama is an American citizen and is therefore ineligible to be the President of the United States.

Now a fairly obvious question is posed: If there is no government agency to vet a candidate, as Pitbull confirms, then how could Obama have proved his legitimacy to any vetting agency? Who was he supposed to give his birth certificate to?

Pelosi signed an Official Certification of Nomination for Obama and Biden at the DNC Convention last August. This was then sent to Hawaii and approved, as the law requires. This is a fairly informal vetting process, but it's better than nothing.

If there wasn't an agency to check Obama's credentials, then the lawsuit that claims that his credentials weren't checked is useless.

 

[Trinity]

Hawaii has stated that there is verification of his Hawaiian birth on file

That much is true...one point though...there is no actual verification until Obama is actually vetted by the American people by his documentation being reviewed to the open media and not his cronies. There are questions caused by Obama and his campaign and administration as to what hospital he was born in and authenticity of his scan of his Certification of Live Birth posted on a third party website.

and Ann Dunham was unquestionably an American citizen.

Once again, that means nothing in this matter if Ann Dunham could not pass on jus sanguinis Citizenship and she shouldn't.

I realize Trinity, that you don't believe that but I didn't write that post for you because I know nothing will change your mind as nothing will be proof enough for you as it is impossible to prove a negative argument.

That's not true. If Obama had presented the information from his original certificate of live birth being maintained by Hawaii with the hospital and doctor and document experts, analysts and investigators would have verified the information as valid then that would clear up several outstanding questions pertaining to Obama's place of birth. To make it simple, Obama should verify what he wants people to assume or trust him on though he doesn't know what hospital he was born in and disavowed a letter to a hospital.

Hawaii stating they hold a vital record isn't really the point if it hasn't been validated and Obama actually vetted as his opponent was.

Obsessing about it when there is no hope of remedy is also so illogical that it makes me believe there is more to your objection than what you've stated particularly since you promised to support Obama.

What do you mean there is no hope of remedy? The Quo Warranto case is a remedy. If in 2010 there is a shift in congress, HR 1503 - The Presidential Eligibility Act may gain more traction. The issue will never be dead. As long as Obama refuses to be forthcoming it will never die.

I know that's a tactic that Rush Limbaugh proposed to disrupt elections in favor of the Republican party. Too bad for him and his followers that it backfired though even he has dropped the whole birther thing.

Obama's 2nd 100 hundred days had him at a grade of an overall C. On several issues he rated D's and F's. Currently Obama is below 50% approval rating, his stimulus has yet to stimulate jobs, he can't make a decision on his just war and his party is pushing a war tax while trying to pass a healthcare bill that will do nothing it was set out to do.

If anything backfired...it's Obama's policies. Why waste time on Limbaugh?

Yet more bizarre still is that you've chosen to believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and isn't qualified to be president when there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Why can't we see the evidence that he is qualifed? The scan of a Certification of Live Birth has not been verified. What's bizarre is Obama appoints a man who was the CEO of a company who hacked his passport records to a Czar position. What's bizarre is Obama doesn't know what hospital he was born in hawaii. What's most bizarre is Obama refuses to demonstrate he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Here you rail on and on about demanding evidence from Obama when the birthers have provided no evidence of their argument at all. At least Obama has a short form COLB, several Republican Hawaiian officials, the US Congress, his party, and even some of his most vocal critics to vouch for him.

To vouch for him? All they can vouch for is that Obama's birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. Until, we see and verify the information on the orginal long form Certificate of Live Birth, the registration could have been from an out of state birth.

This is what you don't get no matter how many times it's pointed out to you. It's YOU that has no evidence of your argument. It's YOU who have to prove your allegation because the Hawaiian government says otherwise. It's YOU who have to provide something other than rumor and innuendo to prove your point and in 1,084 posts, you have yet to do that.

No rumor or innuendo is being presented. Obama has not demonstrated that he is a Natural Born Citizen. The responsibility was on Obama the candidate and now is on Obama the President. The American people were placed in an unfair position because we have already established that there is not a process in place to verify the requirement outside trusting the Parties who could operate in a partisan manner and the media which could fail to vet in the middle of a slobbering love fest as what occurred with Obama.

McCain presented his long form certificate of live birth. Obama didn't. McCain's eligibility was taken up by the Senate. Obama's eligibility was avoided despite numerous lawsuits prior to the election, counting the electoral ballots and the swearing in. Obama has repeatedly stated different hospitals for his birth. Obama admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth. Obama's father was not a citizen and his mother could not pass on jus sanguinis citizenship. These are all facts. Not rumor or innuendo.

Thank you for correcting the Romney mistake and citing the NYT article. I should have checked before typing.

You are welcome. :smile:

 

[Trinity]

Yes it should be. It should have been years and years ago. Or better, Congress should have legislated into on it or amended the Constitution.

As we have established, the way it stands now, there is no official authority that a candidate and can show his or her credentials to. The "Media" doesn't count.

Asking the press or experts to verify presidential credentials would have no standing legally and would not quiet any controversy. That's been tried by the Obama campaign and there are still a small groups of die hards that refuse to accept it.

Wasn't it Politico.com that examined the official document printed by the State of Hawaii and said appeared to be authentic? Yet that's not good enough for some people and if Fox News had got it's mits on it, that wouldn't be good enough either.

No. Obama had the Daily Kos post his scan of a Certification first. It was immediately called a fraud and removed from that site. Then Obama's campaign had FACTCHECK.org examine it and post different scans on it's website. The scan posted on Factcheck has been challenged as well. No document experts, other factchecking organizations, or journalists from the open media examined the document.

So stop talking about the "media" verifying the qualifying documentation of Presidential candidates. It's a ridiculous notion that is not practical and has no basis in law.

And that is point. The horns of the Birther dilemma. There is NO LAW. There is a requirement in the Constitution, but there is no statute to regulate the process. There is NO official with the authority to vet a candidate for President or a President-elect.

Like it or not, Barack Obama is legally the President of the United States until 2013.

Your points are sound but your conclusion isn't necessarily so.

 

[JTalbain]

Your points are sound but your conclusion isn't necessarily so.

Actually, the conclusion is dead on. As it stands now, legal language does not use the term "natural born citizen" in most cases, and when it is used, it is used to mean "born citizen". As much as you repeatedly ignored it, the requirements for passing on jus sanguinis are actually quite clear; Obama's mother spent most of her life in the United States, including over two years after the age of 14. This is the only reference to age as a requirement to pass on citizenship by blood. Therefore, the courts, and the law, currently recognize him as a born citizen, place of birth notwithstanding.

If the courts chose to, they could reinterpret the law to include the term "natural born citizen" as part of the official legal framework. Or, they could reinterpret "born citizen" to mean all the things you currently think it means. However, all of these would be changes after the fact. It would make it so it would be illegal for Obama to run again, but it couldn't remove him from office. Why? Laws have to be grandfathered in. You can't see someone do something bad, then go pass a law so you can arrest them. It doesn't work that way. The Birthers are seeking a result that can never actually happen. Which is why Obama is ignoring you.

 

[JTalbain]

So lets have some GIANT vetting process, not make it public, not ever ask for the most basic single document that will show he meets two of the three constitutional requirements for the office of president.

That is so fucking ignorant.

I agree, that would be completely ignorant. Here's a few things for you to consider.

If Obama was taking the strategy of "Let the morons run with it and commit political suicide." like I've said he is, why wouldn't his party back him? Why would the Democrats seek to undermine his plan by revealing the documents he isn't?

Also, it was thought the matter was closed before the President took office. They checked it, and the issue lay dormant for awhile. Right after taking office, the President declared all of his personal records be sealed. It would be illegal for them to disseminate his personal documents after that point, and so they never would.

Finally, why would they keep such documents after they were done with them. The purpose of gathering them is so they can check the candidate, not so everyone else can dip into their personal lives. The documents would be destroyed (if they were copies) or returned (if they were originals) as soon as they were done with them. If these documents are supposed to be made available to the public, can you find me the birth certificate or personal documents of any other government official?

 

[Trinity]

Actually, the conclusion is dead on. As it stands now, legal language does not use the term "natural born citizen" in most cases, and when it is used, it is used to mean "born citizen". As much as you repeatedly ignored it, the requirements for passing on jus sanguinis are actually quite clear; Obama's mother spent most of her life in the United States, including over two years after the age of 14. This is the only reference to age as a requirement to pass on citizenship by blood. Therefore, the courts, and the law, currently recognize him as a born citizen, place of birth notwithstanding.

You are still confused on U.S.C Title 8 as it was written in 1961. Research that before you discussi. Also you are thoroughly confused about the Natural Born Citizen clause. The only things keeping the matter out of court was standing and jurisdiction. A federal judge already determined that the courts had jurisdiction prior to the swearing in and there were lawsuits prior to then in appeal. A federal judge also stated that a Quo Warranto could be brought so this matter is by no means over.

If the courts chose to, they could reinterpret the law to include the term "natural born citizen" as part of the official legal framework. Or, they could reinterpret "born citizen" to mean all the things you currently think it means. However, all of these would be changes after the fact. It would make it so it would be illegal for Obama to run again, but it couldn't remove him from office. Why? Laws have to be grandfathered in. You can't see someone do something bad, then go pass a law so you can arrest them. It doesn't work that way. The Birthers are seeking a result that can never actually happen. Which is why Obama is ignoring you.

Read what a Quo Warranto case is then maybe you will understand.

I agree, that would be completely ignorant. Here's a few things for you to consider.

If Obama was taking the strategy of "Let the morons run with it and commit political suicide." like I've said he is, why wouldn't his party back him? Why would the Democrats seek to undermine his plan by revealing the documents he isn't?

Nobody is committing political suicide. In fact, the Republican Party isn't looking to take Obama out based on his eligibility which explains Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans in Congress. It's not because they are certain he would meet the requirement, it's because that is not the best way to regain the White House for the Party and rebuild the brand while in the minority.

The focus for American Voters who still openly question Obama on this matter isn't strategy for either party or how the Republican Party will rebuild its brand and win back the White House and Congress. The issue remains whether Barack Obama is eligible as a Natural Born Citizen for the Presidency.

Obama has failed to demonstrate he is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.

Also, it was thought the matter was closed before the President took office.

Nope. They thought with the media getting a thrill up the leg, would vouch for Obama as qualified based on a scan of a document that is insufficient to verify Natural Born Citizenship posted on a third party website...and they did. They betted that McCain with his own eligibility problems wouldn't create any problems.

They checked it, and the issue lay dormant for awhile. Right after taking office, the President declared all of his personal records be sealed. It would be illegal for them to disseminate his personal documents after that point, and so they never would.

Should there be a shift in Congress in 2010, an investigation can gain access to the documents protected by the Executive Order.

Finally, why would they keep such documents after they were done with them. The purpose of gathering them is so they can check the candidate, not so everyone else can dip into their personal lives. The documents would be destroyed (if they were copies) or returned (if they were originals) as soon as they were done with them. If these documents are supposed to be made available to the public, can you find me the birth certificate or personal documents of any other government official?

That has already been asked on this board. The documents and records are maintained.

You are very uninformed on the issues you attempt to discuss.

 

[Industrialsize]

Nobody is committing political suicide. In fact, the Republican Party isn't looking to take Obama out based on his eligibility which explains Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans in Congress. It's not because they are certain he would meet the requirement, it's because that is not the best way to regain the White House for the Party and rebuild the brand while in the minority.

This is good. You can read minds now. You know the strategery of Coulter, O'reilly and the Republicans in congress. Or are you trying to explain why Coulter, O'Reilly and the vast Majority of Repubs have publicly wished the Birthers would go away?

Obama has failed to demonstrate he is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.

Would you please say something new already.


Nope. They thought with the media getting a thrill up the leg, would vouch for Obama as qualified based on a scan of a document that is insufficient to verify Natural Born Citizenship posted on a third party website...and they did. They betted that McCain with his own eligibility problems wouldn't create any problems.

You're a mind reader again, or just displaying Magical thinking. Now you know the strategy of the Dems.


Should there be a shift in Congress in 2010, an investigation can gain access to the documents protected by the Executive Order.

First of all you live in a dreamland if you think that the dems will lose their majorities. As far as access to docs protected by executive order, do you really think that any court will unseal these docs to mollify the lunacy of the Birthers? I'd love to see Orly Taitz, under oath, testifying before congress. I would set my DVR.

 

[Trinity]

This is good. You can read minds now. You know the strategery of Coulter, O'reilly and the Republicans in congress. Or are you trying to explain why Coulter, O'Reilly and the vast Majority of Repubs have publicly wished the Birthers would go away?

It's not mind reading...its understanding how politics work.

Would you please say something new already.

No.

You're a mind reader again, or just displaying Magical thinking. Now you know the strategy of the Dems.

No, once again it is understanding how politics work. They banked on getting by on Obama the Rock Star.

First of all you live in a dreamland if you think that the dems will lose their majorities. As far as access to docs protected by executive order, do you really think that any court will unseal these docs to mollify the lunacy of the Birthers? I'd love to see Orly Taitz, under oath, testifying before congress. I would set my DVR.

Obama and the Democrats live in a dreamland if they believe they will hold on to their majorities by spending us into bankruptcy with their an agenda we cannot afford, not helping the people losing their homes, and failing to create jobs. There are many outstanding lawsuits that are not filed by Taitz. And yes, the documents are protected but as we have already discussed the process to gain access would not bar Congress or the courts from reviewing them in an investigation or for a decision.

 

[JTalbain]

You are still confused on U.S.C Title 8 as it was written in 1961. Research that before you discussi. Also you are thoroughly confused about the Natural Born Citizen clause. The only things keeping the matter out of court was standing and jurisdiction. A federal judge already determined that the courts had jurisdiction prior to the swearing in and there were lawsuits prior to then in appeal. A federal judge also stated that a Quo Warranto could be brought so this matter is by no means over.

US CODE: Title 8,Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
A present for you, it's a link to USC Title 8, with all revisions and repeals pointed out. There is.... ummmm..... nothing supporting your case. Of course, if you are working from a different version of Title 8 then the rest of the American Government, feel free to post a link here, rather than making references to phantom information. Or you could try to say the Cornell University Law School is made up of Obama cronies. Your call.

Read what a Quo Warranto case is then maybe you will understand.

I know what the case does, however you are forgetting that the bedrock of your argument lies in Constitutional Law, which is the supreme law of the land. Quo Warranto is federal law, and is hence inferior. While you can remove a public official from office with a Quo Warranto case, you can't do so with the President. The Constitution lays out what the only means are by which a President may be removed from office. As Constitutional Law, it supercedes anything else. Thus, while Quo Warranto could prevent a President from running for reelection, it could not actualy remove him.

Nobody is committing political suicide. In fact, the Republican Party isn't looking to take Obama out based on his eligibility which explains Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and the Republicans in Congress. It's not because they are certain he would meet the requirement, it's because that is not the best way to regain the White House for the Party and rebuild the brand while in the minority.

Really? I suppose that explains why John McCain and Hillary Clinton looked into Obama while they were running against him, and hence would have had access to his then unsealed public records, and they declared that he was eligible. As for rebuilding the Republican brand, if they actually thought he wasn't a born citizen, they'd be chomping at the bit to prove it. Fully two-thirds of the Republican Party is now living in the fringe. Wouldn't it do more political damage to the other side if the Republicans were proven right?

I find it hilarious btw, that you acknowledge the damage to the Republican credibility when you're part of the problem. At least you realize that you sound crazy, even if you don't personally believe you are.

The focus for American Voters who still openly question Obama on this matter isn't strategy for either party or how the Republican Party will rebuild its brand and win back the White House and Congress. The issue remains whether Barack Obama is eligible as a Natural Born Citizen for the Presidency.

The two are intertwined. Birthers are trying to prove he never was legitimately elected President. Denial is their last bastion of defense against reality. They think if they succeed, it will take the power back from those damned liberals.

Obama has failed to demonstrate he is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.

Failed to demonstrate to you, not to the people who actually vet him. You know, the people who actually matter.

Nope. They thought with the media getting a thrill up the leg, would vouch for Obama as qualified based on a scan of a document that is insufficient to verify Natural Born Citizenship posted on a third party website...and they did. They betted that McCain with his own eligibility problems wouldn't create any problems.

McCain never had any problems. He was questioned sure, but it clearly states in Title 8 that those born in the Panama Canal Zone at his time and circumstances of birth are born citizens. And the media did investigate Obama further. They found government agents confirming the existence of his birth certificate, friends and family which confirmed it, and two independent newspapers which confirmed the birth in Hawaii nearly 50 years ago. Then the media was satisfied. Who did you think did the investigations which uncovered this information? WND?

Should there be a shift in Congress in 2010, an investigation can gain access to the documents protected by the Executive Order.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Party Division
United States Senate elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?
Because I'm not a dick, I actually provided the resources supporting what I'm saying. The Republicans have 40 seats in the Senate. There are 19 Democratic seats up for grabs in 2010. If they manage to get them all, without losing any of their own seats in the process, They still only have 59 seats. Majority required to override an executive order: 2/3. 59/100 < 2/3. You lose. What you are hoping so desperately for is mathematically impossible. There can be no such shift until 2012 at the earliest, which will be too late to launch an investigation. Either he'll be elected or he won't.

That has already been asked on this board. The documents and records are maintained.

Bullshit. You don't get to claim something as critical as that without proof. If they are all so carefully maintained and public domain, provide any link to the birth certificates of George W. Bush, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, or Dan Quayle. Of course, since they were all vetted properly, and the records are all maintained, you should be able to get them all from the same site. You and Pitbull. Fetch.

You are very uninformed on the issues you attempt to discuss.

Have you vetted my information properly? Sorry, that was my inner asshole peeking through. You're right, though, I am attempting to discuss, but you are so unbelievably ignorant it comes off as more of a lecture.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No need to apologize, JT... she deserves all of the rough treatment she gets.

 

[vince]

The focus for American Voters who still openly question Obama on this matter isn't strategy for either party or how the Republican Party will rebuild its brand and win back the White House and Congress. The issue remains whether Barack Obama is eligible as a Natural Born Citizen for the Presidency.

Obama has failed to demonstrate he is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.

We've established that while there is a Constitutional requirement, there is no statute or interpretation that instructs a President on WHO to show his documentation to. There is no LAW Trinity.

Just who the hell is he suppose to show it to? How does he prove he is who says he is? Nothing will satisfy the birther crowd, because deep down it's not about the Constitution. Ninety percent of them can't even spell Constitution.

Why should he try to prove himself to "the American People"? The fringe that doesn't believe it, still wouldn't, and he and the office and the system would only look foolish. Nobody wins.

Can you imagine the scene? Obama goes to Hawaii and picks up his Long Form Birth Certificate. He brings it back to Washington to have it vetted and demonstrate that he is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen. He goes around DC looking for the correct Authority to give it to and put this controversy to bed.

First he goes the Chief Justice, who consults his law books and speaks to his colleagues. He tells him, "Sorry sir, we have no jurisdiction in this matter."

He goes to the Attorney General, the head law-enforcement official in the nation. He says, "Sorry sir. I don't know how to enforce Article 2. Section 1, Clause 5. There is no law and no interpretation from the courts about what is a Natural Born Citizen and besides, I have no authority."

So Obama goes to Nancy Pelosi, who gives him that drunken step-mother smile and tells him, "Sorry Mr President, the cameras were rolling and with all those flashbulbs, I just signed whatever they put in front of me!"

Next he goes to Harry Reid who as usual, looks like he's sitting on a foot long carrot. Harry shifts in his chair and says, "Sorry son, it's not my job"

So, Obama goes on Fox News and Lou Dobbs, in his first interview at his new job, intones, "Well it looks real enough Mr. President, but we will have to get independent verification of it's legal authenticity. I'll give it to Greta for a week and we'll get back to you".

SNL could work this up into a good skit. Oil Tits could wind up straightening Nancy's teeth and listing the White House for sale. I'm not a comic writer, but they could have good fun with it.

It's just nonsense.

 

[Trinity]

US CODE: Title 8,Part I&mdash;Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
A present for you, it's a link to USC Title 8, with all revisions and repeals pointed out. There is.... ummmm..... nothing supporting your case. Of course, if you are working from a different version of Title 8 then the rest of the American Government, feel free to post a link here, rather than making references to phantom information. Or you could try to say the Cornell University Law School is made up of Obama cronies. Your call.

Already discussed on this board. Do a search or research it yourself.

I know what the case does, however you are forgetting that the bedrock of your argument lies in Constitutional Law, which is the supreme law of the land. Quo Warranto is federal law, and is hence inferior. While you can remove a public official from office with a Quo Warranto case, you can't do so with the President. The Constitution lays out what the only means are by which a President may be removed from office. As Constitutional Law, it supercedes anything else. Thus, while Quo Warranto could prevent a President from running for reelection, it could not actualy remove him.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Because I'm not a dick, I actually provided the resources supporting what I'm saying. The Republicans have 40 seats in the Senate. There are 19 Democratic seats up for grabs in 2010. If they manage to get them all, without losing any of their own seats in the process, They still only have 59 seats. Majority required to override an executive order: 2/3. 59/100 < 2/3. You lose. What you are hoping so desperately for is mathematically impossible. There can be no such shift until 2012 at the earliest, which will be too late to launch an investigation. Either he'll be elected or he won't.

Please review what the Executive Order actually entails before you discuss further. The total House is up. A shift will allow committee investigations to proceed and possibly HR 1503 to gain traction. With gains in the House and Senate, congressional investigations and the Courts can gain access to the documents and the Courts through the Executive Order.

Bullshit. You don't get to claim something as critical as that without proof. If they are all so carefully maintained and public domain, provide any link to the birth certificates of George W. Bush, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, or Dan Quayle. Of course, since they were all vetted properly, and the records are all maintained, you should be able to get them all from the same site. You and Pitbull. Fetch.

Do your own homework.

Have you vetted my information properly? Sorry, that was my inner asshole peeking through. You're right, though, I am attempting to discuss, but you are so unbelievably ignorant it comes off as more of a lecture.

Actually your silly posts come off as ignorance.