Bad news for the 'Birthers' - and maybe the rest of us
Long story short: the Hawaiian legislature is considering a law that would block access to state records for two years to anyone requesting Obama's birth certificate more than once.
I'll admit that I don't really doubt the whoreson was born in Hawaii. There is a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper at the time to support this fairly obvious point. I also can't believe that even a bunch as foolish as the Democratic National Committee would be dumb enough to run a candidate for President without verifying the jerk was eligible for the office. Democrats may be misguided, but they are not morons.
It still would be nice, however, if the jackass didn't think so much of himself that he refuses to settle what is at bottom a very simple issue by simply producing the original for the media to see and to possibly be verified by a testing lab or something like that. Even that's by the way.
What bothers me about the matter is the legislature in Honolulu considering a law to restrict access to public records at all. Law is made from extreme cases; just ask the Supreme Court. If the Hawaiians get away with blocking access to public records in one case, how long will it be before someone somewhere else uses this narrow law (if it passes) as precedent for blocking access on a broader scale elsewhere? We aren't talking about national security matters which put people at risk with untrammeled access. We are talking about ordinary public records. I can see all sorts of potential abuse in this matter.
Is this a precedent which should be set? I don't think so.
I stand with you, on this one. First, we have enough of these goofy laws to last us all a lifetime. Second, why are they even considering this, if they have nothing to hide? The only thing a cat buries is poop. Do they have some poop to bury?
It would be unconstitutional.We have the freedom of information act.Of course the constitution doesn't seem to restrict politicians from passing laws that contradict it.(witness the second ammendment and 20k+ laws that are unconstitutional) ,,,sam.
While he "may" have been born in Hawaii (there is STILL NO LEGAL PROOF, just a document that could be forged or altered at any time) I think the real situation they are trying to hide is the citizenship status of the parents.
His birth father was a citizen of KENYA this fact alone disqualifies even a person born on US soil from being president. "The parents must be natural born citizens".
Either way the situation isn't going to change till the next inauguration day.
Maybe they're just tired of people requesting his birth certificate? I know I'm tired of hearing about it. Maybe it's prohibiting them from carrying on with other business?
His birth father was a citizen of KENYA this fact alone disqualifies even a person born on US soil from being president. "The parents must be natural born citizens".
Tim, not trying to flame you here, but I'm afraid you're wrong.
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States...shall be eligible to the Office of President..."
A "natural born Citizen" is someone who was born in this country. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the citizenship of the person's parent. Period. If Obama was in fact born in the United States (and meets all of the other age & residency requirements) then he is clearly eligible to become the President.
I'm really not taking sides here. Just pointing this out...
A socialist by any other name (progressive, etc) is still a socialist, regardless of his nation of birth. Even if he was born here, he certainly has an African approach to politics. He's not the first leader to conceal his true religion in order to get elected. You simply have to browse African history over the last 60 years to see examples.
I don't know about you, but I've never made the mistake of saying I was a different religion. The American people have become the greatest collection of idiotic, mindless sheep ever assembled.
Well unfortunately I believed something someone had printed off the internet and was handing out. If I can find the print out I will re-read it and see if they actually put any notations as to where they got their info at.
Here is a zerp from one of the constitutional forums:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
and the wiki to presidential elegibility
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:
* be a natural born citizen of the United States;[7]
* be at least thirty-five years old;
* have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
Maybe they're just tired of people requesting his birth certificate? I know I'm tired of hearing about it. Maybe it's prohibiting them from carrying on with other business?
If your tired of hearing about it, don't read it ...A.H
Barry is his real name. The DNC did not confirm this properly. He called into a radio talk show and that's what came up on caller ID. The certificate is not the same as the birth record they showed. His first E.O was to seal his records. This has to be determined, for how can service members carry out his orders if he is not eligible? His eligibilty has to be confirmed, because if he is not a true U.S citizen ALL of the bills and laws he signs into are Null and Void. If I was a Republican strategist, it would be wise to let him sign all these new laws and them impeach him, and everything is null and void. I'm not tired of it, and Americans have to know in order to know where to go next.
All I have to say is you would think to put an end to this, if there was NOTHING to hide that is, they'd just show the real deal?
And I only know that the one they did show looks NOTHING like the copies of my own I've obtained nor of those of my children I've obtained. (And yes, I know, it won;t look the same as mine. But it will have signatures and not look so pristine and brand new freshly made and you WOULD be able to make out any notary stamp that ALL certified documents MUST HAVE!!!
I'm just sayin'.....
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Maybe they're just tired of people requesting his birth certificate? I know I'm tired of hearing about it. Maybe it's prohibiting them from carrying on with other business?
Well, ALL COMPUTERS COME WITH AN OFF SWITCH. No one is forcing you to NOT use it.
The internet is full of places that are, well, pro Obama. You could always just go and listen to constant praise instead?
Or, as A.H. so kindly pointed out, there is what he said.
But seriously, don't you think the thing to do, if there's NOTHING to hide that is, would be to show the real deal and give ALL those asking what they want? I mean, what could be simpler? Really, what could be simpler then that? Show it, if NOTHING wrong, it's DONE, it's OVER WITH, it's FINAL, THE END!!!
And thanks to the Constitution, and thanks to all who fought for it, we still have Freedom of Speech.
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Well, ALL COMPUTERS COME WITH AN OFF SWITCH. No one is forcing you to NOT use it.
The internet is full of places that are, well, pro Obama. You could always just go and listen to constant praise instead?
Or, as A.H. so kindly pointed out, there is what he said.
But seriously, don't you think the thing to do, if there's NOTHING to hide that is, would be to show the real deal and give ALL those asking what they want? I mean, what could be simpler? Really, what could be simpler then that? Show it, if NOTHING wrong, it's DONE, it's OVER WITH, it's FINAL, THE END!!!
And thanks to the Constitution, and thanks to all who fought for it, we still have Freedom of Speech.
Do you come with an off switch? I'm not pro Obama. I'm not anti Obama. I just think it's stupid to harp over something so trivial. It makes people who keep going on and on about it sound ridiculous.
The Constitution doesn't have a process for automatic removal of someone found to be ineligible and automatic nullification of his actions. He would have to be removed by legislature through the impeachment process.
If his ineligibility were proven, it would be political suicide not to impeach him, and he would probably prefer to resign.
What troubles me most, and which indicates a larger problem, was that the courts wouldn't do their job in the matter.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
Folks are, after all, entitled to their own opinions, the last time I checked. And I happen to agree with BRG3, that the courts let us down, on this one.
