If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is clever he will turn his trial into an Obama birth certificate circus.
The New York Post has an excellent piece by attorney Michael Schwartz, pointing out the difficulty of predicting a jury's verdict in the pending Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial in New York City. His article is entitled "Why the gov't could lose this case."
But there is a complex, two-part possibility that Attorney Schwartz did not consider.
KSM has said he wants to put the US government on trial and will probably bring up the Bush administration and mention waterboarding as torture in the courtroom, playing to the international media. But why would he limit himself to attacks on the last administration? KS Mohammed could well bring up the subject of Barack Obama never producing his long form birth certificate and thus claim he is not qualified to be President of the United States, thus rendering invalid his appointment of Attorney General Holder. It would throw the court into an uproar and possibly cause a Constitutional crisis, exactly what KSM wants – and the Obama administration doesn't want to see on television just before the 2010 or 2012 elections.
KSM doesn't even have to research the citizenship matter much. He could merely attain transcripts of the case attorney Orly Taitz won against the government in attempting to deploy a soldier overseas who claimed that Barack Obama wasn't a valid Commander-In-Chief. He could also use the public record of Philip Berg's testimony in his attempt to question President Obama's citizenship before the US Supreme Court.
Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has worked out a private deal with the Obama administration to not bring this up, but he would obviously be more than willing break that deal and advance a media-based jihad where he could extend the trial for a number of months.
This brings us to the second part of this complex situation regarding a possible courtroom discussion of Obama's legal citizenship. Just as a prudent person never loans out anything they won't mind never getting back, what if Obama has figured for KSM's questioning the Obama Presidency's legal authority – and would enjoy a Constitutional crisis that throws the country into an uproar? Obama is governing as if he has one TWO-YEAR term, not four. What if the destruction of Constitutional rule and capitalism is his aim, as many a website has made a case for? That would mean Obama would relish a Constitutional crisis and might even want to use it to declare martial law.
Don't assume that Obama wants what most people want in America. If that were true, he never would have flown a 747 trailed by a jet fighter over Manhattan as if it were another 9/11 – or moved this trial to the New York federal courthouse. Why would you give the man who appointed a bunch of unaccountable, unconstitutional Czars and is involved in passing an unreadable healthcare bill in the middle of a Saturday night the benefit of the doubt?
borderraven says: “I do not see where the framers intended for a dual-national to be a POTUS.”
Well, you know what the Constitution says: “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.”
Since the term “natural born citizen” is generally taken to indicate an individual’s status as of the moment of his or her birth, it’s hard to make the argument that anything in Article II, Section 1 rules out the eligibility of someone who acquires dual citizenship at any time after birth.
So we would be stuck saying that someone who is born a dual citizen is ineligible even if he or she loses the foreign citizenship immediately after birth, while someone who is born a U.S. citizen only is eligible even if he or she acquires a foreign citizenship immediately after birth. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I know you feel strongly about how things should be, but you haven’t succeeded in making the case that the way you want things to be is the way things are.
Does any fair-minded person believe that the birthplace of Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger means they have been unfit for their job? The law about a president being a natural born citizen is a rare instance in which we discuss a part of the constitution, without ever discussing the reason that we think it’s a necessary part.
“All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”
The state of affairs of liberalism is shown by those liberals who call a racist a person who believes all should be equal before the law.
A person who is born a dual national is from cradle-to-grave entitled to exercise the rights and responsibilities of both nationalities at his or her discretion, within the laws, as long as those nations are in existence, since those nationalities are a right of birth. A person who is born a dual national is on the one part a citizen of one nation, but on the other part an alien legally present in the USA nation, providing consular agreements are in force. A person who acquires dual nationality by statute, may lose one or the other or both nationalities by statute, through naturalization, or through revocation (8 USC 1448, 8 USC 1451). Being that a dual national is also an alien legally present in the USA, then he or she lacks eligibility for POTUS.
A person who is born to two persons of the same nationality, while in the nation of the parent’s nationality, is from cradle-to-grave, a natural born citizen, entitled to exercise the rights and responsibilities of that nationality, at his or her discretion, within the laws of that nation, as long as that nation is in existence, as a right of birth. A person who acquires natural born citizenship by birth, may lose nationality by statute(8 USC 1481).
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/
A person who is a dual national, with one of those nationalities being US is, in no legal sense, an alien. You may not like dual nationality, but the law does not consider them in any way alien.
From the State Department:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.”
So, the State department (and the law) disagrees with your attempted redefinition of “dual national.” In reality, it is anyone with, duh, two nationalities – it need not come from parents with two different nationalities. It can come from the conflict of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” nationality laws – as in the example from the State Department.
Another way that a person could acquire dual nationality other than by being born to two parents of different nationalities is if one of them left Poland after 1951. If your father or mother left Poland after 1951 and naturalized in the United States, since Poland does not recognize the naturalization as ending Polish citizenship, you will be born with dual nationalities – Polish and US. Poland will require you to get a Polish passport to leave their country. Until 2008, they could have required you to serve in their military.
borderraven says: “A person who acquires natural born citizenship by birth, may lose nationality by statute(8 USC 1481).”
Yes, but that doesn’t help your case. What 8 USC 1481 says is that, under certain circumstances, a citizen (natural born or otherwise) may lose his or her U.S. citizenship. Such a person would of course be ineligible for the Presidency as well as a lot of other things.
But it certainly does not say that all dual citizens lose their U.S. citizenship nor does it say that someone can, by virtue of dual citizenship, turn from a natural born citizen to a naturalized citizen.
So we’re back where we were. There is nothing to prevent someone who acquires dual citizenship from becoming POTUS — unless the circumstances are such as to require the total loss of U.S. citizenship.
Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live (13 Dec 1985)
Article 1
“For the purposes of this Declaration, the term “alien” shall apply, with due regard to qualifications made in subsequent articles, to any individual who is not a national of the State in which he or she is present.”
8USC1101 Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter–
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
–
Therefore a dual-national is a half-alien.
Dual nationals retain foreign nationality, and although by statute may, like any foreign national, surrender foreign nationality (8USC1448 Oath of renunciation and allegiance
), that is an act of “naturalization by statute”, thus ineligible for POTUS.
Don’t be silly. Surrendering or acquiring a foreign nationality has nothing to do with being naturalized by statute under U.S. law.
You’re really grasping at straws now.
Hey, border, in 8 USC 1101 is there any definition of “half-alien?” Seems to me that according to that statute, “alien” is like “pregnant,” you either are, or you are not. Are dual-nationals citizens? Yes? Then they are not aliens.
Plus the obvious problem: Any time any country in the world is unhappy with the thought of a particular candidate becoming POTUS, all they have to do is declare that person a citizen. And then — voilà! The candidate has been “naturalized by statute,” thus ineligible for POTUS.
8 USC 1101 does not need to define “half-alien”.
On reading 8 USC 1101(a)(3) quoted above,and then reading,
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality “The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.”, It becomes apparent a person possessing two nationalities would be a citizen only while present in one those nations, and an alien anyplace else. A dual national not present in any nation of his or her nationality, would thus be an alien, but would be subject to the consular jurisdictions of two nations, and able to choose which embassy or consul to seek services or protections.
Therefore, I conclude a person of dual nationality
Hey, how come you forgot to quote this part?
“Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.”
Therefore, I conclude a person of dual nationality, such as Barack Hussein Obama II, is half-alien, not a natural born citizen, and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Ummm, doesn’t “therefore” usually follow a logical progression?
How come you haven’t answered the questions — like, what happens when a foreign country declares one of our candidates to be a citizen? Then the candidate becomes ineligible, right?
By the way, haven’t you noticed yet that the quote you gave comes to the opposite conclusion from what you claim?
It specifically says that “a person possessing two nationalities would be a citizen only while present in one those nations” — in other words, someone who is a citizen of the U.S. and another country would be a citizen while in the U.S. and a citizen while in the other country, and an alien everyplace else.
It clearly states that such a person would be a citizen in the U.S., not the fictitious “half-alien” that you have tried to invent to save your sinking argument.
What happens when a foreign country declares one of our candidates to be a citizen?
They would receive a gift of US technology via air mail.
I understand. You have stopped even trying to make legal or logical arguments.
I don’t blame you.
I would be amazed if the people of America care much about this. The people who don’t like Obama would be equally happy to see him removed on a technicality as by being beaten by Sarah Palin or another effective opponent. But republicans would have pursued this if they thought the likehood of winning would outweigh the likehood of it backfiring.
The people who like him won’t change their minds if he’s concealing information.
I am told I was born in Syracuse. What if I found out tomorrow that it was all a mistake and I was born outside the US? What does it mean about who I am or what I ought to be entitled to compete for? Nothing.
BTW, next time you’re singing “God Bless America” thank a Russian immigrant for writing it.
Arthur B.: “Don’t be silly. Surrendering or acquiring a foreign nationality has nothing to do with being naturalized by statute under U.S. law.”
Oh really, then how does a foreign national become a naturalized US citizen without surrendering citizenship and renouncing nationality?
Please explain the process:
Artur B, I didn’t invent the “half-alien”, I tried to explain how dual nationality works.
On that note, I advise those in the employ of Barack Hussein Obama II, to dust off their resumes, and explore the job market, since their boss will be answering to We the People.
Arthur B, I seriously doubt you are capable of understanding simple logic, let alone complex logic, so it is in our mutual interest to conclude this discussion.
Are you aware that almost every state (Hawaii included) has converted to all digital vital records? Thus, for example, anyone who was born in Hawaii after 2001 does not have, nor will they ever have an original paper birth certificate.
The vital statistic data is transferred directly from a computer at the hospital to the state electronic database. The electronic database is the actual birth certificate record. For those states that have gone the additional step and have converted the pre electronic birth records into digital form, the electronic database is the official birth record.
Microfiches of the original data MAY exist, but they are archived as historical records, which is NOT the same thing as the official state certified birth record.
I actually am aware of that. It is discussed specifically in the Wikipedia article I linked you to. What it has to do with anything I wrote, or the price of tea in China for that matter, I must admit I am utterly unaware of. Obama’s original birth record does, in fact, exist, at least if we are to believe Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health. And even if it had been converted to electronic format, a certified copy of the electronic long-form birth certificate could be obtained in the exact same way that a certified copy of the paper long-form birth certificate. You are aware that you cannot actually obtain your original paper birth certificate, right? The document that you would need to take with you to, say, the SSA, is a certified copy of the original. The original remains on file with the state. This is differentiated from the COLB in that the COLB is a document certifying that the original record exists, whereas a certified long-form copy is a reproduction of the full original record.
Patrick says “A COLB is probably more than sufficient to register for little league, but most government agencies do not accept short-form birth certificates, like the COLB.”
But he is wrong. Consider:
1) “Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth.” (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
and
2) “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.
Official government records are official government records and must be accepted as such. That’s the law.
Well, that’s true as far as it goes. But you’re wrong about it’s implication, which is plainly clear if you read the text I posted previously, taken directly from the social security administration and department of state. The Certification of Live Birth is an official state record that indicates that another official state record exists. Giving the COLB “full faith and credit” means acknowledging its legitimacy as a record that some other record exists. It doesn’t mean accepting it in place of the record whose existence it indicates. So a federal government agency demanding to see a copy of your birth certificate does not have an obligation to accept a short-form record that your birth certificate exists, such as the Certification of Live Birth – even if it is accompanied by a note from your state’s department of health. You’re welcome to re-assert your opinion for a third time, but it doesn’t change the reality (“racist” as it may be) of how this issue actually works every single day in this country – anymore than borderraven’s legal analysis changes the fact of Obama’s presidency, as you have repeatedly pointed out.
Ellid: “As for Gerry “Teenage girls in bikinis are hot!” Nance, aka Borderraven, he is 100% wrong about the President’s citizenship. He seems to spend most of his time spamming sites about the President’s citizenship when he’s not giving interviews like this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=49238”
Are we going to discuss First Amendment freedom of expression, freedom of the press, photographer’s rights, and how it relates to Fourth Amendment privacy rights of persons walking on public sidewalks?
If so, the see my video “Girl Wathching in Kabul”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtRtJJwyxaw
Also be sure to visit The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) http://www.rawa.org/index.php
and research the Taleban’s treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan.
My videos of females walking a public sidewalk in Huntington Beach, CA, were made in town, a block off the beach, on a Sunday afternoon, to show what freedoms Americans take for granted. I was just a photographer recording what was on public display in an American city. I did not control how people dressed or their actions, I only recorded what was going on.
As for your privacy rights. You have none, where there is no expectation of privacy.
Mulligan, I guess no one from Hawaii is going to be getting any passports anymore.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
There is only a Certification of Live Birth available from the State of Hawaii.
And Janice continues that the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
I guess you’ll be applying to take over the Hawaii Department of Health, since they have no clue that none of their citizens can get passports, and haven’t for years!
You’d think SOMEONE would have complained!
First, Gerry old sport, you aren’t making any more sense than you did when you were spamming the Washington Independent.
Second, your interest in underage girls in bikinis has nothing to do with Afghanistan or the First Amendment. It is, however, revolting in the extreme given the age differential.
Third, you are, as usual, completely wrong about the President’s citizenship.
Ellid, First you are a cyberstalker, second a Communist pig attacking my freedom to engage in free speech and free association, third your attack on my enjoyment of enjoyment of liberty and lawful pursuit of happiness, is disdainful, by your insinuating my actions of recording people walking a city street is somehow immoral, and fourth you are incorrect to claim my opinion of Obama’s citizenship is completely wrong. But, I appreciate your membership in my fan club.
gentrfam,
Again, that’s an issue that’s specifically discussed in the article I linked to 3 posts ago. Since nobody apparently is willing to click on the link and read it, let me quote:
Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems. The use of these systems will enable information typically seen on certified copies (long forms) to be available in computer databases that typically issue short form certificates, thus eliminating the need for “hard copy” long form certificates and having all birth information stored in computer databases only.
In states with fully electronic records, a unified document is used since all of the information normally present only on a long-form paper-format birth certificate is databased and present in electronic format print-out copies. In states where paper records are kept, a “certification of live birth” is defined differently and is not adequate for some federal agencies. And those federal agencies are not obligated to accept the COLB, or any other short-form document, as Arthur B. asserted.
You’ve got me on one point though: I did assume that Hawaii still issued long-form birth certificate copies, given the oft-repeated quotation from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health:
I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen
If paper copies are no longer kept or issued, and since the COLB in Hawaii would include all of the information contained in the electronic database, there shouldn’t have been anything for Dr. Fukino to see, and no reason for him (her?) to verify it.
Mulligan,
A. wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
B. A birth certificate is defined by the information it contains, not by the title it is given by the State. Check the CFR again, it says that the State Department needs a seal, signature, the applicant’s full name, the full names of the parents and the place and time of the birth. It does not say that the birth certificate has to bear the title of birth certificate.
If Hawaii wanted to, they could print “Mustang Pretty Car” as the title of the document and it would qualify as a birth certificate because it contains the appropriate information.
For example, the Social Security Administration WILL accept a COLB. They say, to the public, they need a birth certificate, because that’s what people will understand. (If you send Hawaii $20, you get a COLB. If you send them $40, you get 2 COLBs. You cannot get a document titled “certificate.”)
Here is the REAL SSA regulations on the issue:
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100203310
They simply need a U.S. public birth record.
- Ellid, First you are a cyberstalker.
Wrong. I had assumed that you’d given up your semi-literate quest to unseat the President and was shocked to see you posting the same discredited junk here that you posted at the Independent. I also have not found your home address, have not spammed your Facebook or your blog, or contacted the California tax authorities or the IRS about your advocacy of ignoring the tax laws.
- second a Communist pig
Sorry, neither. I’m from a Republican family that gave up on the GOP when insanity and religious fanaticism replaced principle and thought.
- attacking my freedom to engage in free speech and free association
Again, wrong. You are perfectly free to post your blather all over the Internet to whomever you wish, and have done so. All I did was post a link to an unflattering video. If you don’t like people knowing about your little hobby, then sue Poetv and have the video taken down.
- third your attack on my enjoyment of enjoyment of liberty and lawful pursuit of happiness, is disdainful, by your insinuating my actions of recording people walking a city street is somehow immoral
Wrong again. Taking pictures of people is fine. Taking pictures of underage girls when you’re old enough to be their father (or possibly grandfather) under the guise of some weird version of feminism is verging very close to a line that no one can possibly defend. Or are you actually claiming that taking pictures of teenagers in bikinis makes you happy? Is that *really* what you’re claiming?
- and fourth you are incorrect to claim my opinion of Obama’s citizenship is completely wrong.
Once again, you’re wrong, as has been pointed out to over and over again. The President was born in Hawaii and is thus natural born, and your cut-and-paste “legal research” is junk that shows that you clearly do not understand what you’re doing.
- But, I appreciate your membership in my fan club.
Sorry, but if I want to join a fan club devoted to grossly out of shape poseurs, I’ll start Googling “John Candy Lookalikes.”
As for Khalid Sheik Mohamed attempting to bring the President’s citizenship into his upcoming terrorism trial, I can’t imagine that his attorneys would have grounds to do so, since Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois at the time of the original attack.
I misinterpretted HRS §338-18(g)which says:
…”(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]” …
Reading “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof,” you can request a verification, if you ask pointed questions, and since you are not requesting service of providing reproductions, but merely asking a few questions, then there should be no fee.
Gerry. Some advice.
Stop posting material that you clearly do not understand. You are only making yourself look like an ill-educated fool. If you have questions about American citizenship law, ask a law professor, your local bar association, or your local Homeland Security office.
Seriously.
Ellid,
Some advice.
Mind your own business.
Stop stalking me.
Seriously.
Mulligan,
A. wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
That’s why I used it as a supplemental source, since it contained a neatly summarized explanation of the difference between a long and short form birth certificate, including discussion of the issue in states with electronic records. It would be more instructive if you would point out what parts of that explanation were incorrect rather than state your distaste for the place the information is hosted. In fact, it would be amusing if you would do so, since you went on for the duration of your post to re-state the information contained in the wikipedia summary almost exactly.
B. A birth certificate is defined by the information it contains, not by the title it is given by the State. Check the CFR again, it says that the State Department needs a seal, signature, the applicant’s full name, the full names of the parents and the place and time of the birth. It does not say that the birth certificate has to bear the title of birth certificate.
Once again, as I mentioned above, you’re explaining something that was already made clear in the Wikipedia summary I posted now 5 posts ago. The only one who still seems unclear on any of these issues is you. You would have done to well to read the 2 paragraphs despite your distaste for wikipedia since all of the preceding as well as all of the following is contained there, making both your and my last several posts redundant.
The only sense in which the title of the birth document is relevant is that the vast majority of states that still keep paper records use a different title for their short and long form birth records. The difference is a lot more than semantic in those states, because the short-form record is generated from a computer database that contains only a fraction of the information present on the complete birth record. For example, the criteria for a birth record document at the state department website I linked to earlier reads:
-Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
The use of the term “certified birth certificate” is not accidental or arbitrary. In states that keep paper records (the vast majority of which still do), a “certified birth certificate” usually refers specifically to the long-form certified copy of the original birth record. A short-form birth certificate in those states is usually referred to as a “certification of birth”, “certification of live birth”, etc, and does not contain all of the necessary information to be an acceptable citizenship document. For instance, the state in which I was born issues both long-form and short-form documents. The short form document in that state is called a “certification of birth”. The “certification of birth” is not adequate as proof of identity or citizenship for the Social Security Administration (speaking from experience) because it is computer-generated printout whose seal is not embossed or raised.
For example, the Social Security Administration WILL accept a COLB. They say, to the public, they need a birth certificate, because that’s what people will understand. (If you send Hawaii $20, you get a COLB. If you send them $40, you get 2 COLBs. You cannot get a document titled “certificate.”)
As I just mentioned, that depends entirely on what state issued the COLB. The actual reason why the SSA and department of state use the term “birth certificate” or “certified birth certificate” when describing acceptable documents is that MOST “certifications of live birth” and other short-form birth records DO NOT contain the information required of a valid birth record document, and MOST states use the term “birth certificate” or “certified birth certificate” to describe the long-form document that DOES contain the required information. In releasing a single, unified birth record document based on a paperless records system (a fact that the state’s head of the department of health seemed unaware of when he/she “verified the existence of the original birth record” that shouldn’t have existed), Hawaii is the exception and not the rule. Getting back to the point I had originally posted to address, it is incorrect to say that the federal government is legally obligated to accept a short-form birth record of any kind. Leaving aside any external reference, having presented a short-form “certification of birth” to the SSA and had it rejected and been asked to present a long-form birth certificate, I believe I can speak with some authority on the matter.
And that’s going to be the last time that I post the exact same thing. I’m up to at least three times now, that’s plenty. It’s getting redundant to the point of stupidity. You all have fun calling each other names and debating the intricacies of what constitutes cyberstalking.
Re: “‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.”
That’s all well and good in its original intent, which was that the “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” have to be ***REASONABLE***. It would be entirely within the realm of the “reasonable” in the modern liberal/Leftist mind that because sodomy is now a right, anything is reasonable so that as little as a recent utility bill should qualify as proof of citizenship, at least for those who are more equal, lest the entire planet implode because just one was denied his “right” to whatever. This mindset is the same one that conjures up such absurd ideas as out-of-state college tuition and two years out of five tax exemption for illegal aliens, and I don’t care if it was a Democrat or a RINO who thought of them; they are all liberal/Leftist. I wasn’t born yesterday [my official birth certificate says it was the day before], and I’ve personally seen what liberal/Leftists judges, politicians, and bureaucrats can do with a law when they want. As Gulliver observed, through the multiplication of words, white becomes black, and black becomes white. And when that doesn’t work, the law is just ignored.
P.S. No one has addressed the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth as opposed to a Certificate of Dead Birth. Obviously, anyone who is alive can qualify for a COLB, and presumably some dead people as well, if they lived for at least a short time.
For clarity and to avoid writing the full title of the documents, you may use the following:
CeOLB = Certificate of Live Birth
CnOLB = Certification of Live Birth
I just cannot understand how a person like Ellid, can think they somehow have the right, power or authority to tell me I am wrong, or illogical, when I have all the rights, powers and authority to do as I please in these forums. It just stinks of Communism, when people infringe on my my rights and freedoms. I’d prefer Ellid, come out of the closet, and stop being so gay. Meet me face to face, on the street, unmasked, open and honest, instead of hiding behind a keyboard.
Unlike you, old sport, I actually work for a living instead of relying on my government-funded retirement check. Flying to California, though attractive, is not financially possible for me at this time, nor do I have the vacation time to go anywhere, as pleasant as California sounds right about not.
However, as the person challenged, I am invoking my right under the code duello as to the time and place of our meeting. I therefore expect to see you in front of the Bank of America on South Pleasant Street in Amherst, Massachusetts, on any Tuesday afternoon in January after 2:00 pm, at which time I expect you to retract your false accusation that I am now or ever have been a Communist, a lesbian, or am in the habit of wearing a mask in public.
Also, you are still wrong about the President’s citizenship, and I see no reason to abdicate either *my* First Amendment right to say so or my duty as a citizen to counter your advocacy of the overthrow of a legally elected President.
Put up or shut up.
Ellid, my dear, it is taxpayers like you who pay my retirement, which I call overtime pay, for my 20-years service in the US Navy. Thank you!
*shrugs*
Interesting, that a tax protester would boast about living off the government he claims to despise.
Yes, when an usurper manages to occupy the Oval office, having been put there through conspiracy, ignorance and ineptitude, in a gross treason against the US Constitution, I will not express favor towards that government. I anticipate interesting future cases in the DC District Court.
I find it interesting that the requirement that a president of the USA be born in the USA and a full fledged American at the time of birth is a good example of the kind of beaurocratic red tape that conservatives usually hate. Why would a private sector employer (who doesn’t have free money flowing in, but instead has to generate wealth with just labor and wits) deliberately reduce the size of the talent pool with an arbitrary non-meritorious requirement?
Of course the issue is telling the truth, also, if in fact Pres. Obama is not.
ruminator asked:
“Why would a private sector employer (who doesn’t have free money flowing in, but instead has to generate wealth with just labor and wits) deliberately reduce the size of the talent pool with an arbitrary non-meritorious requirement?”
It doesn’t seem unusual to me, considering the requirement for a natural born citizen only applies to the very narrow pool of candidates vying for the position of CEO. Like most employers it is best to hire someone correctly, since a “bad hire” is difficult to fire.
Borderraven:
Can anyone even testify in court that he/she was born in a certain place without documentation? Isn’t that partly because no one remembers his birth?
Whereas I can testify about where I spent New Year’s Eve, and if no one proves otherwise, it’s first hand testimony.
And does the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen increase the quality and qualifications of the candidates? How?
And how can an event that one does not remember shape one’s character?
And exactly what does it mean to an infant to know that he is an American, rather than a Kenyan, citizen?
sedonaman said:
Re: “‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.”
That’s all well and good in its original intent, which was that the “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” have to be ***REASONABLE***.
___
No, and that’s precisely the point. The Constitution provides the “full faith and credit” clause to mean just what it says — that ‘[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state’ regardless of whether a particular individual considers them to be reasonable.
You may not like it, but that’s what the Constitution says, and therefore it is the law of the land in the U.S.
But of course it comes as no surprise that you have no respect for the Constitution, you’ve demonstrated that over and over.
The Seven Articles of the US Constitution
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Article 2 – The Executive Branch
Article 3 – The Judicial Branch
Article 4 – The States
Article 5 – Amendment
Article 6 – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Article 7 – Ratification
I don’t understand why people hang their hopes on the Full faith and credit clause in Article 4 Section 1, as being some protection to Obama or of any hindrance to an investigation. If an investigation needs to see any official records, they shall.
borderraven —
What are you talking about? The point of citing the “full faith and credit” clause is that the Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence of Obama’s date and place of birth.
If you’ve got evidence that the document is invalid, take it to court and prove it. The “full faith and credit” clause will not help him in that case.
But, if you can’t do that, Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. His burden of proof is met.