GOP congressman: Hey, maybe I’ll sue over Obama’s birth certificate; Update: Franks won’t sue
posted at 5:52 pm on August 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
Sounds good. With ObamaCare melting The One’s poll numbers and a legislative tsunami rolling in on the Democrats, what better way to capitalize than with a crackpot distraction that’ll give every loose cannon on the America right a soapbox on MSNBC?
Note to John Boehner: It’s time for a closed-door “strategy session” with House Republicans on this subject.
The other main issue dealt with numerous speakers questioning Obama’s birth certificate and why there wasn’t an investigation into whether he is a naturalized citizen. One woman said a newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii was not sufficient. Another asked how he could have a passport without a birth certificate.
Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen. He did say there was a lot of conflicting evidence of Obama’s citizenship and that he was considering filing a lawsuit, the only congressman to do so. Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.
One speaker, a pre-school teacher, tearfully said Obama denounced the country as a Christian nation and warned he should learn a civics lesson. Franks agreed with her saying he was offended that Obama denigrated the country on an overseas trip and the president should speak in favor of the country when abroad.
As recently as last month, Franks was a vocal anti-Birther. I assume he flipped after seeing the Birther polls, which is insane if true: No one’s going to mount a primary challenge over this issue but it’s a handy bludgeon for Democratic challengers to use in the general election as an appeal to centrists. Even more depressing? According to lefty stat-meister Nate Silver, the GOP’s momentarily favored to pick up Senate seats and break the Dems’ filibuster-proof majority next year — unless they end up kneecapping themselves with this, of course. Exit question: If Birtherism flames out, what’ll be the next spark for an anti-Obama conspiracy theory? Hmmmmmm.
Update: Franks’s spokesman says it’s all a big misunderstanding.
To clarify — the Congressman’s comments at Saturday’s Mohave County town hall were misrepresented in the original report that you quoted. His statement was that he had, at one time, considered the possibility of filing a lawsuit back when the issue was first brought to his attention before and just after the election. However, after compiling and analyzing a significant amount of research, including looking into all the pertinent public records such as the “short form” birth certificate, the affidavits from public officials certifying the existence of the long-form certificate, and the birth records in the local Hawaii newspaper, it was his conclusion that the evidence indicated that Barack Obama was indeed physically born in the state of Hawaii, and that there was NOT a sufficient basis to file a lawsuit. Nothing has changed since then and he has been quoted multiple times in the press as saying that the believes “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii when Hawaii was a State, and therefore is a Constitutional, natural-born citizen of the United States.” The Congressman continues to maintain that belief.
That being said — he also believes it’s ridiculous for the President of the United States, who ran on a platform of transparency and accountability, to dismiss so glibly the concerns of literally millions of Americans, and allow such a ridiculous debate to continue when it could so easily be settled once and for all. It should not be too much to ask for the leader of the free world to allay the concerns of a large number of the people he represents by producing his long-form birth certificate, which is the definitive, inarguable way that he can put people’s concerns about his national identity to rest for good.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
FTFY.
JohnGalt23 on August 24, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Yes, that is indeed what they call themselves.
Jim Treacher on August 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM
NYD, Moby.
Jim Treacher on August 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM
What is this “they”? You just said there is no such thing.
MadisonConservative on August 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Enjoy your semantics games.
Jim Treacher on August 24, 2009 at 7:04 PM
you know, this ‘back off’ mentality is just what the lefties love.
there are real questions about Obama’s eligibility.
show us the certificate!
let this be a citizen’s inquiry —
that won’t go away, without certified proof.
jimmer on August 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Hmm, this guy thinks that children born on US soil to a parent who is a foreign ambassador or alien is a natural born citizen. I guess the intentions of the framers of the 14th Amendment is now as meaningless to Republicans as it has been for Democrats for years.
Buddahpundit on August 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM
And you are, deliberately I think, missing the point.
We don’t have to alter our stance on the issues to win. We are plying genuine, down-the-line, rock-ribbed right-wing hardball on ObamaCare and C&T. Taking the timeless advice of henry Stamper, we aren’t giving a goddamned inch.
And guess what? It’s working!! The middle is siding with us. If you are really a conservative, I would think you would be applauding this, and encouraging right-wing opinion makers/carriers to focus on this.
But apparently, you would prefer them to risk pissing away the support of the middle over an issue that is not only opposed by an overwhelming majority of the middle, but has also been vilified by most responsible right-wing news outlets and political organizations.
So, just who is it that has not learned their political lessons?
JohnGalt23 on August 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM
That’s the whole point.
Daggett on August 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Again, it’s not going to matter. As I said earlier, he could have been born on Mars and nothing will happen. You are not going to hurt him this way. However, you can hurt him if he was forced to release his college financial records as well as his college transcripts. Will not ever get him impeached, but will embarrass him and ruin his agenda.
FlyoverJ-HawkFan on August 24, 2009 at 7:12 PM
These disloyal criminal birthers are going to drive us all nuts! This whole matter has already been put to rest! Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod have both given their highest personal assurance that they have seen the Divine One’s actual long form Certification of Live Immaculate Conception and in Holy Script! Rahm Emanuel saw it from one hospital and David Axelrod saw it from another one! Twice the absolute incontrovertible proof! I don’t know what more any sane person could possibly want! Besides the Queen of Hearts says that she thinks he has cute ears and looks so sexy in his mom jeans so that would settle the matter right there anyway.
Members of the jury, loyal Hotair subjects and the honorable Mr. Allahpundit, the prisoners at the bar, one Jim Treacher, one Gregor, one Hening, one BetseyRoss, one rightwingyahooo, one Guardian, one JiangxiDad, one progressoverpeace being tried in absentia, and various other assorted and sundry miscreant John Doe’s, who all have bench warrants outstanding, all stand accused of engaging in a vile and mass conspiracy of trying to goad Barack Obama, our Dear Leader with the Certification of Live Immaculate Conception from no less than two locations, into a game of COLB, thereby and with malice of forethought, molesting, tormenting, and otherwise annoying our beloved Dear Leader and all his loyal subjects, including giving Queen Madison extra molesting, tormenting and an exceedingly bad hair day. Sentence first. Verdict afterwards. Off with their heads!
Cheshire Cat on August 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Enjoy your game of make-believe.
MadisonConservative on August 24, 2009 at 7:15 PM
I’m turning myself in. I heard those who confess their guilt will receive lethal injection instead of beheading.
FlyoverJ-HawkFan on August 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM
And on an unrelated matter:
The One is careful with documents. The enhanced interrogation docs (with just more released) seem to support Vice President Cheney’s position. Think it was an accident that it took soooo long to get them?
IlikedAUH2O on August 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Reality check time.
You’re never going to force him to release those records. There is nothing in the US Constitution that makes public access to those records a requirement to be POTUS. And Columbia and Harvard are, quite properly IMHO, going to protect his privacy, as they would any other graduate from their institutions.
Now, do you really think there is something embarrassing in those records? There is a simple solution to that. Be a journalist. Get someone with access to leak them to you, and publish them.
JohnGalt23 on August 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I don’t know as the Queen is very big on beheadings but I will speak to her on your behalf.
Cheshire Cat on August 24, 2009 at 7:19 PM
That, or they’ll just bore you to death with linguistic dissembling.
Jim Treacher on August 24, 2009 at 7:19 PM
WOW! He got that extra ‘stimulus fund’ pork for his district very quickly! I figured it would be at least two more days before he found a way to weasel out.
LegendHasIt on August 24, 2009 at 7:20 PM
What are you guys arguing about? There are no moderates. You believe what you believe. I’ve been told that I’m not a Conservative cause I think the Marijuana should be legalized. Even though I explain that tobacco growers in the southeast should grow it since they are the experts in growing leafy plants that people smoke. And, the gov’t taxes the shit out of it. Plus hemp is a very valuable item. Also, it would hurt the hell out of the drug trade south of the border which is a conservative value. And it would end the hypocritical medical marijuana crap in certain states, which is a liberal issue. If you still want to be defined as a moderate, meaning you can’t make up your mind, then you are not a leader, you’re a pu–y. That simple.
FlyoverJ-HawkFan on August 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Find a new act, already. I still don’t get how you purely focus on me when I’m far from the only one here dismissing birthers.
MadisonConservative on August 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Again, that’s the way to win the majority of the electorate, most of which have one or two pet issues and think very little about any others.
MadisonConservative on August 24, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Look, why is it so hard to know about his college records. GWB was a C student. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, Gore was Tommy Lee Jones roommate. Obama was president of the Harvard Law review on what credentials? He never published anything, like he was supposed to. It’s all about transparency which that idiot promised in his campaign. Not being out of touch or naieve. I know nothing will ever happen. But if he wants out trust (not ours, he’ll never get that), but the people who voted for him who are now becomming doubtful. Then why not release the info.
FlyoverJ-HawkFan on August 24, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I can only surmise that it is because you are the one who most squeals like a mouse.
semloh on August 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Jeez, six months ago all I heard was that the GOP is dead if they don’t moderate. Now all I hear is that American is really a conservative nation. So, things might be looking good for the GOP if we only behave and not bring up such silliness like birthers. But birthers as a whole are not a bunch of nuts or Obama haters. They have questions that can be reasonably answered just by bringing out the long form. SIMPLE. So, I would suggest that all who want to discredit the birthers just ask to have the long form made available. No need to dance around this and give explanations why birthers are hurting the party. Not much to have to ask the POTUS to do. And then this all goes away and we can get back to toeing the new GOP line whatever that happens to be today.
jims on August 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I’d like to see the long form certificate cause I know he’s hiding something. Also, I love that the Birthers drive liberals crazy. Hysterical even. Over at HuffPo when a Birther blog shows up, the comments are guaranteed to reach over a thousand.
The only thing that makes them crazier is Sarah Palin. The thought of the libs hysteria if Sarah was to defeat Obama for the Presidency in 2012 makes me laugh out loud.
wordsmithy2009 on August 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM
We shouldn’t point out Obama’s opacity because we will never get him to release those records?
Buddahpundit on August 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM
FlyoverJ-HawkFan on August 24, 2009 at 6:57 PM
All I’d like is to know that our Constitution has more legal weight than the latest fashionable cool-ness survey. Either we are a nation with a Constitution or we’re not.
I am so sick of people saying that we’re crazy simply because we want our Constitution to be followed.
The situation in Honduras says it all. Their Constitution says that if a president tries to do away with term limits he’s out. Period. Their Supreme Court said he’s out and he was out. Period. Who cares if their Constitution didn’t tell what all wherefores and whereases and what lawyers and what judges and what process and any other which way their Constitution could be side-stepped. Their Constitution was followed. Ours is hidden behind a million lawyers all ready to tell us why it’s none of our damn business whether we have a Constitution or not, why nobody can really say what it means, and why it really doesn’t mean anything.
I’m sick of it. This lawyers’ crapola dance is killing this nation. Islamists have openly said they are going to destroy this nation by exploiting our media and our legal system – both of which are bent on protecting the guilty and screwing the innocent who can only stand by and watch it happen. Same thing with the communists. If we the people don’t demand that our Constitution be followed it’ll never happen. We’re as good as dead.
That’s what this is about. How the heck can I in good conscience ask any soldier to follow the orders of a guy who smirks his way along knowing he can dance his way out of EVERYTHING the Constitution says? And we’ve watched him butcher the Constitution. What can we do about it? I ask any of you – what can we do about it?
We can’t do a dang thing more about his government take-overs, unconstitutional czars, snitch lines, etc than we can do about his eligibility. So why don’t we all just roll over and die? It’s what I hear y’all saying. We can’t do anything about it anyway so let’s just hand the nation over to whatever tyrant is willing to come and take it. We wouldn’t want anybody to laugh at us or call us extreme, for heaven’s sake.
I am doing everything I can to fight the lawlessness and I hate it that people who would otherwise fight alongside me are instead willing to swallow “just a little bit” of lawlessness for the sake of image – and throw crap at those of us who won’t eat the eligibility cowpie even if the world calls it chocolate mousse.
To AP all I can say is, “Et tu, Brute?”
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Do you realize that if the media loses its ability to scare us by their ridicule they have lost everything? When they try the Alinsky thing and the middle America who controls elections gives a collective yawn and a BFD, the media has lost its power to control elections.
Not gonna bow to your idols, media. Laugh all you want. Makes no difference to me. The only thing the free world has to fear is fear itself.
Why do the lefty media folks keep bringing this up? Because their viewers are idiots who can only relate to ad hominems. Anybody with a brain has already given up on Olbermann and Maddow. These are people who think they’re witty if they suggest that A-Rod rape a 15-year-old girl.
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 8:06 PM
I don’t really have a problem with pointing out that he won’t release his college records. I just don’t think anyone really cares all that much about it, since he went through an entire campaign not releasing them. By the same token, i don’t think we really lose anything by engaging in that conversation.
The same cannot be said of birtherism. When birthers take up that issue, implicit in the argument is that they doubt he is a citizen, and therefore they think he should be removed from office. And given that the vast majority of people recognize Obama is in fact a citizen, it makes the birthers look like one of the worst things you can be in politics: sore losers. It is up there with baseball teams that lose, and then proceed to blame the umpire. Such teams are invariably mocked and loathed.
And the same goes for those who lose in the political arena and whine about it.
JohnGalt23 on August 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Well, what can I say? I’ve e-mailed him 4-5 times and always got a response back even if a brief one.
Few can match my charm, perhaps?
SteveMG on August 24, 2009 at 8:20 PM
JohnGalt23, who of us would let a person win the lottery if they refused to show their winning ticket?
If a lottery winner spent tons and tons of money telling the whole world it’s nobody’s darned business whether he has the winning ticket or not – who is really the stupid one, the one who insists he show his qualifications to receive the prize, or the one who says only a crazy person would insist on something so outrageous as proving you qualify to win?
Technical details matter. Al Capone was caught for tax evasion, for cryin’ out loud. Now the nation is run by open tax cheats. But at least we weren’t sore losers who insisted on details mattering…
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Umm, not sure where the ambassador thing comes from in this situation, but the child of an alien IS a citizen at birth.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
And the wording of the first sentence of the first section of the 14th amendment is pretty clear – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (emphasis mine)
If born to a foreign ambassador and their spouse, they would not be under “the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States, but of the country the Ambassador represents. So, not a citizen. Born on US soil to an alien (legal or not)? Natural born Citizen, as they are under the jurisdiction of the US even if both parents are not citizens themselves.
JeffWeimer on August 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Here is what I don’t understand: why, given all the actual, evidential instances of violation going on DAILY by this administration, coupled with our collective poll uptick, why (Oh, WHY????????) are we doing anything to marginalize ourselves at this point? There might be some valid reason to question his origins (I haven’t read any articles) but it isn’t enough to build a case. We need to capitalize on shared outrage (spanning both parties and all demographics) over real-time events which are threatening us now.
The left LOVES the birthers. Why must we give them more fodder?
Mommypundit on August 24, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Yes, but is it not true that under the laws in 1961, which have since been softened, the fact that Obama’s father was not a US Cit and his mother was a minor at time of birth, require him to have been born on in a US state or Territory to qualify as natural born?
I think he should show all his records. Although I am susceptible to the argument or practicality and resources on this issue, it still bothers me mightily that no one is allowed to know, or to inform the public definitively, as to eligibility to serve.
Is the argument that “if he wasn’t he’d have been removed by now”? If so, by whom would he have been removed?
Who is responsible for enforcing the constitution in this country, and if they refuse, why should we have to accept that? Why should the reply “because we can’t do anything about it” satisfy us? Even if true, how can it not bother any Constitution loving American (new phrase, I guess) that there is a possibility the POTUS does not legally hold his position? Must we settle for the SCOTUS’s word on this, when we have not seen any evidence or heard their ruling?
Isn’t this the first time a POTUS has not submitted a long form?
I can see why some say, “look, this is one fight we don’t need”
But it still sticks in my craw. Sue for release of all his records.
rightwingyahooo on August 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM
The left LOVES the birthers. Why must we give them more fodder?
Why do we let the left call our plays? They will always call us morons and genetic impaireds… We should resolve the issue one way or another and not let it simply die out.
rightwingyahooo on August 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Went peeking at all the Obama-belia in the PMSNBC gift shop — & left disappointed there’s no “framed-with-certificate-of-authenticity” birth certs !
They’re missing a goldmine.
CaveatEmpty on August 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM
But the 14th amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. Hawaii became a state in 1959. Obama was born in Hawaii to a citizen and a foreign national, but that makes no difference, as all extant proof is that he was born on US soil and under the jurisdiction of the US. He’s a citizen at birth.
And for the “long form/short form” controversy – I hold COLBs for all three of my children, who were born in two different states, one on the west coast, two on the east. A COLB is a birth certificate and is legally accepted as such in all jurisdictions.
JeffWeimer on August 24, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I hold COLBs for all three of my children, who were born in two different states, one on the west coast, two on the east. A COLB is a birth certificate and is legally accepted as such in all jurisdictions.
Well, I know several families who were told no COLB for passports. Go back and get your long form.
I presented my long form when I applied for mine, I have no COLB.
All extant proof, yes, but it is not conclusive proof.
rightwingyahooo on August 24, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Mockery and marginalization are already tools the left uses against us with impunity. I was being charitable with my words, actually…I think this is not a rational “play” at all, particularly when there are actual constitutional issues happening all around us, all the time. We need focus and tenacity, not distraction. It is my opinion that this has been adequately resolved, at least all that it will be. So, it angers me to give more idiot things for the vile left to broadbrush us all with…especially since I do not agree at all.
Mommypundit on August 24, 2009 at 9:27 PM
JeffWeimer at 9:04
Hawaii allows a long-form birth certificate to be made on the unverified testimony of one person – but BY HAWAII STATE LAW SUCH A BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING. It must be noted on the birth certificate when it is such a case and that the documentation is to be found in another file. What is in the other file has the same legal authority as hearsay since it is not verified.
Nobody in Hawaii has said whether this is the kind of birth certificate Obama has on file since Obama won’t release the information. If it is what he has, then what we’ve got is conflicting hearsay reports regarding his birthplace.
Who would say that conflicting hearsay reports shouldn’t be further investigated to see what can be verified?
It is also quite fishy that the State of Hawaii changed their procedures and the names of their documents within one week of the judge in Kerchner v Obama telling the defendants to take time enough to get good legal representation because they were gonna need it. What USED TO BE (until the week of June 10, 2009) the “Certification of Live Birth” is now called the “Certificate of Live Birth” and they will not print out certified copies of long-form birth certificates at all – since June 10th.
If you wanted to find out what doctor delivered you in the State of Hawaii you would no longer be able to find that out. Since June 10th of this year.
I’d really like to file a FOIA request for all the written communications and phone records for Fukino, Okubo, and Onaka to see exactly what prompted this sudden unannounced change in procedure and terminology…
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Your analogy fails on at least two counts.
First of all, have previous lottery winners had to show their winning ticket to anybody, or has the lottery commission simply handed out the winnings on sufficient evidence of their winning?
And given that, have previous lottery winners had to display their winning ticket to only the lottery commission, or have they been required to show this winning ticket to everybody who participated in the lottery?
The fact is that Obama was born in Hawaii, as a US citizen. His GOP opponent in the race believes it. The GOP governor of Hawaii believes it. Any number of GOP SecStates and AG’s of ay number of the states whose responsibility it is to oversee Presidential elections believe it. And the US Congress, as the Constitutional entity whose responsibility it is to confirm the results of those elections believes it, as evidenced by their confirmation in January.
Indeed they do. Constitutionally, these questions were settled by Congress when they confirmed the results of the meeting of the Electoral College. You can claim up and down the pike that the SCOTUS can challenge that, but their adherence to the political questions doctrine disagrees with you.
Which puts the birthers in the position, in the eyes of all three branches of the federal government, not to mention the executive branches of the various state governments, of being nothing more than sore losers.
JohnGalt23 on August 24, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Mommypundit, I don’t care how out of style the left thinks I am because I think Obama’s potential crime of perjury should be investigated.
If it’s embarrassing to be associated with people like me because I believe that justice should be politically blind, then why should I have any problem with ANYTHING this crook is doing? The law is the law. If it’s bad because he breaks campaign finance laws, laws about firing inspectors general, etc, then why is it NOT bad if he perjured himself?
Perjury is actually one very straightforward law that he COULD be caught on – literally stopping him and his agenda dead in their tracks.
What can you catch him in that would stop him dead in his tracks?
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 9:38 PM
It comes from the fact that the congressman made a clear declarative statement that didn’t include any exceptions.
No. Emphasis is mine, now.
“[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”
Sen. Jacob Howard ( author of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment )
“What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Lyman Trumbull ( Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, co-author of Citizenship Clause )
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States
End of story.
Buddahpundit on August 24, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Not only should we not “give an inch” we should keep up the full barrage with our faction. The way I see it, there’s everything to gain, and very little to lose.
Scenario 1: Birthers are 100% refuted. So what? Along the way, the transparency and honesty of the administration is questioned. The simple task of “proving it” instills doubt in those who ask: “Why not just show the long form birth certificate and be done with it?” In the end, we position the birthers as a “faction” and minimize the fallout. Continued upside almost nothing to lose.
Scenario 2: Birthers are partially refuted (i.e. vindicated). Big win. They are after all, not the nuts the bambi lovers made them out to be. The credibility of the MSM and the administration takes another major hit. Cover-up ensues as well as demand for further investigation. Agenda impaired, mission accomplished. Winner, winner chicken dinner.
Scenario 3: Birthers strike oil. Permanent damage to the Democratic party, administration totally impaired, and the fallout effect ripples through every liberal institution. An entire demographics’ decision making capabilities is called into question and will be for a couple of generations. Jackpot!
So, the only question that we really need to answer is: “What is the expected value of the outcomes?” And with very little to lose and much more to gain, the expected value is of course positive. We play the game all day long and push our bets with every small incremental win.
Carry on my factional friends.
NumberTwo on August 24, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Sorry race fans, the King of Kenya wins again.
simplesimon on August 24, 2009 at 9:57 PM
>>>First of all, have previous lottery winners had to show their winning ticket to anybody, or has the lottery commission simply handed out the winnings on sufficient evidence of their winning?>>>
I don’t know, but I think they have to show the winning ticket. There are also records of where the winning ticket was bought.
But suppose that the person who claims to have won has put a gag order on anybody saying where the ticket was bought.
Suppose that the person who claims to have bought the winning ticket says he bought it in Georgia but also says they bought it in Oregon.
Then suppose they say they’ll show the receipt showing that they bought A ticket (though not which ticket it was) to their buddy and their buddy will make a photograph and post it online since nobody who’s in charge of seeing the real thing actually cares enough to check the real thing. And suppose that receipt shows signs of forgery.
Then suppose that this person’s relatives are caught on tape naming the numbers on the winning ticket – and they aren’t the same numbers as the number drawn.
THEN you’d have a situation a little bit similar to what Obama has done.
>>>Constitutionally, these questions were settled by Congress when they confirmed the results of the meeting of the Electoral College.>>>
Constitutionally they were not settled, for two reasons:
1. Voters in states which require the verification of eligibility before a name can be printed on the ballot have a right to petition the government (SCOTUS) for a redress of grievances. The laws were broken. Unless and until those voters receive what is promised them under the law, those ballots were illegal.
2. There is a case outstanding which charges Pelosi, Dick Cheney, and others of breaking their oath to the Constitution because they did NOT verify eligibility. The judge hasn’t ruled on that.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen then it is ILLEGAL for him to be in the White House. Ahmadenijad quickly had his folks verify his election but that doesn’t mean he was ever legitimately elected. If it could be proven that there was fraud it wouldn’t matter how fast his fellow crooks lied their butts off.
And to be truthful, Pelosi’s two standing ovations for Obama precisely when the eligibility question was supposed to be (and wasn’t) asked is VERY SIMILAR to Iran, Venezuela, etc, where the puppets verify the tyrant’s “election”. The fact that the question WAS NOT ASKED also puts the whole electoral process out of line with the Constitution.
And even beyond that, if there is evidence that perjury has been committed, electoral laws do NOT protect the potential perjurer from being investigated for that crime. At this point this whole thing should be in the hands of the FBI. But they won’t do anything about it. And that should be of concern to everyone as well.
justincase on August 24, 2009 at 10:00 PM
All Republicans have to do is say “Yes he was born in Hawaii, but because of his unneeded secrecy, I understand why people wonder”.
Speedwagon82 on August 24, 2009 at 10:09 PM
So Politico’s Andy Barr covers Thrush’s @ss after he went @pesh!t vs. the entire state of AZ, ranting the “hate MLK” lying mantra because that state’s legislature didn’t want to make MLK Day a PAID holiday, all those slots previously filled. As things went, the AZ legislature had to remove Presidents’ Day from the paid holiday for state employees and schools in order to maintain the required number of working days on the calendar and cajole the national response from liberal @ssh@ts.
maverick muse on August 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I understand where he’s talking about accredited ambassadors or ministers, I don’t disagree. But that is what the discussion is about, not aliens in general.
JeffWeimer on August 24, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Foreigners and aliens are excluded as well. The Howard statement was interpretated in Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)
Stare decisis for the win!
Buddahpundit on August 24, 2009 at 10:36 PM
The term constitutionally requiring any POTUS be a “natural born citizen” was defined in the encyclopedia of law that our founding fathers referenced in writing their Constitution, OUR Constitution.
To argue that no longer matters is Allahpundit’s position, to enable Obama to disregard ALL rule of law. Laws are made for others, but most certainly not for the elitists to obey.
Obama celebrates Ramadan by releasing a GITMO detainee to return home to Afghanistan to fight against our own forces who must serve their Commander in Chief. Trivial. Not.
Obama seeks to close GITMO and put those prisoners into our overcrowded prisons stateside where they are already rioting, where judges already are demanding early releases for 20+% of prisoners to make room for our own slime. Trivial. Not.
Obama is destroying our national security, seeking to unjustly prosecute CIA agents even while the ACLU exposes the identity of these covert agents to the terrorists. Trivial. Not.
The DEBT. Trivial. Not.
Cyber spying on the citizenry, labeling all opposition as traitorous. Trivial. Not.
Birther. A witty saying proves nothing.
maverick muse on August 24, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I called the New York Times and told them that The One’s long form BC had coded info on Bush war crimes. Ha Ha. The jig is up, now!
IlikedAUH2O on August 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM
All Republicans have to do is say “
Yes he was born in Hawaii, but[Regardless of where he was born,] because of his unneeded secrecy, I understand why people wonder”.–Speedwagon82Don’t presume to tell others what they must say. Obama made this an issue. It is the fault of his enablers that the fraud is held above the law, accountable to no one, as if the POTUS is a czar.
maverick muse on August 24, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I don’t believe your emails were questioning him about his stance on the birth certificate issue, was it? He posts garbage on the topic, knows it’s garbage, and then runs and hides.
Gregor on August 24, 2009 at 11:07 PM
ALLAH, how about a REAL DISCUSSION on “NOTEWORTHY NEWS”: 10th DISTRICT COURT’S NEW RULING RE “NATURAL BORN VS NATURALIZED CITIZEN” & it’s ramifications?
.
Or do you prefer to stereotyping & dismissing legitimate legal questions (not the usual “birth certificate” canard) with your blackout of OBAMA’S ADMITTED DUAL-CITIZEN-AT BIRTH STATUS vs Natural born (not native or naturalized) & it’s bearing on his eligibility?
.
Let me guess. HotAir would rather keep allowing the hyjacking, personal attacks & off topic discussions here to continue to erode the hard-earned reputation of this site for intelligent discussion on important & timely current political events, right?
.
It’s your readers’ loss now, but it will be HotAir’s loss in the future when these concerns get full disclosure in the courts. History will not look kindly on this site’s arrogance & name calling (“birthers” etc.) just as we now regard those who condemn Obamacare protesters as “teabaggers”, “brown shirts”, etc.
NightmareOnKStreet on August 24, 2009 at 11:40 PM
But the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision drastically changed that specific interpretation from the Slaughterhouse cases – it created the current interpretation of birthright citizenship, left intact most recently in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Not that I agree with it – the current interpretation allows for birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, and that shouldn’t be. How to square that circle? I say children of resident aliens and legal immigrants should be granted citizenship – as they have “subjected themselves to the jurisdiction” by formally applying and being granted their status. Illegal aliens should not, as they haven’t, by definition.
But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. We must follow the law as currently interpreted, and Wong Kim Ark trumps Slaughterhouse. And it means Barack Obama Sr’s status is irrelevant to the President’s citizenship.
JeffWeimer on August 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I have several issues with that statement. Most importantly, we aren’t talking about birthright citizenship, we are talking about natural born citizenship.
The only reason they had to look at Wong Kim Ark was because there was a treaty with China that led to a strange circumstance that wasn’t covered by naturalization statutes. But even with that, they didn’t rule Ark a natural born citizen. You can’t even apply Ark to a non-treaty situation.
We already know that citizenship at birth doesn’t always mean constitutional citizenship because McCain’s circumstances were covered by legislative statute in the various naturalization acts.
SCOTUS won’t rule that someone born with dual citizenship is a natural born citizen. If they did that, they would need to resolve the two huge dilemmas that I have thought of:
If a US citizen is born with multiple citizenships, and both ( or several ) nations require citizens to report for military service on their 18th birthday, is the person a traitor in every nation for which he fails to report to duty?
If two people have dual citizenship in four separate nations, will their child be a four nation citizen?
If two people with four-nation-citizenship in 8 separate nations create a child, will their child be an eight-nation citizen?
If two 8 nation citizens…
Buddahpundit on August 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM
NEW RULING ON “NATURAL-BORN VS NATURALIZED- excerpted for your convenience, but Attorney Donofrio’s full report worth reading at link below:
.
NightmareOnKStreet on August 25, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Define “Natural Born Citizen.” as different from “birthright citizenship.”
According to Title 8, there is no distinction between “citizen at birth”, or birthright citizenship, and “natural born citizen”. Or at least, there has been no definition of “Natural Born Citizen” different from “citizen at birth”. Ergo, they must be considered the same.
It’s conceivable that no one is eligible to be President, since we haven’t specifically split that hair.
The constitution is silent on dual citizenship, and article 8 only details the criteria of US citizenship. However, as far as US citizenship is concerned, it can be lost under specific circumstances after the age of majority – one of which is enlisting in the armed forces of another nation http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481—-000-.html and I would have to assume most other countries have similar statutes. That solves that problem – he becomes an exclusive citizen of whatever country he pledges his allegiance to, and abdicates the others, or at least his US citizenship if he chooses another country.
JeffWeimer on August 25, 2009 at 2:05 AM
I’ll just pass on explaining how title 8 isn’t in the Constitution and isn’t even positive law, and just keep it on the derivative citizenship question.
You seem to be accepting the premise that a person with US citizenship can be a citizen of every nation on earth eventually by accumulating these citizenships as a sum of the multiple citizenships of the parents compounded over a few generations.
You will also need to agree that if every nation had the exact citizenship laws that you believe the US has, that a person can be a natural born citizen of all nations on earth.
Consider the case of the two 16 nation citizens who have no common national citizenship amongst them giving birth to a child in a nation for which neither have citizenship. They create a child who is a natural born citizen of 33 different nations.
It’s not a matter of which nation the person chooses that determines his citizenship status. The child can cast off citizenships one by one as those nations demand the person honor an obligation of his citizenship. Such a person would never be held to be a natural born citizen by the Supreme Court.
Buddahpundit on August 25, 2009 at 2:47 AM
MORE FROM MY POST ABOVE (NightmareOnKStreet on August 25, 2009 at 1:17 AM) RE: REPORT BY ATTORNEY DONOFRIO :
NightmareOnKStreet on August 25, 2009 at 7:25 AM
I’ll ask again, define Natural Born Citizen. What are the statutory requirements? How is it different than citizen at birth?
Title 8 is in the U.S Code. It is the regulations regarding citizenship, written in accordance with the 14th amendment. Positive or not, it is the law.
No, I am not saying you can accumulate these citizenships. Title 8 is pretty clear – if you become the citizen of another country, you lose your U.S. citizenship.
However, it is possible, according the regulations specified in Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401 to be determined a citizen at birth wile not being born physically in the US. It is also possible that the country extends their citizenship due to the laws there as well. I know this to be true because I have a friend who was born with dual US and (of all things) Libyan citizenship. He had to renounce his Libyan citizenship, of course, after Qaddafi took over and we removed diplomatic relations. But I digress. The point I am trying to make is he is no less a US citizen at birth than if he were born in Peoria.
JeffWeimer on August 25, 2009 at 10:46 AM
.
Hey JeffyWeiner, Just because you “keep asking”, doesn’t mean the answer will change to your liking. Anyway, it’s obvious you’re just a “thread filler” -purposefully repeating requests for proof or facts but when those are supplied you REPEAT your questions, totally disinterested in any real discussion or facts. You’re here to provide “busy work” for serious posters and to try and be the last word on a dead thread.
.
Face it: you & other “Bliefers” (Blind Believers in Obama) have lost the fight. Obama’s hope & change has expired, rotting from the inside out, Obama’s legacy is the speed at which he reached LAME DUCK STATUS: AFTER SERVING MERE 1/6 OF HIS TERM.
.
But here’s your answer anyway:
.
.
NightmareOnKStreet on August 25, 2009 at 3:12 PM
He’s not going to sue? GOOD! Now instead of being called that horrible of horrible names “birther” I can go back to being called a Nazi, astroturfing, functionally retarded, traitor.
It’s good to regain the left’s respect.
DrAllecon on August 25, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Yes, because as we’re herded through the selection at the railhead and then on our way to the gas chambers, we must maintain our dignity and sense of decorum at any cost. No need to offend our masters as they will just make things harder on us, and who needs that?
“This Hitler guy really sucks, but he is, after all, the Fuhrer!”
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Back it up – I’ve got the US code, the 14th amendment, and Supreme Court interperetations.
You have, what?
If you have actual statute, why are you arguing with me instead of bringing this up with Congress?
JeffWeimer on August 25, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy.
You are such a tool. (link provided below) Six years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, it was challenged as to the definition of natural born citizen:
.
*parentS- plural & citizenS- again, plural
Both (2) parents had to be U.S. citizens to produce a natural born citizen. Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent. His father never became a U.S. citizen nor was he ever legally domicilled here (another requirement).
.
Go do your own research.
NightmareOnKStreet on August 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2