The Birth Certificate

[bennychico11]

The Constitution specifically states that a President must be a natural born citizen. Where does it say that evidence must be provided to prove he isn't? If anything, the word must signals the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to become the President? Which according to 400,000 petitioner's, Obama hasn't done.

 

 

Article 2, Section 1:

 

Clause 5: 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.

 

 

just to clarify for people EXACTLY what the clause says...and why it is very misleading.

and that there is no "must" in there

 

 

 

I'm with AR on this one. We've seen the "short form" birth certificate. The form that the state of Hawaii says is valid and it shows he was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 at 7:24pm...and as a male (for any other conspiracy theorists ). Good enough for me.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The Constitution specifically states that a President must be a natural born citizen. Where does it say that evidence must be provided to prove he isn't? If anything, the word must signals the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to become the President? Which according to 400,000 petitioner's, Obama hasn't done.

 

 

Article 2, Section 1:

 

Clause 5: 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.

 

 

just to clarify for people EXACTLY what the clause says...and why it is very misleading.

and that there is no "must" in there

 

 

 

I'm with AR on this one. We've seen the "short form" birth certificate. The form that the state of Hawaii says is valid and it shows he was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 at 7:24pm...and as a male (for any other conspiracy theorists ). Good enough for me.

 

Thanks Benny, I stand corrected on the wording. (I actually meant the MUST in my statement) HA HA!! This doesn't however change the argument that those who question his birthplace are required to provide evidence to the contrary. (Though some have tried to do so)

[carlfense]

The Constitution specifically states that a President must be a natural born citizen. Where does it say that evidence must be provided to prove he isn't? If anything, the word must signals the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to become the President? Which according to 400,000 petitioner's, Obama hasn't done.

 

 

Article 2, Section 1:

 

Clause 5: 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.

 

 

just to clarify for people EXACTLY what the clause says...and why it is very misleading.

and that there is no "must" in there

 

 

 

I'm with AR on this one. We've seen the "short form" birth certificate. The form that the state of Hawaii says is valid and it shows he was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 at 7:24pm...and as a male (for any other conspiracy theorists ). Good enough for me.

 

Hmmmm.

[bennychico11]

 

Hmmmm.

 

that's what I'm saying!!

lol

 

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

 

so the question is, what does the constitution mean.

Does a "Citizen" qualify only as being a natural born Citizen?

Is the sole word "Citizen" being used as a qualifier in this sentence referring to a natural born Citizen? Meaning anyone who is considered a Citizen in any context, would be a natural born Citizen too. Making the clause purely there just so we don't elect non-American citizens (whether naturalized or not)

Does 'natural born' mean born on US soil...or from parents who are of US descent no matter where you're born?

Is the sentence talking about two different things...a natural born citizen OR (and) any citizen of the US? Making this sentence a compound sentence?

 

and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

is that fourteen consecutive years? or all added up together?

 

I think maybe the Constitution needs a little more updating or clarification. It's not necessarily the "bible" (for a lack of a BETTER word) that a lot of Americans think it is. Things have changed a lot in the past 233 years as has our government.

[AR Husker Fan]

So AR, what you are essentialy saying is that since government has the power to make and enforce the laws, they are always right and just and never to be questioned? It doesn't matter if anyone questions what they do or how they do it, because this can be, in your opinion, dismissed as a conspiracy theory?

 

Doesn't the first amendment of the Constitution give the people the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? Wouldn't this be considered a grievance? So yes, he must prove he was born in Hawaii. If he doesn't, as a government official, he is breaching the very contract he holds his subjects to. In no way, do I consent to or support the Constitution, but I do feel that if the government is going to pretend to rule by the laws of it, they might, at the very least, acknowledge and follow the same laws themselves.

Sorry - I don't chase after rabbit trails. Nice try, though. I neither stated expressly or impliedly the propositions that:

 

1. The government is always correct or can never be questioned.

2. That if anyone questions it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

 

What I posted was that the "short form" is valid, legal proof of birth in the State of Hawaii. I also questioned why Oz would accept one legal, valid form of document and not another equally valid, legal form of document when the only differences contained in one is data that does not have any bearing on the legality of his citizenship. Finally, I noted that, given the above, it is reasonable for people to dismiss the request for the "long form" as a conspiracy theory - particuarly since no evidence, whatsoever, has been provided by any person or entity that Obama does not meet the qualifications of office.

 

If you wish to draw unfounded inferences from that, knock yourself out.

Nice!! But the questions were rhetorical, I wasn't asking you to verify my statement.

Actually, no. The question you asked was, "So AR, what you are essentialy saying is that since government has the power to make and enforce the laws, they are always right and just and never to be questioned?" Nothing rhetorical about it - you misstated what I said, then askd whether, based on that misstatement, I was claiming something that I never stated or implied. Regardless, the effect is the same - I simply stated that the short form, based on Hawaii law, regulation and case law, is legal proof of birth in Hawaii, questioned why Oz would accept one legal, valid form of document and not another equally valid, legal form of document when the only differences contained in one is data that does not have any bearing on the legality of his citizenship, and noted that, given the above, it is reasonable for people to dismiss the request for the "long form" as a conspiracy theory - particuarly since no evidence, whatsoever, has been provided by any person or entity that Obama does not meet the qualifications of office.

 

Your questions, whether rhetorical or otherwise, are simply rabbit trails - they don't address the issues I was discussing with Oz.

 

I was asking if what the citizen's are requesting is considered a grievance? If so, aren't they allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances? If the government ignores this request, wouldn't that be considered a breach of the contract between the two? Seeing as how the judges threw out the requests isn't that the same as ignoring the requests?

And what makes the first questions rhetorical and the questions quoted immediately above non-rhetorical? Again, I wasn't disscussing whether there was any mechanism for someone to challenge Obama's qualifications - which makes the questions rabbit trails leading off the discussion as to whether the long form is required to prove one of the qualifications Obama had to meet to be eligible for the Office.

 

However, I'll break my own rule here simply to point out the logical inconsistancies...

 

1. No, it is not considered a "grievance". A grievance would have to be against the government. Assuming for the purposes of argument only that the "short form" is not valid, or that the "long form" would somehow invalidate Obama's qualifications, then one must ask - how is the federal government at fault for what amounts to an alleged fraud that was allegedly committed prior to Obama's election? No government action, no "grievance". Obama's qualifications for office were determined by the DNC, and subject to challenge by anyone who could present at least a prima facie case that he did not meet those qualifications. No one could (nor has subsequently).

 

2. Yes, they are allowed to petition the government for redress of a grievance - but only when the government committed the allegedly grievious act. It did not.

 

3. No, it's not a breech by the government for "ignoring the request". See above.

 

4. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has produced valid, legal proof of his citizenship.

 

The Constitution specifically states that a President must be a natural born citizen. Where does it say that evidence must be provided to prove he isn't? If anything, the word must signals the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to become the President? Which according to 400,000 petitioner's, Obama hasn't done.

Yes, the burden falls on the person claiming to be a citizen. Since the "short form" is legal and valid proof of that, not to mention the statement of the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Obama has met that burden. It now falls to someone to present credible evidence - not conspiracy theory - to challenge it.

 

Hawaii, like all states, reserves to itself the right to determine what constitutes birth in its state, and what constitutes citizenship in its state. Obama has proven he has met the requirements - both through the release of the short form and through the statements of the official who verifies birth in Hawaii. He has nothing to prove.

 

You may not like that - but that's irrelevant to the issue. The issue I've addressed throughout is the fact that Obama has met any legal requirement. There is no need for him to do anything more than any other candidate for office has done - present proof of citizenship. To request more - particularly when the nature of the proof requested contains nothing that would invalidate the proof he has provided to date - is grounds for anyone to view the request as a conspiracy theory in action.

[huskerjack23]

man i wish i had your skills AR

[AR Husker Fan]

man i wish i had your skills AR

Well, for a small fortune, you can rent them, ya know!

[HuskerJen]

Bin Laden? Really? Do you realize just how absurd this statement makes everything else sound?

 

Probably no more absurd than some moron who thinks that our first, second or third President wasn't an American citizen.

[huskerjack23]

man i wish i had your skills AR

Well, for a small fortune, you can rent them, ya know!

i'll look ya up when i need to take my future ex-wife to the cleaners.

[AR Husker Fan]

Bin Laden? Really? Do you realize just how absurd this statement makes everything else sound?

Probably no more absurd than some moron who thinks that our first, second or third President wasn't an American citizen.

Which no one has yet alleged. The closest was this:

***SNIP***

 

Hell, technically we could split hairs and say George Washington and several other first presidents weren't naturally born US citizens.

 

***SNIP***

Article 2, Section 1:

 

Clause 5: 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.

 

While the term "natural born citizen" has never been judicially determined, the context makes it clear that the phrase means something other than "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". The latter is a grandfather clause, specifically designed to permit Washington and others who were born before there was a United States (reglardless of the geography of being born in what would become the United States) to be elected. So, bennychico11 is correct - while Washington, et al were citizens of the United States, they were not "natural born citizens", since the United States did not even exits at the time of their births - they were born to colonies of the British Empire.

 

And a word of caution on the name calling. It may not have been directed at bennychico11 - but it certainly also could be read that way. And that's hardly the first instance. Either cut it out or find another board on which to post.

[rawhide]

I am just so thankful that we have created a separate but equal POL/REL forum

 

 

 

 

 

GBR

[SOCALHUSKER]

So AR, what you are essentialy saying is that since government has the power to make and enforce the laws, they are always right and just and never to be questioned? It doesn't matter if anyone questions what they do or how they do it, because this can be, in your opinion, dismissed as a conspiracy theory?

 

Doesn't the first amendment of the Constitution give the people the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? Wouldn't this be considered a grievance? So yes, he must prove he was born in Hawaii. If he doesn't, as a government official, he is breaching the very contract he holds his subjects to. In no way, do I consent to or support the Constitution, but I do feel that if the government is going to pretend to rule by the laws of it, they might, at the very least, acknowledge and follow the same laws themselves.

Sorry - I don't chase after rabbit trails. Nice try, though. I neither stated expressly or impliedly the propositions that:

 

1. The government is always correct or can never be questioned.

2. That if anyone questions it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

 

What I posted was that the "short form" is valid, legal proof of birth in the State of Hawaii. I also questioned why Oz would accept one legal, valid form of document and not another equally valid, legal form of document when the only differences contained in one is data that does not have any bearing on the legality of his citizenship. Finally, I noted that, given the above, it is reasonable for people to dismiss the request for the "long form" as a conspiracy theory - particuarly since no evidence, whatsoever, has been provided by any person or entity that Obama does not meet the qualifications of office.

 

If you wish to draw unfounded inferences from that, knock yourself out.

Nice!! But the questions were rhetorical, I wasn't asking you to verify my statement.

Actually, no. The question you asked was, "So AR, what you are essentialy saying is that since government has the power to make and enforce the laws, they are always right and just and never to be questioned?" Nothing rhetorical about it - you misstated what I said, then askd whether, based on that misstatement, I was claiming something that I never stated or implied. Regardless, the effect is the same - I simply stated that the short form, based on Hawaii law, regulation and case law, is legal proof of birth in Hawaii, questioned why Oz would accept one legal, valid form of document and not another equally valid, legal form of document when the only differences contained in one is data that does not have any bearing on the legality of his citizenship, and noted that, given the above, it is reasonable for people to dismiss the request for the "long form" as a conspiracy theory - particuarly since no evidence, whatsoever, has been provided by any person or entity that Obama does not meet the qualifications of office.

 

Your questions, whether rhetorical or otherwise, are simply rabbit trails - they don't address the issues I was discussing with Oz.

 

I was asking if what the citizen's are requesting is considered a grievance? If so, aren't they allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances? If the government ignores this request, wouldn't that be considered a breach of the contract between the two? Seeing as how the judges threw out the requests isn't that the same as ignoring the requests?

And what makes the first questions rhetorical and the questions quoted immediately above non-rhetorical? Again, I wasn't disscussing whether there was any mechanism for someone to challenge Obama's qualifications - which makes the questions rabbit trails leading off the discussion as to whether the long form is required to prove one of the qualifications Obama had to meet to be eligible for the Office.

 

However, I'll break my own rule here simply to point out the logical inconsistancies...

 

1. No, it is not considered a "grievance". A grievance would have to be against the government. Assuming for the purposes of argument only that the "short form" is not valid, or that the "long form" would somehow invalidate Obama's qualifications, then one must ask - how is the federal government at fault for what amounts to an alleged fraud that was allegedly committed prior to Obama's election? No government action, no "grievance". Obama's qualifications for office were determined by the DNC, and subject to challenge by anyone who could present at least a prima facie case that he did not meet those qualifications. No one could (nor has subsequently).

 

2. Yes, they are allowed to petition the government for redress of a grievance - but only when the government committed the allegedly grievious act. It did not.

 

3. No, it's not a breech by the government for "ignoring the request". See above.

 

4. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has produced valid, legal proof of his citizenship.

 

The Constitution specifically states that a President must be a natural born citizen. Where does it say that evidence must be provided to prove he isn't? If anything, the word must signals the burden of proof falls on the individual wishing to become the President? Which according to 400,000 petitioner's, Obama hasn't done.

Yes, the burden falls on the person claiming to be a citizen. Since the "short form" is legal and valid proof of that, not to mention the statement of the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Obama has met that burden. It now falls to someone to present credible evidence - not conspiracy theory - to challenge it.

 

Hawaii, like all states, reserves to itself the right to determine what constitutes birth in its state, and what constitutes citizenship in its state. Obama has proven he has met the requirements - both through the release of the short form and through the statements of the official who verifies birth in Hawaii. He has nothing to prove.

 

You may not like that - but that's irrelevant to the issue. The issue I've addressed throughout is the fact that Obama has met any legal requirement. There is no need for him to do anything more than any other candidate for office has done - present proof of citizenship. To request more - particularly when the nature of the proof requested contains nothing that would invalidate the proof he has provided to date - is grounds for anyone to view the request as a conspiracy theory in action.

 

Thank you!! That is all I was asking.

[HuskerJen]

And a word of caution on the name calling. It may not have been directed at bennychico11 - but it certainly also could be read that way. And that's hardly the first instance. Either cut it out or find another board on which to post.

 

Name calling? Seriously...

 

This is the second time I've been accused of "name-calling" and quite frankly, I'm confused.

 

Sure I state my opinions, and yes I have just as much conviction with what I believe as anyone else, but I don't think I've ever truly insulted or name-called.

 

Now if you can provide direct quotes, backed up with appropriate url links demonstrating where I have name-called and/or insulted someone, I'll offer an apology and work to curb/eliminate said offensive behavior.

 

I won't apologize or back down from the stands I take...but I think I'm being unfairly condemned here.

[AR Husker Fan]

And a word of caution on the name calling. It may not have been directed at bennychico11 - but it certainly also could be read that way. And that's hardly the first instance. Either cut it out or find another board on which to post.

 

Name calling? Seriously...

 

This is the second time I've been accused of "name-calling" and quite frankly, I'm confused.

 

Sure I state my opinions, and yes I have just as much conviction with what I believe as anyone else, but I don't think I've ever truly insulted or name-called.

 

Now if you can provide direct quotes, backed up with appropriate url links demonstrating where I have name-called and/or insulted someone, I'll offer an apology and work to curb/eliminate said offensive behavior.

 

I won't apologize or back down from the stands I take...but I think I'm being unfairly condemned here.

I've done that, and you guoted part of the post in which I did so - all you had to do is reference back to your post to which my reply was made. So, here's the deal. The next time, permanent ban. I don't have the inclination to play games on this.

[huskertim]

One has to wonder, if the White House could easily quash this rumor by simply releaseing the long form, why haven't they? Are they hiding something insidious? Perhaps they want us distracted by this triffle while they enact their evil schemes beneath our very eyes. My oh my, Coast to Coast listeners, stay tuned for the next 4 years of conspirocy news and views. Democracy may be going to hell, but at least it won't be boring.