BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - 53-42 (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/99749-53-42-a.html)

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

So far this one has convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Yup. It could have been so simple.

Eisboch

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law (and that's all that matters
here) the document referenced in Duck's post satisfies the requirement
of a challenge to his natural born status.

It's too bad my wife and I had to fight tooth and nail to get "proof"
that our oldest son was a citizen of the USA, even though born overseas
while I was serving active duty in the military. Requests for help to
resolve this issue to our local, "veteran sensitive" United States
Senator John Kerry went totally unanswered.

BTW .... he may be facing a serious challenge to his 24 year "career" in
the Senate on Tuesday.
I hope like hell the voters give him the bum's rush out the door.

Eisboch

Kerry has a 30-point lead in the average polls on that race. Is that a
serious challenge?

The local talk is that his challenger, Jeff Beatty, may pull off a surprise.
I hope so, but am realistic enough to know how it "works" up here.

We need new blood in Congress and Kerry has a bit of explaining to do
regarding the Wall Street mess.

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

Article II, Section 1.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker, a
U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination in
1980. He was a born abroad, too.

Tim wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:08 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:50 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:21:10 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
So far this one has convinced me.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html
Yup. It could have been so simple.
Eisboch
are you guys dense?
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.
That is NOT a copy of the original.
I think the Annenberg folks are a non-partisan group and they seem
convinced
that they have seen, touched and photographed a *certified* copy (NOT the
original) of Obama's birth record. a certified copy in this format is
accepted by the State Department for passport purposes.
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined
and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets
all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature
are
false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as
"supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in
the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html
The following photos are linked on the above page:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_7.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_1.jpg
That is NOT a copy of the original.
Not to defend Obama's cause, but it doesn't have to be the original or even
a copy of the original to be a legal, binding certificate. It legally
satisfies any requirement of "proof" of birth (and location).
Eisboch
I agree with you on that point.

He is able to produce a certified copy of the original, yet refuses.

Why would that be?

A question of curiosity.

If Barry O is elected POTUS, and after it was taken through the
process of the Supreme Court ; it was found out that he was not a
natural born U.S citizen.... what would happen? Would he be forced to
resign the Presidency due to fraud, withholding evidence and/or
obstruction of justice?

This is something I've never given thought to until now.

Just curious. I don't know.

Hopefully charged with fraud, impeached, and removed from office. But,
the problem becomes what do we do with Biden.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker, a
U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination in
1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the words
any way you want.

On Nov 4, 6:14*am, BAR wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:08 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:50 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:21:10 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
news:UKudnaZRJtNxbpPUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@gigan ews.com...
So far this one has convinced me.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html
Yup. *It could have been so simple.
Eisboch
are you guys dense?
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.
That is NOT a copy of the original.
I think the Annenberg folks are a non-partisan group and they seem
convinced
that they have seen, touched and photographed a *certified* copy (NOT the
original) of Obama's birth record. *a certified copy in this format is
accepted by the State Department for passport purposes.
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined
and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets
all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature
are
false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as
"supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in
the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html
The following photos are linked on the above page:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_7.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_1.jpg
That is NOT a copy of the original.
Not to defend Obama's cause, but it doesn't have to be the original or even
a copy of the original to be a legal, binding certificate. * It legally
satisfies any requirement of "proof" of birth (and location).
Eisboch
I agree with you on that point.

He is able to produce a certified copy of the original, yet refuses.

Why would that be?

A question of curiosity.

If Barry O is elected POTUS, and after it was taken through the
process of the Supreme Court ; *it was found out that he was not a
natural born U.S citizen.... what would happen? Would he be forced to
resign the Presidency due to fraud, withholding evidence and/or
obstruction of justice?

This is something I've never given thought to until now.

Just curious. I don't know.

Hopefully charged with fraud, impeached, and removed from office. But,
the problem becomes what do we do with Biden.

Eh, I'm not a fan, but I could put up with Joe...

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:39:58 -0800, Tim wrote:

If Barry O is elected POTUS, and after it was taken through the process
of the Supreme Court ; it was found out that he was not a natural born
U.S citizen.... what would happen? Would he be forced to resign the
Presidency due to fraud, withholding evidence and/or obstruction of
justice?

I think you may be missing the point. If he is elected, he will be
elected by the *people*. Any messing with that is called a coup.

The courts have consistently maintained a hands off approach to this
issue, as they should. I would also point out, this does not only
concern Obama, it also concerns McCain. McCain's "natural born" status
is not a certainty. Let's make it easy on ourselves, let the voters
decide.

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheor...el-j-chin.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1157621

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:57:32 -0500, BAR wrote:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheor...el-j-chin.html

If you are born of US citizens in a local hospital in France are you a
natural born US citizen?

If you are born of US citizens in a US embassy in France are you a
natural born US citizen?

Read the above link. There are complex legal issues involved. And you
think I'm going to answer either of the above questions? No way.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the
documentation you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker,
a U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination
in 1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the words
any way you want.

Yeah? Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have
provided "proof."