Do you have a source stating otherwise?
CNN: Hawaii Gov. tries to end birther debate once and for all
- Thread starter Bruno
- Start date
Do you have a source stating otherwise?
agitator
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 715
Governor Schwarzenegger is a US citizen.
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
No, to acquire natural born citizenship through that method both parents must be citizens.
And illegible as a POTUS as he is a naturalized citizen, yes.
Bruno
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 19,518
It is your assertion that he was vetted, not mine, so, you either made an assumption that it happened, or you should have proof that it did. I assume it didn't happen, but you don't have to take my word for it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/...ituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1248701/pg1
A congressional document that has been posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and in fact, that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. In fact, it explains no one was required to do so.
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices on April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject: "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"
It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com.
Maskell himself confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.
He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.
He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release and it ended up posted on the Internet.
Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond, a circumstance that would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.
The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety in order to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was simply concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.
It states:
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no law or regulation required them to look.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/...ituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1248701/pg1
A congressional document that has been posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and in fact, that status remains undocumented to this day.
It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. In fact, it explains no one was required to do so.
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices on April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and member of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject: "Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate"
It can be viewed and downloaded on Scribd.com.
Maskell himself confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.
He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.
He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release and it ended up posted on the Internet.
Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond, a circumstance that would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.
The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety in order to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was simply concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.
It states:
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no law or regulation required them to look.
crazyfacedjenkins
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,443
Dual citizenship. Using your logic, the person would have no citizenship in any country. hahahahhaa!!!
Last edited:
Not that simple. There are specific residency time requirements and other nuances to that.
See: http://www.greencardlawyers.net/citizenship/FAQchildbornabroad.html
Besides, the issue isn't whether Obama is a US Citizen, it is whether he is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution. He could have been born in Kenya to a US Citizen mother but that doesn't make him a natural born citizen. You're simplifying the issue way too much.
1. Yes, it does make him a natural born US citizen if he was born in Kenya.
2. Obama's mother meets the residency requirements.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
"Natural born US citizen" conflates or mixes two different terms up. US citizen is a statutory term, while natural born citizen is a constitutional term. Obama is not qualified to be President under the constitutional understanding, which is the context under which the qualification for office is defined. One can be born in Kenya or Indonesia but still be a statutory US citizen, but one cannot be born outside the states and be a natural born citizen.
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
No, it would depend on where they're born.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,987
Maybe you aren't. But that's one way around the problem of not having abortion legal while not having it be criminally prosecuted. Or you can just prosecute the person who does the abortion. Or you can just deal with the proof problems as they come up instead going with analysis / paralysis. If you accept that there will be abortions that won't be caught (just like there are all sorts of crimes that are never reported or solved) you can deal with the legality issue without dismantling probable cause.
Why would a woman who was ardently pro life lie about a doctor who was not performing abortions? What could possibly motivate that? Anyway, there are proof problems for all sorts of laws. Women lie about being raped. People disappear and sometimes an acquaintance is convicted even though no body is ever found. For example, Perry March was convicted for murdering his wife. If this woman that you are talking about wanted to make up an abortion lie she would have to provide some physical evidence of the abortion procedure. If a medical examination can show that a woman has been raped, it can show that a woman has had an abortion. So a pro life woman would have an abortion from one doctor just so she could lie and say that she had an abortion from another doctor?
As far as records go, if an indigenous person from Guatemala with no records of any kind sneaks into the U.S. and is murdered, his murderer can still be prosecuted. People are routinely prosecuted for cruelty to animals (Michael Vick for instance) and the animals do not always have paper records.
Except when abortion was illegal before none of those nightmare scenarios came about. Further the two example from the Salon article she quoted were from of women where there was no question that they were pregnant. In the first case there wasn't even any question that the woman paid someone to beat her to try to induce a miscarriage. In the second case the only questions was whether or not the woman fell down the steps on purpose based on some offhand comment. It's hard to tell what happened because Amy didn't have the original article, only a synopsis of it from an obviously biased commentator. (It's kind of like the story Michael Malkin published recently that grossly misrepresented facts about an abortion case from the opposite point of view). Anyway, that pregnant woman was arrested but not prosecuted. So Amy has no evidence of wrongful prosecution in such cases. And of course there are all sorts of wrongful arrests, prosecutions and convictions in many areas of the law. If we aren't going to have laws whenever there is a risk of a mistake then we shouldn't have any laws at all. Rape, rob, murder, whatever. We won't do anything about it because someone might wrongly spend a couple of nights in jail.
The woman shouldn't be given the choice of whether or not the death is a homicide. Either it is or it isn't murder. If abortion isn't murder then killing a pregnant woman isn't a double homicide, and kicking her in the stomach and causing her to lose her baby isn't a single homicide. The state could come up with some lesser crime to charge for the death of the fetus.
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
Ya but so often things like this turn into witch hunts.. It's one thing when the victim is visible, but these victims are practically invisible and the only person who knows about them could be the mother and the doctor.. that's what makes it witch hunting material.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,987
One more thing Amy. I was going to ignore this, but then I thought about it. It really shows what the reason for the confusion. To understand the legal implications of overturning Roe you first have to understand the legal framework behind Roe. If Roe were overturned that would not give the government full powers to police reproduction. Here is a the legal historical background to Roe v. Wade.
1925 - Pierce v. Society of Sisters The Supreme Court affirms strict scrutiny for private family choices, in this case choosing parochial schools over public schools.
1965 - Grisswald v. Conneticut Supreme court rules that married couples have a fundamental right to contraception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme court rules that right to contraception extends to single people.
Roe v. Wade you are familiar with.
Here is a post Roe v. Wade case you might not know about.
1990 - Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health In this case a state law requiring clear and convincing evidence of a patients wishes with before life support can be withdrawn. Important to the discussion because the Supreme Court declared the states interest in life (at least the life of person outside the womb in a persistent vegetative state) to be compelling.
So what does this have to do with Roe v. Wade? Well Roe v. Wade declared abortion to be a fundamental right. To get past fundamental rights you need a compelling state interest. If you truly believe, as you say, that the life of an unborn child is as important as the rights of the mother, then the state has at least as a compelling of an interest to protect that life as it does the life of an adult in a persistent vegetative state. Overturning Roe v. Wade on those grounds would not overturn even Griswald or Eisenstadt, let along Meyer and Pierce. All four of those cases would have to be overturned to legally institute the dystopian nightmare you've conjured up. Could the government overturn all of those precedents? Maybe. But overturning Roe on the grounds I'm talking about doesn't move you in that direction. In fact it arguably moves you in the opposite direction since it would declare life, as opposed to death, to be a compelling state interest.
Last edited:
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
The article stated:
You're saying that is untrue? I have yet to see this debunked, and I've seen a lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to debunk all this stuff.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,987
The physical evidence of an abortion is not invisible just like the physical evidence of a rape is not invisible. A woman who has not recently had sex cannot today get away with claiming rape because the first thing the defense attorney is going to as for is the post rape medical examination. Same thing here. And again, there are proof problems with other laws. There's more of a proof problem for rape because the sex may be consensual. Or with child molestation there may not be any physical evidence at all. That's were good cross examination and circumstantial evidence comes into play. Is this mythical pro life ready to accuse a doctor that she doesn't actually know committed an abortion victim know the layout of the office? The examination room? Are there any records of her ever visiting this doctor? Are there any other independent witnesses that can verify she went to the office on the day of the alleged abortion? And remember there is a legal risk to this woman for making up the charges, as well as for the prosecutor. Remember Mike Knifong?
Last edited:
Similar threads
