Hawaii Governor seals Obama's birth certificate records

[Matt Collins]

pre-14th Amendment,

Of course you do realize the 14th Amendment was never ratified, right?

 

[Matt Collins]

How did these become private

It's done on a state by state basis.

Has anyone checked the records in Kenya?

Yes, Jerome Corsi:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1847965,00.html

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Of course you do realize the 14th Amendment was never ratified, right?

The Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866.[20] There being thirty-seven states in the Union at that time, twenty-eight ratifications were necessary for the Amendment's adoption. By July 9, 1868, twenty-eight states had ratified the Amendment:
Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)

Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the Amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.

There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the Amendment had been ratified by every state in the Union as of 1868:[21]
Oregon (withdrew October 15, 1868)
Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

Controversy over ratification

In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court diverged from the habeas corpus issue in a case to express its resentment against recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to attack the Amendment itself:

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of the Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in the Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.

A lot of "POLITICS and THREATS" in this 14th amendment

 

[dannno]

Honestly, does this shit really matter to anyone aside from desperate McCain fans?

It should matter to everyone.

Did you know that the birth certificate that was on his website was different from the one factcheck provided? Did you know factcheck donated millions of dollars to Obama's campaign?

I'm not saying Obama was born in Kenya for sure, but this is something that should be looked into.. and I would prefer McCain loses, to be honest. I think no matter what happens with this lawsuit, Americans will vote in Obama on Nov. 4. What will happen then? Who knows.

 

[Matt Collins]

A lot of "POLITICS and THREATS" in this 14th amendment

Also when it was proposed in Congress it wouldn't have passed except they illegally threw a member out of the chamber when it came time to vote on the amendment. The person they ejected was against the amendment.

Also Nevada and West Virginia were not (and still to this day are not) legal States as set forth by the US Constitution. Therefore their votes should not be counted but they were.

Scary to think that much of our idea about "due process" is from an unratified or illegally ratified amendment.

 

[DAFTEK]

So is this why Obama just had to go to Hawaii in the last minute and leave his wife to campaign for him?

Why didn't she go with him then if his grandma was about to crap out?

If it smells like cow shit and it takes like cow shit it probably is a bunch of cow shit don't you think?..

 

[Lord Xar]

Honestly, does this shit really matter to anyone aside from desperate McCain fans?

Following the rule of law, following the constitution, having integrity and honesty is NOT a partisan issue. ALL AMERICANS should be given the answers they deserve and need from the highest office in the land.

 

[dsentell]

This is important because it is the law. Makes me shudder that the Constitution will be ignored another time.

Privacy issue? I think not. When you willfully place yourself in the public light, you must expect to give up certain privacies -- such as making your income tax returns public.

To require a candidate to prove that he legally qualifies for the position that he seeks is not asking too much -- it should be the norm . . .

 

[PatriotLegion]

This is important because it is the law. Makes me shudder that the Constitution will be ignored another time.

Privacy issue? I think not. When you willfully place yourself in the public light, you must expect to give up certain privacies -- such as making your income tax returns public.

To require a candidate to prove that he legally qualifies for the position that he seeks is not asking too much -- it should be the norm . . .

I agree, and if he says he's a "US born citizen" then shut everyone up, ending the lawsuits and the conspiracy theories by releasing his birth records.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[BeFranklin]

Of course you do realize the 14th Amendment was never ratified, right?

Yes, but it doesn't change my argument. It doesn't effect presidential requirements regardless of whether it was passed or not, but the arguments being used to claim Obama is not a citizen are 14th Amendment type arguments - which many of us wouldn't agree with but the population as a whole doesn't understand.

This is an excellent chance to educate people on the differences in citizenship, but to do so will require ignoring much of the republican party pushing the other interpretation, which is ok because they are neocons anyway

 

[BeFranklin]

The Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866.[20] There being thirty-seven states in the Union at that time, twenty-eight ratifications were necessary for the Amendment's adoption. By July 9, 1868, twenty-eight states had ratified the Amendment:
Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)

Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the Amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.

There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the Amendment had been ratified by every state in the Union as of 1868:[21]
Oregon (withdrew October 15, 1868)
Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

Controversy over ratification

In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court diverged from the habeas corpus issue in a case to express its resentment against recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to attack the Amendment itself:

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of the Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in the Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.

A lot of "POLITICS and THREATS" in this 14th amendment

None of the civil war amendments were passed legally, the 13th, 14th, and 15th. The 13th is the only amendment to start out with the amendment number "The Thirteenth Amendment" as part of the actual amendment itself, which may have been to help remove another 13th amendment to the constitution that was published in law books before the civil war. The 16th amendment was never ratified which you can look up online, and the 17th amendment was never ratified because it affected States suffrage in the senate, which required unanimous consent not 3/4ths according to the constitution.

And you could probably go on. Thats 5-6 amendments right there, all vitally concerned with changing this country from a federation of republics as founded to something else.

 

[BeFranklin]

Also when it was proposed in Congress it wouldn't have passed except they illegally threw a member out of the chamber when it came time to vote on the amendment. The person they ejected was against the amendment.

Also Nevada and West Virginia were not (and still to this day are not) legal States as set forth by the US Constitution. Therefore their votes should not be counted but they were.

Scary to think that much of our idea about "due process" is from an unratified or illegally ratified amendment.

Ohio was never legally admitted into the union either

They tried to retroactively admit it in 1953. I guess some hundred plus years of votes are invalid, including the Taft presidency.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-a-state-when-the-16th-amendment-was-ratified

And yes, Cecil is on our side here

 

[BeFranklin]

Also when it was proposed in Congress it wouldn't have passed except they illegally threw a member out of the chamber when it came time to vote on the amendment. The person they ejected was against the amendment.

Also Nevada and West Virginia were not (and still to this day are not) legal States as set forth by the US Constitution. Therefore their votes should not be counted but they were.

Scary to think that much of our idea about "due process" is from an unratified or illegally ratified amendment.

West Virgina was illegally split from a state without its consent according to the Constitution. Not sure I know about Nevada.

 

[Matt Collins]

West Virgina was illegally split from a state without its consent according to the Constitution.

Exactly. Lincoln wanted another state supporting him, so he took loyal counties from Virginia and made them into West Virginia; patently unconstitutional.

 

[Matt Collins]

The 16th amendment was never ratified which you can look up online

Bill Benson's book "The Law that Never Was" http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com