(WND) Hawaii guv can't find Obama birth certificate

[tangent4ronpaul]

So lets say he loses his second term and is no longer president. If, five or ten or even fifteen years later, it is proven that he was not born in the USA then what kind of punishment could he legally receive, what should he receive, and what will he receive? That is what is interesting to me. Because if he wasn't born in the USA then was he ever even technically/legally president? Could we have been a president-less country for the time that he was acting as president?

More interesting would be the nullification of everything he signed into law.

-t

 

[torchbearer]

What if you couldn't do that? Would you be out of luck? I wonder how many of our 44 presidents could have found people who were present at their birth had that been demanded from them.

yes, you'd be out of luck.
same goes for all public offices that require qualifications.
in louisiana, to run for a state office, you have to reside in that voting district for a year prior to the election date. if you can't prove that, you can't get on the ballot.
if this time around, every state demanded that the presidential candidate prove they qualify for the ballot. obama won't be on any of them.

 

[Bruno]

What if you couldn't do that? Would you be out of luck? I wonder how many of our 44 presidents could have found people who were present at their birth had that been demanded from them.

That's a ridiculous argument. He can do that, because the birth certificate supposedly exists (unless it doesn't, and it has then all been a lie). THIS president is having his birthplace questioned (as was McCain's eligibility as well). If someone runs against Obama and there is doubt where he was born, I'd like proof of natural born citizenship for that candidate, as well.

 

[erowe1]

yes, you'd be out of luck.
same goes for all public offices that require qualifications.
in louisiana, to run for a state office, you have to reside in that voting district for a year prior to the election date. if you can't prove that, you can't get on the ballot.
if this time around, every state demanded that the presidential candidate prove they qualify for the ballot. obama won't be on any of them.

Lousiana has its own constitution, so a law requiring those candidates to prove their residency might be constitutional. And certainly no federal law should be able to prevent Louisiana from doing that. But for a presidential election it would be unconstitutional for states to add that additional qualification to run for president. If Obama is qualified to be president (and the lack of any proof that he's a natural born citizen doesn't disqualify him), then those states can't prevent their electors from voting for Obama in the electoral college.

 

[erowe1]

That's a ridiculous argument. He can do that, because the birth certificate supposedly exists (unless it doesn't, and it has then all been a lie). THIS president is having his birthplace questioned (as was McCain's eligibility as well). If someone runs against Obama and there is doubt where he was born, I'd like proof of natural born citizenship for that candidate, as well.

Exactly. It supposedly exists, unless it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then so what?

Simply having his birthplace questioned by someone is irrelevant. If you can prove he wasn't born here, then prove it. Otherwise, he doesn't owe anyone any proof, whether it matters to them or not.

 

[dannno]

What if you couldn't do that? Would you be out of luck?

You wouldn't even be able to play little league baseball..

 

[erowe1]

You wouldn't even be able to play little league baseball..

1) Yes you would.
2) Even if you wouldn't, that has nothing to do with being POTUS.

 

[torchbearer]

Lousiana has its own constitution, so a law requiring those candidates to prove their residency might be constitutional. And certainly no federal law should be able to prevent Louisiana from doing that. But for a presidential election it would be unconstitutional for states to add that additional qualification to run for president. If Obama is qualified to be president (and the lack of any proof that he's a natural born citizen doesn't disqualify him), then those states can't prevent their electors from voting for Obama in the electoral college.

the state can't add qualifications, but it can enforce the ones in the constitution.

 

[erowe1]

the state can't add qualifications, but it can enforce the ones in the constitution.

I'm not so sure that the state can do that. But supposing it can, being able to produce proof of the circumstances of one's birth, whether that be with a birth certificate or affidavit or anything else, is not in the Constitution. I have no idea which of our 44 presidents did or did not have such things. But the ones who didn't have them weren't disqualified from being POTUS on account of that.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm not so sure that the state can do that. But supposing it can, being able to produce proof of the circumstances of one's birth, whether that be with a birth certificate or affidavit or anything else, is not in the Constitution. I have no idea which of our 44 presidents did or did not have such things. But the ones who didn't have them weren't disqualified from being POTUS on account of that.

you have to prove your age, you'll need a birth cert for that. that cert will also provide the location of birth.
both qualification come from the same document.

 

[Noob]

Strunk v Paterson (Obama): Judge has opined on what Natural Born citizen is; Concludes Obama is not a NBC.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/strunk-v-paterson-obama-first-time-in.html

The Court asked if Plaintiff is seeking to obtain a copy of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s (BHO Jr.) Certified Birth record herein; to wit Plaintiff responded "NO". Plaintiff seeks a decision by the Court as to whether or not the Candidate(s) are eligible for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) as required with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 as required as a regulation by the New York State Board of Elections including inter alias based upon the Certificate of Live Birth published August 21, 2008 by Annenberg Political Fact Check at FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (see Exhibit A); and that as a prima facie matter Plaintiff seeks a Court decision herein as to whether or not Obama in fact has Dual Allegiance, is not a Natural Born Citizen per se but merely a Native-Born citizen if that; because BHO Jr.’s father, BHO Sr., is a British subject with a student visa at that time, and is shown to be the purported father of BHO Jr. by both the newspaper announcement and the COLB shown by Fact Check.org; and therefore, at best BHO Jr. is only a "Native" born citizen, if that, with only one U.S. Citizen parent mother as a minor at his birth, and that without two U.S. Citizen parents - BHO Jr. is NOT a "Natural" born citizen at best is “Native” born.

 

[Bruno]

Exactly. It supposedly exists, unless it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then so what?

Simply having his birthplace questioned by someone is irrelevant. If you can prove he wasn't born here, then prove it. Otherwise, he doesn't owe anyone any proof, whether it matters to them or not.

If it doesn't exist, then we have a problem, don't we? Because the whole argument has been that it does exist, and he just "shouldn't have to show it."

I posted this previously:

Obama: "I am Santa Claus."

Me: "Prove it."

Obama: "I give presents to people. Reindeer follow me. Trust me."

Me: "Um, I'm still not convinced you are Santa Claus."

Obama: "Then I'll spend millions to avoid proving to you that I am."

Me: "Well, in that case, I'm unlikely to become more convinced then that you are Santa."

AxisMundi: "Prove there's no Santa Claus, I bet ya can't!"

Mainstream media: "Obama says he is Santa Claus. Stop it, kooky racists, it's good enough for us. Now look at the shiny trinkets he brought!"

Crazyfacedjenkins: "It really doesn't matter if he really is Santa Claus or not, because Santa lives in all of our hearts..."

Hawaii Governor: "I knew Obama when he was just a little elf. I'm going to do my best to end this Santa debate once and for all."

Hawaii Governor: (Update): "Shit. I can't find it. Someone said there was a sticky note that says someone knows someone who says they heard some someone else they had once seen it somewhere. That's all I got. You crazy birthers might be right!"

 

[erowe1]

you have to prove your age

Not to be POTUS you don't.

 

[erowe1]

If it doesn't exist, then we have a problem, don't we? Because the whole argument has been that it does exist, and he just "shouldn't have to show it."

I posted this previously:

Obama: "I am Santa Claus."

Me: "Prove it."

Obama: "I give presents to people. Reindeer follow me. Trust me."

Me: "Um, I'm still not convinced you are Santa Claus."

Obama: "Then I'll spend millions to avoid proving to you that I am."

Me: "Well, in that case, I'm unlikely to become more convinced then that you are Santa."

AxisMundi: "Prove there's no Santa Claus, I bet ya can't!"

Mainstream media: "Obama says he is Santa Claus. Stop it, kooky racists, it's good enough for us. Now look at the shiny trinkets he brought!"

Crazyfacedjenkins: "It really doesn't matter if he really is Santa Claus or not, because Santa lives in all of our hearts..."

Hawaii Governor: "I knew Obama when he was just a little elf. I'm going to do my best to end this Santa debate once and for all."

Hawaii Governor: (Update): "Shit. I can't find it. Someone said there was a sticky note that says someone knows someone who says they heard some someone else they had once seen it somewhere. That's all I got. You crazy birthers might be right!"

Right. But all that has to do with whether or not you are personally satisfied. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can be POTUS.

 

[devil21]

Im looking more psychic by the day:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-family-tree&p=2428053&viewfull=1#post2428053

11-16-2009
One suspicion I've had is that Obama's "timeline" is completely fabricated. The entire thing. Seems no one can get a straight answer on where he's from, what religion he is, who his ancestors are (they keep dying quietly). That's not to say that the alternative of another Bush or Clinton of known lineage is more appealing, just that it's possible that Obama's backstory is entirely fabricated. I mean, just the relation to Cheney itself raises a lot of eyebrows. What are the odds it's just some random twist? He came out of practically nowhere to elevate to President from relative obscurity. Makes me wonder if he hasn't been groomed for this for a lot longer than most think.

 

[jmdrake]

Do you think that if a natural born citizen who ran for president didn't have a birth certificate, all that person's opponents should have to do to prevent him from running would be to claim that they doubt he was born here, and then he'd be out of luck because he lacked a birth certificate?

Ok. I see you didn't at all understand what I was saying. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I will try again. Some issues can be mooted. Again consider the age question. If someone questioned Joe Biden's eligibility based on age that would be silly. He's been in public life more than 36 years. On the other hand let's say some young looking candidate that nobody knew ran for president. Should he have to show a drivers license at least to show his age? It's not just a question of whether or not there is a birth certificate. It's also a question of what other alternatives exist to prove eligibility. If both Obama's parents had been American the whole issue would have been moot. The birth certificate wouldn't matter because even if Obama was born outside the country he would still be a natural born citizen. Again here's the pertinent regulation.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

So your example of any natural born citizen really doesn't cover what we are talking about. This is the specific case of a citizen where there is a legitimate question of whether he is a natural born citizen or not. Do you understand now?

 

[oyarde]

If it doesn't exist, then we have a problem, don't we? Because the whole argument has been that it does exist, and he just "shouldn't have to show it."

I posted this previously:

Obama: "I am Santa Claus."

Me: "Prove it."

Obama: "I give presents to people. Reindeer follow me. Trust me."

Me: "Um, I'm still not convinced you are Santa Claus."

Obama: "Then I'll spend millions to avoid proving to you that I am."

Me: "Well, in that case, I'm unlikely to become more convinced then that you are Santa."

AxisMundi: "Prove there's no Santa Claus, I bet ya can't!"

Mainstream media: "Obama says he is Santa Claus. Stop it, kooky racists, it's good enough for us. Now look at the shiny trinkets he brought!"

Crazyfacedjenkins: "It really doesn't matter if he really is Santa Claus or not, because Santa lives in all of our hearts..."

Hawaii Governor: "I knew Obama when he was just a little elf. I'm going to do my best to end this Santa debate once and for all."

Hawaii Governor: (Update): "Shit. I can't find it. Someone said there was a sticky note that says someone knows someone who says they heard some someone else they had once seen it somewhere. That's all I got. You crazy birthers might be right!"

Your killing me man !

 

[Bruno]

Right. But all that has to do with whether or not you are personally satisfied. It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can be POTUS.

Right. That's why I have said repeatedly that I am not convinced and that I don't care what some court has or has not decided. I have little faith in our judicial system, the vetting process (which didn't happen), or the electoral college.

 

[erowe1]

Ok. I see you didn't at all understand what I was saying. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I will try again. Some issues can be mooted. Again consider the age question. If someone questioned Joe Biden's eligibility based on age that would be silly. He's been in public life more than 36 years. On the other hand let's say some young looking candidate that nobody knew ran for president. Should he have to show a drivers license at least to show his age? It's not just a question of whether or not there is a birth certificate. It's also a question of what other alternatives exist to prove eligibility. If both Obama's parents had been American the whole issue would have been moot. The birth certificate wouldn't matter because even if Obama was born outside the country he would still be a natural born citizen. Again here's the pertinent regulation.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

So your example of any natural born citizen really doesn't cover what we are talking about. This is the specific case of a citizen where there is a legitimate question of whether he is a natural born citizen or not. Do you understand now?

Yes. I understand now, as I did earlier.

For this "legitimate question of whether he is a natural born citizen or not" does there have to be some evidence of his not being a natural born citizen?

If there does, then we're back to my point that the burden is on his detractors to produce that evidence (and his failure to produce a birth certificate when asked does not count). If there does not need to be evidence, and there merely needs to be some person somewhere claiming that there's a legitimate question, then we're back to my question of whether a person who lacks proof of the circumstances in which he was born should be disqualified simply because his opponents claim they have legitimate questions about the circumstances of his birth.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes. I understand now, as I did earlier.

For this "legitimate question of whether he is a natural born citizen or not" does there have to be some evidence of his not being a natural born citizen?

If there does, then we're back to my point that the burden is on his detractors to produce that evidence (and his failure to produce a birth certificate when asked does not count). If there does not need to be evidence, and there merely needs to be some person somewhere claiming that there's a legitimate question, then we're back to my question of whether a person who lacks proof of the circumstances in which he was born should be disqualified simply because his opponents claim they have legitimate questions about the circumstances of his birth.

Except there is evidence that he's not a natural born citizen. Maybe there's not enough evidence to "prove" it to you, but there is enough evidence for a reasonable judge to allow a lawsuit to go forward. You may not understand how the burden of proof works in these situations. Many people mistakenly think that all questions of law require a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. That is not true. In civil cases the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. And sometimes the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

For example, lets say if someone filed a civil lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment that Obama is not a natural born citizen and hence not eligible to be president. The first thing that would happen is Obama's lawyers would file a motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss are only supposed to be granted if there is no disputed fact or law that could possibly lead to the other side winning. The burden of proof is on the side making the motion (the defense side). If both sides agreed Obama's parents were Americans then the motion to dismiss would have to be granted because it wouldn't matter if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. But since both of his parents weren't American, and due to the unique circumstances surrounding his birth (I posted that earlier), it's not a slam dunk case that he is America. Plus there are the statements by his grandmother that he was born in Kenya along with various newspaper accounts that he was born in Kenya to consider. During the motion to dismiss phase all evidence is looked at in the light most favorable to the non moving party. In other words any judge adjudicating this who actually followed the law would have to assume that grandma Obama wasn't lying or crazy and the newspaper reports were not made up. So it's very unlikely that such a case would be thrown out on motion to dismiss if not for the highly politically charged nature of the lawsuit. (Sometimes judges ignore the law for the sake of political expediency).

If a motion to dismiss fails then you go into something called "discovery". In other words each side gets to demand that the other side turn over everything and the other side must turn over everything unless it has a REALLY good reason not to do so. Simply saying "well other people don't have to turn over their birth certificates" is NOT a really good reason. Other people are not embroiled in a similar lawsuit under similar circumstances. Ask yourself this question. Why did Bill Clinton have to testify about whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinski? People generally don't have to talk about their private sexual lives. The reason Clinton did was because that was material to the sexual harassment lawsuit. The same is true here. People generally don't have to turn over their birth certificates. But only if it is material to the lawsuit.

If Obama can prove that he's a natural born citizen without turning over his birth certificate than he shouldn't have to. But under the circumstances it doesn't appear to me that he can. There is a report that Obama's half sister, who was born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian certificate of live birth just like Obama. If that's true and/or if it's generally true that you can get a certificate of live birth without being a natural born citizen then Obama has not proven himself to be one. So yes, under these circumstances Obama could, and possibly should have to turn over his birth certificate. That doesn't mean that every president has to turn over his birth certificate any more than every president should have to say whether or not they had sex with Monica Lewinski or anybody else. And it's not a race thing. (I know you haven't said that, but others have). If Jesse Jackson had been elected president this wouldn't have been an issue because both of his parents were citizens and his mom was not out of the country near the time of his birth.

One other thing to consider on burden of proof. Say if the person CHALLENGING Obama's birth is the defendant? That already happened with a U.S. soldier challenging his deployment to Afghanistan based on the assumption that Obama is not eligible to be president. What happened in that case? The soldiers order were changed mooting the case.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104009

But people could file all sorts of lawsuits challenging all sorts of presidential orders base on the belief that Obama is not eligible to be president. If that happened at some point Obama would have to prove he legitimacy or risk becoming even less effective than he already is.

I hope this helps.