Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No pickle. He'll just present his birth certificate. And the hearing will be over.
Actually, you are incorrect. He's not being accused of a crime, he's being required to prove eligibility. Kinda like when you go get your driver's license for the first time. Even if your parent's are with you, you have to have a birth certificate in most states, to prove eligibility.
Personally I find this interesting, not because I personally believe he's ineligible, but because it will force him to present his birth certificate for inspection, and the court can actually request the Hawaii records to be submitted for proof.
If he has something to hide, or there is something awry such as a problem with the SSN#, it will be documented in a court of law, which could be devastating to a lot of people should anything turn out to be falsified.
.... but because it will force him to present his birth certificate for inspection,....
if that does happen then a HI issued COLB would be accepted.
Quote:
.... and the court can actually request the Hawaii records to be submitted for proof.
they could but it would require a lot more evidence of fraud then the birthers have put forward to date. the plaintiff bares the burden of proof to demand such a request. none of the "evidence" or "experts" that the birthers have supported ( mostly thru WND ) would stand up in court.
Quote:
.... or there is something awry such as a problem with the SSN#,.....
there isn't a problem with the SS#. we know that numbers are issued based on zip code of application simply for clerical organization and have no relation to birth and/or residence.
96810 honolulu HI
06810 danbury CT
a common clerical typo of zero significance or a massive conspiracy involving all branches of government? you make the call.
altho now it appears that the president has been issued a new number ( most likely because of the birthers, orly in particular, posting the original number repeatedly on the web )
Last edited by wrecking ball; 01-04-2012 at 07:16 AM..
if the president is required to show proof then he most likely will simply submit a HI COLB which would be accepted as prima facie evidence and supported by the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution.
now here's where it could get interesting....... would he release the 2008 issued COLB or a 2012 issued COLB? both are legal in court but a 2012 COLB will make the birthers lose their freaking minds ( ...... which would be beneficial to the presidents re-election campaign ).
Actually, i'm glad all this is happening. If nothing else, it will settle the "natural born citizen" definition once and for all and should never again be a question in Presidential elections.
Let us see: if the term 'natural born citizen' means both parents must have been born in the US, then:
1. Thomas Jefferson was not qualified (mother born in England).
2. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan: both had a parent born in Ireland.
3. Andrew Jackson: both parents born in Ireland.
4. Herbert Hoover: mother born in Canada.
5. Woodrow Wilson: mother born in England.
6. Mitt Romney: father born in Mexico.
top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
Of course, that would also make Ron Paul , Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum ineligible too. All of them had non-citizen parents.
Let us see: if the term 'natural born citizen' means both parents must have been born in the US, then:
1. Thomas Jefferson was not qualified (mother born in England).
2. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan: both had a parent born in Ireland.
3. Andrew Jackson: both parents born in Ireland.
4. Herbert Hoover: mother born in Canada.
5. Woodrow Wilson: mother born in England.
6. Mitt Romney: father born in Mexico.
That's why the issue needs to be settled once and for all moving forward.
That's why the issue needs to be settled once and for all moving forward.
I believe it has been settled once and for all.
After all, would it had made sense for Mr. Jefferson to have run for President if he believed he were not qualified due to his parentage?
No sir. He understood that so long as a person was born in the USA, he or she would be qualified for the presidency. The parent's status was not relevant, and has never been relevant, until, well, the nutters began trying to figure out a way to void the election of President Obama.
Actually, i'm glad all this is happening. If nothing else, it will settle the "natural born citizen" definition once and for all and should never again be a question in Presidential elections.
The first article WND was an interesting one!
Natural born citizen of 2 citizen parents seems like the issue to me also. Good post
Rep point not permitted so posted. Ty
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
absolutely
