Given the way the Founders set up the Electoral College as a filter between direct democracy and the Presidency, most likely they saw it as the electors’ job to satisfy themselves that they were electing an eligible candidate. They have made and rendered their determination.
Don:
Then there would not be a reason for Article II, Section 1 stating the requirements of the presidency.
That does not make any sense to me. Frauds abound in the election process, so you are saying if the public is lied to, factual information is withheld from the public, there is no recourse and safe guards? You are saying there is no law or standing nor court jurisdiction that forces a presidential candidate to present his birth records in the original form? That the constitution Article II, Section 1 is void and worthless words on paper?
We survived Nixon and Carter so I suppose we will survive the BS, lies, and insanity of Obama.
Don
The actual figures of attorney bills and court cost are sitting on obama’s desk, go get them for us, I will wait, but I doubt obama has reviewed them.
Do the math—
The political action committee ‘Obama for America’ paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009, to fight every request to release Obama’s original birth records. [10] Partial listing of cases courtesy of WND.com [1]
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress did not properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of President.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama. [11]
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s Secretary of State, making a similar argument to Donofrio’s. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied. [12]
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff. [13]
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. [14]
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed. [15]
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed. [16]
It is relevant to this discussion in that you are stating that there is no (or little) evidence to support Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, but loads of evidence of McCain’s being a natural born citizen. Your ability to interpret facts as they exist, without bias to one’s political views, is entirely a legitimate issue. Your refusal to acknowledge deficiencies in McCain’s claims against the historical record bears directly on your ability to support unsubstantiated claims against Obama.
If she used a local hospital, then he was not born on a US military base. Obama, on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, on American soil. It would seem to me that on this point, Obama has a greater claim to American citizenship since we do not actually know where John McCain was born. He could have been born in Russia for all the non-existent Panamanian hospital records tell us.
You seem to have plenty of time to post when Obama is the issue. And the question isn’t whether Obama or McCain is more American, the question is your ability to understand established facts and create a coherent argument around them. So far, you have given us no reason to believe that your insistence that Obama isn’t an American, and McCain is 100% born and bred here, is based on anything else than the fact that you don’t like Obama, and you do like McCain.
Now you know how everyone else feels upon reading your “arguments”.
The electors are not the general public. The electoral system was established by the Founders precisely to create a level of vetting between the general public and the selection of the President. (The state governments also provided a level of vetting in those days; direct popular votes in Presidential elections only really got established during the Jacksonian era.) It stands to reason that the Founders took it for granted that, if there was some serious question of a Presidential candidate’s legal qualificaions, the electors would consider it and withhold their votes if they decided that the candidate was ineligible.
Fortunately, we have never had any serious question of any elected President’s ineligibility, so the issue has not arisen.
Thanks for providing links, Don123, but again, you copied two entire pages from the Lectlaw website - the entire entries on standing and jurisdiction. Don’t do that. Use a reasonably short quote. Just the part that proves your point.
Please explain (cites would be great too) the actual difference between these two, and why a “birth certificate” would serve as legal proof that a person was born at a particular time in a particular place, yet a “certificate of live birth” does not serve as legal proof of such. Thank you.
Don:
I think you know the answer and are just being silly. A certificate of live birth simply means the child was presented (brought into the hospital wrapped in a blanket) and the hospital staff said—YEP the child is alive, date and time, place of the observation, parents name blah blah blah.
Birth certificate is this child was physically born and delivered at this hospital— and the information of who what when and where.
Hawaii commonly, at the time, gave out live birth certificates, why is that? Because many children were born at home without doctors but with midwives. Hawaii was a high traffic place of foreigners and any one could get their child registered in Hawaii USA.
Other posible reasons; At the time the hospital did not care one way or the other, an untrained staff, state laws were not consolidated, the child may have gotten a check up the hospital could get paid for, a paying customer is never turned down, bribes, the Hawaii natives wanted to increase their numbers and anything but white would work, there simply was not a law against it, the hospital made its own policy and was influential to state regulations.
But that is all besides the point, that is what Hawaii did at the time, there is no doubt about it.
You know Wheelz, you could do some of your own home work, just a little bit will not hurt you.
Don
No, a certificate of live birth is exactly the same as a birth certificate. You are misinformed. Sorry. You also seem to keep ignoring the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the original birth certificate, you’re ignoring the the two birth announcements, youir ignoring the Sate Department’s confirmation in 1967 that he was born in Hawaii and you haven’t presented any evidence at all that he was born anywhere else.
Do you really contend that Hawaii offered **two different **certifications/certificates in 1961, one for births in hospitals and another for births elsewhere? So some percentage of all people born in Hawaii at that time would have one kind and the remainder would have the other? But both are legitimate documents issued by the State of Hawaii? You wouldn’t by any chance want to offer some kind of cite for that, would you? M’kay.
Well, I am prepared to admit that ***you ***have no doubt about it. And I am sure that ***you ***believe one or more of these fantastical circumstances applies to Obama, and it somehow disqualifies him for-- elected office? citizenship? humanity?
The rest of us though (I know I’m going out on a really skinny limb here, but what the heck!), well, the rest of us are not yet convinced.
Maybe another irrelevant three page block quote will do it.
They do not have the power to vet a candidate, demand information, request a public hearing, gather witnesses, cross examine, call in professionals, and challenge the evidence. Not that I have ever read or studied. That was never brought up in my law classes. But I’m willing to learn.
Though they are not required to vote for the popular candidate, they wanted to have house to come to that was not burned down if they did other wise.
All through out history they were nothing but a rubber stamp, a drunken party time in Washington, with a little bit status so they can brag to their friends, and that is all.
What can you count, a half a dozen times one went renegade and didn’t vote the way they were instructed to do?
Two to three state are seriously considering doing away with the Electoral College.
The main intent was to stop small states from being drowned out by the larger ones by population. That every state will have (some what) equal influence and will get equal attention by the candidates for president. It was suppose to level the playing field so to speak.
Kind of new to me that the Electoral College could have hearings to disqualify a candidate and tell (demand) the political party to run some one else for president or VP. And I do not think that is the case then or now. So what am I missing here?
Don
And for you Obamanites who claim that there is no difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, we, as well as the State of Hawaii, would have to disagree with you.
Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:
“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
Everybody get that?
As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.
The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a back-alley in Budapest.
How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?
Of course the fact that Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution is not something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
Don:
Now you can tell me you have NO idea of legal wording and Obama is God in the flesh, untouchable by human hands, and drifts up heaven in all his prayers recieving instuctions on how to lead this nation.
Your cite is a paranoid, right wing conspiracy blog that links to other right wing conspiracy blogs to cite it’s claims. I’m not going down that rabbit hole.
How do you respond to the fact that the state of Hawaii has confirmed it has the orginal certificate? The additional confirmation by the State Department? The birth announcements?
I think I’m pretty much done trying to argue with you. You clearly inhabit your own reality where facts can gain no purchase. Hope that works out for you.
I don’t know where you are getting this stuff, but I just went and looked at my birth certificate (notarized in the county of birth) and my two kids’ birth certificates, similarly notarized, and none of those documents include anything like the hospital name, the doctor’s name, or any other similar information.
They note the name, the sex, the date of birth, the date when the birth was recorded, the names of the parents (including mother’s maiden name), the city of birth, (in my case the city where my parents resided and not the different city where the hospital was located), and, for some odd reason, the state in which the mother was born. That is it.
I do have a document from the hospital that indicates the other information, but that is NOT the birth certificate. So, I have three documents from two states that establish that your claim is nonsense. Sticking to it at this point just makes you look silly.
Irrelevant. They have the power to elect the President. They therefore have the responsibility of deciding whether or not the person for whom they vote is eligible to be President. End of argument, as far as the political system created by the Founders and described in detail by the Constitution is concerned.
Not only is your statement irrelevant, it is also false. Electors most certainly do have the power to demand that a candidate provide information, enforced by their power to take their votes elsewhere if they are not satisfied by the candidate’s response.