That’s silly. Everybody knows that stupid comes in food form.
This.
And this. shrug
I’ve always thought that birthers who aren’t otherwise delusional bought into the theory early and now they’re too embarassed to admit they were wrong.
In terms of Harvard/Columbia what is the big deal about that? The Washington Post obtained grades for Bush & Gore. The
Boston Globe obtained comparable information on John Kerry’s undergraduate record at Yale.
In terms of the birth certificate, as Michael Cohen suggests, it’s about transparency:
I am assuming your question is directed at my suggestion that if Obama were not a natural born citizen (he is one) that he could be impeached.
The answer is: on any grounds that Congress could muster enough votes for.
Impeachment does not require that any specific criminal statute have been violated. For example, look at Article X of the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson:
“That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States,…did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing…”
The Supreme Court has ruled (Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993)) that the decisions of Congress with respect to an impeachment proceeding cannot be appealed to the courts. The Congress is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense and its decisions cannot be appealed. If being “unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof” constitutes an impeachable offense then certainly being Constitutionally ineligible to the office is a shoo-in.
In the words of Gerald R Ford in a speech before Congress:
“…An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.”
Uh-huh… and that would get past a Democrat-majority Senate?
What, pray tell, is the “actual” argument? Obama released state certified, legally binding birth documentation in 2008. A document that is, by law, prima facie evidence of the circumstances of his birth, admissible in any court in the US of A.
Birthers decided that what is good enough for every court of law in the country, wasn’t good enough for them. What argument is there to support not accepting an official government document?
The question was whether there was a mechanism for removing a president from office who was found to be ineligible to hold that office. Not to predict the future.
I suppose if someone had asked “Is there a mechanism in California to send an ex-football player who strangles his wife and her lover to jail” and someone answered “there are prosecutors and criminal courts in California that can do that” you would have objected to that answer?
We know from recent experience that when the Democratic governor of Illinois who won by a landslide and had a huge campaign war chest became a political liability, the Democratic legislature of that state impeached and convicted him.
If you are asking me to speculate about how events would unfold in an alternate universe where the long-suppressed long form birth certificate had said “Place of birth: Kenya” then I would speculate as follows: There would be such an uproar and crisis atmosphere in the country that Obama would become a major political liability and the Democrats would in fact be eager to cut him loose and let Joe Biden take over.
There are multiple strains of this birther stupidity. People have argued Obama is ineligible for office for a variety of reasons ranging from birth in Kenya to a supposed adoption by Lolo Soetoro. While I’m fascinated to hear what you think the “actual argument” is, you can’t proclaim your preferred argument to be the real argument and ignore all the others. The only thing they have in common is that they’re all wrong and a waste of everyone’s time.
No, this is a complete crock of crap. Obama’s pledge to run a transparent administartion does not mean he’s the document genie- that every time someone makes up a ridiculous story and demands he disprove it, that he must move heaven and earth to provide documentation. He promised a transparent administration, not that he would waste time on a series of endless distractions about his birth certificate and college grades. Birtherism has never been about transparency and it never will be. It’s about race and a sense among some people that Obama has to be hiding something. “Transparency” is a retroactive justification.
Transparency? He showed his birth certificate 3 years ago. That is transparency.
Ask Cheney to release the minutes of his talks with the big energy powers. He refused .
This is simply bigotry and Obama hatred pretending to be people seeking information they are entitled to. seems weird how open he should be when no past presidents or nominees have had to meet those standards.
That’s not really an answer to the specific question, though - it’s more like “Congress can impeach for any reason they feel like”. And even if that’s true, both houses still have to approve. This would probably be pretty straightforward if actual intentional fraud was uncovered, though in this case the conspiracy would have to involve a hundred or more people, including various Hawaiian state officials, many of who have no reason to risk anything on behalf of Obama.
So, sure, the Republican-majority House could decide to impeach Obama on rather spurious grounds, as if their right, but getting the Senate to play along? That’s a stretch.
I don’t know where I said I had a preferred argument - must be more of your comprehension issues. As you stated, there are multiple birther claims, and not all of them revolve around his birth certificate and Kenya. To just dismiss them all because one is disproved because it fits your “racist” theory is silly.
The only one who wasted everyone’s time was Obama who took 3 years to finally put an end to the nonsense.
He had to write a letter and make a request. Oh the horror, a whole letter! Give me a break.
So, you’re saying you clung to a fabricated “technicality” cause you couldnt handle his election. And then, you get amused at the “Birthers’ dismissal”, like this was some great injustice. The only common thing between respect and scorn is that you have to work hard at it to deserve it.
What is it with Birthers that make them all sound like 4 year old brats?
Which one is “the actual argument?”
They are all ridiculous, and at the root, they are all racist.
The nonsense began after Obama put his own birth certificate online. He’d have been well within his rights to ignore this crap until the end of his second term. You seem intent on proving that releasing the long-form certificate doesn’t accomplish much.
I think you missed the point. Now, what’s the “actual argument?”
It’s that their pet theory is about as likely as the existence of Santa Claus.
I, for one, would gladly welcome Sanity Claus into this conversation.
I attempted to interpret Capitaine Zombie’s comment as a crack about “real” birthers, not G-SE as a “hopeful birther.” But on re-reading his post, the only reasonable interpretation is that he’s talking about G-SE. That’s not appropriate for Great Debates. So as much as I appreciate Czarcasm’s Marx Brothers reference, G-SE, please consider my comment withdrawn with my apologies. Capitaine Zombie, if you are going to suggest another poster is a brat, do it in the Pit, not this forum.
Oh, how charming… you think the nonsense has ended. That’s adorable.
Darn! Caught again! And just as I had managed to trick a Mod into going along with me.
-
It’s not Obama’s fault there are crazy people out there.
-
Releasing the long form did not stop the lunacy.
-
There is now no real argument and there never was one.
He gave his birth certificate out 3 years ago. Three ,count them 3 years ago. This new certificate proved that Obama’s information was complete and accurate 3 years ago. Three . He gave the same information that every other candidate gave. it was legal, complete and binding. Three years ago.
What the hell is wrong with you? This is racism. What white president has had to show his long form. Everybody knows that the birth certificate is legal and will get you a passport and allow you to enter into legal agreements. Why should he have to supply more? Then when he goes through the trouble . it proves his original birth certificate was completely legal and open. This was not his problem. It was yours. You were wrong all the time.