Cali Leading the Fight?Follow

Well, fine. Am I a democrat that sometimes agrees with the right, or a republican that sometimes agrees with the left? I dunno. I don't vote in preliminaries so I have never registered as one or the other (and I'm not even sure if my state requires it).

I don't like the idea of social security. I'd rather privately invest my own money for savings. I don't like the idea of government forcing diversity on public schools and/or businesses. I'm very anti-Union, whether it's right for me to be or not. My evidence is anecdotal, but I've seen very bad things happen locally with Unions.

The Teamsters have been on strike for 8 months or so here at a foundry just blocks away from where I work (which is non-Union). The union members have been misled. The union does not have the members best interests in mind. The Teamsters are merely using them as show later on for bigger battles. They don't care about the people who don't have jobs anymore and are going to lose their homes, they just want to be able to say later to a more important battle "Look, we don't ever back down, here is an example!"

I just weighed actual government issues heavier on my position than social issues. Which is why I put myself right of center.

Because he wants to let everyone have a good long laugh as people go through the courts.

It's more fun this way. Sure you could give the rat the cheese, but why not make them go through the maze first?

The strange thing is why Obama is forcing these people to go through the courts in the first place. If his birth certificate does establish without a doubt that he was born in Hawaii, why not just present it for verification? It will happen eventually. One can no longer hide behind the standing angle anymore, since pretty much any and ever citizen can point to a host of executive decisions made by Obama which he may claim to have been harmed by. This will go to the Supreme Court.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Of course it won't. Fuck, how can you possibly be so consistently gullible?

The reason it's such a political hot potato is that it's going to be viewed by the public in the context of a particular challenge of a particular person. If you're wrong, it hurts you politically. Thus, no one wants to be the guy who brings it up officially, so no one does.

But we ought to have a process to do this. It ought to be automatic exactly so that no one has to make a challenge and stick his neck out on the specific situation in front of us. If every presidential candidate must present proof of natural born citizen status prior to being put on the ballot (at whatever election level we wish to do this), then no one can argue discrimination, no one can argue that they're being targeted, and no one has to risk those counter claims by bringing a challenge.


This is not the first time that this qualification has been questioned. It is the first time the person in question has won the election though. So, if not now, when do we decide to make this an issue? It's not specifically about Obama. We shouldn't be challenging him because we don't like his politics, nor should we be opposing the challenge because we like his politics. What I'd like most for us to get out of this is the need for a standard mechanism for dealing with this. But in the meantime, I don't see any reason why it is unreasonable to expect any President who is questioned on this, even if it's just a single citizen, to provide proof of his natural born status.


So far, requests for this have been met with half truths, and partial documents. Why not just unseal the birth certificate? Really. What could possibly be in there that anyone would care about? I've seen my original certificate. There's nothing shocking in there. Name of parents. Date, time, place, sex. Doctors signature. A seal. If Obama is standing on some kind of privacy principle, I'm utterly unaware of what he thinks he's protecting. And the more he insists on not providing this, the more suspicious people will get. Sure. You can call them fringe nuts if you want, but what they're asking for isn't that unreasonable.


And yes Smash. It's almost unthinkable that the Supreme Court wont be hearing this within the next year. There is standing now, since he's president and his actions affect us all. Any citizen of this country can file suit right now, and lots of them are. At some point, the courts can't keep ignoring them. Birth Documents have been unsealed for reasons far less constitutionally mandated than this. At the end of the day, the constitution demands that he be a natural born citizen, and the only way to determine that is to examine his original long form birth certificate and all other related documents. It is absolutely a constitutional issue, and I can't think of any valid reason why the Court wouldn't simply unseal and examine the document(s). As I said, most of the cases that have been dismissed so far have been dismissed for standing. The plaintiff could not show that he was harmed by the situation. Now that Obama is president, that restriction is gone. This will go to the Supreme Court. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.

And yes Smash. It's almost unthinkable that the Supreme Court wont be hearing this within the next year.

LUDICROUS. You're really straying into fringe whacko territory here. Let's make a wager, shall we? If SCOTUS doesn't certify a case before June 31, 2010, you don't post about any economic issue for 1 year. If they do, I won't post about some other broad subject of your choice for the same time period.


There is standing now,

I know you don't understand law, but no, there isn't standing now.


since he's president and his actions affect us all. Any citizen of this country can file suit right now, and lots of them are. At some point, the courts can't keep ignoring them.

They won't ignore them, they'll start dismissing them with prejudice and assessing court costs instead of dismissing them without prejudice and assessing pats on the head.


Birth Documents have been unsealed for reasons far less constitutionally mandated than this.

Really? Cite a case where this occurred.



At the end of the day, the constitution demands that he be a natural born citizen

He is.

, and the only way to determine that is to examine his original long form birth certificate and all other related documents.

False.


It is absolutely a constitutional issue, and I can't think of any valid reason why the Court wouldn't simply unseal and examine the document(s).

No standing.


As I said, most of the cases that have been dismissed so far have been dismissed for standing. The plaintiff could not show that he was harmed by the situation. Now that Obama is president, that restriction is gone. This will go to the Supreme Court. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.


You misunderstand the standing part, apparently. Let me know about the wager.


Edited, Jun 11th 2009 8:58pm by Smasharoo

It all comes down to Occam's Razor: All other things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

You can either have a socialist liberal conspiracy stretching back almost 50 years to make a mixed race man from another country president as revenge against George Wallace or something retarded, with the permission of his white American mother (remember, he's an American citizen no matter where he was born since his mom was American.) This conspiracy involved officials from both Kenya and the US, from Kansas to Hawaii, in a vast cover up so staggering in scope that the KGB would have been proud to claim some part of it.

Or you can have a mixed race man born in Hawaii, where *gasp* his mother lived and his grandparents lived, that was elected because thankfully, 60% of the country does not have its heads up its collective asses and recognized a brilliant leader when it saw one.

I ask you this: Why would a 9 months pregnant woman fly from Hawaii, away from her parents, to give birth to the son of an ex-husband that abandoned her?

bookmarked.

Gbaji, you keep saying that the certificate he released isn't proof. Then to back yourself up you cite resources that indicate that in face it really is proof. good work there.

Edited, Jun 12th 2009 12:35am by Xsarus

I think it was more like '68 and was retroactively applied by Congress to anyone born prior.

Now I know why you relate to them so well

I actually have no idea what it's trying to say anymore, I was going by the Wiki cliff notes. Seems to imply that he would be a citizen as long as his mother lived here for 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14?

It doesn't particularly matter actually, he was born on American soil.

We should arrest everyone in Puerto Rico. They're loud, bold, and islanders so they must all be Islamic terrorists sent here in a plot to destroy us.

Source? :-P

From this entirely too-long thread, all we have is conspiracy theory conjecture along with a live birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii, and verified comments from the health director of Hawaii confirming it is his state of birth. And nothing to the contrary. Ever.

Either he is a natural born citizen and his qualified, or he isn't a natural born citizen and isn't qualified. There is no "technically."

Again, there is reason to assume he has had to prove citizenship in the past, and there is reason to assume he did so by showing his birth certificate. You and gbaji have yet to say why he isn't a citizen other than "Well he might not be so that's good enough!"