piss on the cowards on the us supreme court  

So they think it would be better to have it come out after he's been sworn in?

I'm not saying he isn't eligible, I don't know. But it may cause riots if it turns out he is ineligible before he takes the oath of office, if we are forced to endure what would happen if he is proven ineligible after he takes office, it will rip apart this country.

We haven't been this close to civil war since the civil war.

Actually, I think he is eligible.. but I can't say I know for sure and if you are honest, neither can you!

I don't want the US Supreme court to take the case to overturn the election, if he is eligble, then he won and should be sworn in without question.

On the other hand, there is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

Why is it up to anyone but Obama to prove his eligibility... but he is so arrogant, he refuses to do so. He thinks that responsibility lies with everyone BUT him!

I don't want the court to be used as a weapon instead of a course for justice. I want the cowardly oafs to do the jobs they swore an oath to do.

They all swore that they would uphold and defend the US Constitution. If Obama isn't eligible, they should have the integrity to take the case and investivate the facts. If they lead to him being eligible, then so be it... but if they don't and he goes on to be the president of the United States anyway, we are headed for a Constitutional Crisis and possibly a civil war.

If he is later found to be ineligible, every decision he made will be null and void. Every treaty he negotiated would be worthless. Every military order he gave would be of no more value than if you or I made it.

There would be no sitting commander in chief. All the bills he signed into law would be worthless. All the decisions made by any of his appointees would be null and void.

Furthermore, what would it do to us as a society if part of the population wants to just ignore the Constitutional requirement and let him continue but the other part of the population demands the Constitution be respected and upheld?

This is no small matter. In fact, very few (if any) of the cases the Supreme Court will take carry as much weight as this.

A hint of legitimacy means reason for investigation.

You tell me that there is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation. So produce even a little shred. You have yet to do so. This isn't a case of all bark and no bite. This is a case of all squeal and no bark.

Well, it should be on Obama to prove his eligibility to run for President, just like it is on each of us to prove our eligibility for anything, but here is the evidence that warrants and investigation. Granted, none of this is proof of anything, but no evidence that warrants an investigation ever is... that's why there is an investigation.

~Obama has never produced his birth certificate or proof of legal residence.
~There is evidence that his mother did not have the residency requirements for Obama to be considered a US citizen.
~There is evidence that his step father adopted him, he was registered at school in Indonesia as "Barry Seoto", so there is question about his legal name (which would be required on all official documents).
~There is evidence that his mother and adoptive father gained citizenship for him in Indonesia, which would require his US citizenship to be revoked (if he ever had it in the first place).
~His grandmother has stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. (which wouldn't make him not a citizen, but Obama says that he was born in Hawaii).
~According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter. Obama filed a motion to dismiss, but never answered the charges, which means he admits to the charges.

There, that's most of them. Like I said, in fairness, none of these are proof that Obama isn't eligible, and I'm inclinded to believe he is, however, there is more than enough here to cause doubt.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

What you don't seem to get is that Obama did provide the necessary documentation to prove he was eligible to hold office.
It is now incumbent upon you to provide actual evidence of which you speak. You have failed to do so at every turn. You might as well link to one of your other posts as evidence....
'Duh'er...see? That guy says so! So there!'
That has been the total of your argument thus far.
You want the Supreme Court to hear some unwarranted case which has been denied by every court on every level. And by denied, I don't mean they heard the case then ruled against it. I mean they refused to waste their tie with the complete stupidity that was the waste of our tax dollars. If it doesn't burn your sense of wasteful spending throught the floor, then you have no right to even pretend to be worried about that aspect of politics. You've proven that you don't care for the Constitution or the laws that are passed under the umbrella of it's governance. So what in the world do you believe in?

When? The state of Hawaii never was asked by him to release his birth certificate, in fact he refuses to allow it.

Tell me when he proved any of this to anyone?

He's an Indonesian citizen.
Turn of ya TV. It's frying your ability to think logically.

Ten minutes on Google will find you his Hawaiian birth certificate, the one he has "refused to allow to be released". If right-wing radicals choose to accuse Obama of fraud, it is their responsibility to prove that he is guilty. This concept of presumption of innocence is a basic principle of our justice system and comes from the even older established tradition of English Common Law.

I think this is ridiculous. They would have checked all this out when he first applied to stand for election. Do you honestly think that if they could have refused his nomination they would not have done so.

He does not have to prove this in a court of law as he proved it to the electoral people in order to nominate. I find it absurd that you are still doubting him just because he will not show you his birth certificate.

I mean knowing the history of the US and black people you don't think that this is slightly racist? How many candidates were asked to show the birth certificates in court? Just one, the black one. I think it is terribly racist.

If I was in his place I would not show it either. It is an insult to suggest that just because he is black that he is not really an American.

The uncertified copy of his birth certificate you refer to wouldn't get him back in the country after a visit to Canada. The only evidence needed is that he was elected and must show eligibility in order to hold office. While no one has the authority to question him in regard to the presidency until the official election by the electoral college, he is required to have been a citizen for at least 9 years in order to be a senator and the court, the congress, the senate, the president and the state government of Illinois all have the right and responsibility under the constitution, to verify his citizenship. None of them has done so. His birth certificate doesn't really matter unless his mother wasn't a citizen at the time. As long as she was he could have been born on mars and still be a citizen. The question is why he won't prove the most basic qualification for become president. The only qualifications required by the constitution. Natural born citizen at least 35 years old. I can get a certified copy of my birth certificate in under 30 minutes at the city court house for less than $5. What is the problem here?

I agree with you completely, but you said it much better than I could. I think he most likely is eligible and I certainly hope that he is, but it is troubling that nobody will decisively and officially resolve the matter once and for all and put it to rest. Most of us possess our own official birth certificates, so it isn't hard to produce when we need a passport or marriage license, if you have lost your BC all you have to do is go to the town register where you were born and pay like five bucks and they issue you a new one after you've proven your identity. Why can't Obama do that just to shut everyone up already? It shouldn't be a big deal to do so.

In fairness to the Supreme Court, this case would not have answered all the questions once and for all. This case was about his citizenship as it applies to whether or not it was revoked in favor of citizenship in Indonedia. The court couldn't rightfully go beyond the facts in evidence for that case alone.

It revolves around whether those with dual citizenship at birth are natural born citizens. Period. Even the guy who filed the case says so. According to Donofrio, Obama is not eligible because he was a British citizen at birth because his father was a British citizen. Since there is not a thing in the Constitution or in the law that says or implies that, ruling on it would involve making new law - and that's not the function of the Supreme Court. I'm speculating, since no one on the Court chose to write on the ruling. I also speculate that all those people who scream about the Supreme Court making new law instead of interpreting current law wouldn't raise a ruckus about it in this case.

I personally would like to see it addressed by the legislature, since current law actually holds that any person born on US soil is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

I'm not clear on the rules governing British citizenship. I would think that the parents need to petition the authorities for proper identification when a child is born outside their country to mixed citizens. What is clear is the US laws governing the situation. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

No, it isn't "a citizen is a citizen is a citizen". If Obama's parents had his US citizenship revoked, he is no longer a citizen. If Obama's step father did adopt him and his name was legally changed to Soeto then he may be a citizen but he cannot sign Obama on official documents. If his mother did not meet the residency requirements according to US law at the time, then Obama isn't a citizen.

Personally, I hope he is a citizen and completely eligible to be president, mostly because I would hate for our country to have to endure the fallout if he isn't.

The citizenship status of Obama's parents is irrelevant. He is a natural born citizen if born on American soil. Anyone born on US soil (or in a US embassy) is a citizen regardless of their parents' citizenship.

Spalladino, this is from Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act governing the ability to renounce US citizenship - this is section F, applying to renouncing citizenship of minor children:

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship. United States common law establishes an arbitrary limit of age fourteen under which a child’s understanding must be established by substantial evidence.

Oh, right - I posted the fact without attributing it in at least one other discussion on this subject today, so chances are good that I'm the fairy tale that oregonsprings was quoting .

And just to toss another monkey wrinkle into this whole mess, here's another fact. John McCain was constitutionally ineligible to take the presidency. The law that would have defined as a natural born citizenship the child of US military parents stationed in Panama wasn't passed until a year after he was born, and it was not retroactive. A technicality - but so is the fact that Obama's mother was four months short of her 19th birthday at the time of his birth, which would make him ineligible for the presidency IF he was not born in Hawaii (I dug deeper yesterday after posting that two years would have been sufficient residency - it was changed in 1986. Before 1986, his mother would have had to reside in the US for 5 years after her 14th birthday). The reaction of the legislature to that news was to pass an emergency resolution stating that McCain is, in fact, a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. So... McCain not eligible by a year - they pass a unanimous resolution. What do you think they'd do if everyone concerned is lying about Obama's birth certificate and he's not eligible because his mother wasn't four months older?

Obama could legally be adopted yet still keep his original last time for whatever reason they chose to do that. The last name really means nothing at all...the legal documents do. I am a single parent and if a man I was involved with adopted my child...i'd leave her name the same...it's what she is used to. Also, if his mother was a citizen of the U.S. which I believe she was at the time of his birth then he is a citizen regardless of who is dad is or where he was born. She was not married to his father so he automatically is a us citizen i believe.

where he was born has yet to be shown but means nothing if the parent was a citizen at the time. As to dual citizenship -- to my knowledge the US has never allowed dual citizenship for any country but Britain. Dual citizenship as American and British shouldn't be a problem.
Wait, His Dad was from Africa and his mom was from the US. Neither was a British citizen natural or otherwise. How could the future ruler of the US get British citizenship?

I'm sure a lot of what I said was unprintable. :~D

Are there conservatives here?
I have yet to see one. But I've been playing with the whackos on this subject alone. If they are to be deemed conservative, then Reagan was a flaming liberal who was twice as smart as Einstein.

By MY definition of "conservative" there are a huge number of them here, I would say a pretty big majority of the myLot members who participate in political discussions.
Annie

Hey, new kid on the block...you've been here for all of 4 days and you believe that you can judge the folks who post on this board and assign trollness based on whether or not someone agrees with you?

Before you leap, Grasshopper, I used to consider myself a conservative but have recently realized that I'm more of a moderate. I'm still registered as a Republican but I voted for Obama, am Pro-Choice, want our troops brought home responsibly, support not only the death penalty but would like more states to create a fast lane *and* am open minded enough to appreciate the other side of just about any argument.

ParaTed is far from a troll and is well respected by most of the posters here *because* his mind is not closed and his views do not run according to the strict party line. Those of us who post here regularly have been doing so for quite some time and, while we may have disagreed on many issues during this presidential campaign, we have for the most part, done so in a rational manner without resorting to personal insults. You might want to give that a try.

I wanted to add my two cents about Ted. He's as far from a troll as one can be. He and I disagree on a lot of political issues but we can do so respectfully and still be friends. For someone who's new here it's wise to learn from the start that you can express your opinion but we really can all get along here despite our different views.
Annie

Thank you both for your kind words, I do feel the same about you both.

maybe you should read the constitution where it discusses the electoral college. Until they vote he is not the president elect which is why no one has the authority to investigate him on the basis of qualification for the office of President of the United States.
Funny thing about due process. We can't do much until there is a crime and until an unqualified candidate is elected we can't disqualify him. That's why we routinely have convicted felons running for president from their prison cells even though their position disqualifies them for the job.

There is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation. An investigation that needs to take place before he is sworn in and preferably before the Electoral College meets later this month.

Here is a site that lists the evidence. In fairness, none of this is proof, but you don't need proof to warrant an investigation, that is what investigations are for.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Let me add that I think he is eligible to be president, but as I said, there is enough evidence to warrant a further look.

With all the space in the margins you would think Mr. Berg could sell some ads. Maybe the 'UFO's LAND HERE' people could put up a link. Or maybe actual extra-terrestrials could post ads with links to their so-called 'friendly' manifestos for humankind. I'm really surprised there's no mention of Bilderbergers or the Pinay Circle.
At the very least, producers of tinfoil could offer their wares. So much lost opportunity....Such a pity.

oregon, your new here and I realize that you are very passionate about this topic but you are getting way too worked up. Parated is a very respected member here and it is ok to disagree & debate but it really isn't ok to continue to question his intelligence. I, personally, think he is wrong on this issue but the truth is do any of us know for sure?

oregon, at first I wasn't sure what to make of you, so I said nothing. However, it has become abundantly clear that YOU are a classic troll. You have nothing positive to add, argue only in insults, have nothing intelligent to contribute and do nothing more than troll through threads and tear people down when their opinions digress even one iota from yours.

Let us not forget that there was never a shred of evidence and there still is not a shred of evidence to back the charge that Reagan made a deal with Iran to hold the hostages until he was elected in exchange for weapons and money. Despite this total lack of evidence the "seriousness of the charges" resulted in a 14+year investigation costing billions of taxpayer dollars. Is it really asking so much that the presumptive future president provide documentation that would be acceptable to the DMV?

That is yet another piece of evidence that the Supreme Court is a gaggle of incompetent cowards.

Yes, I am still silly enough to expect competence from the Supreme Court. Mind you, there are a few "justices" I don't expect competence from... Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg being one of them... but as a body I do demand that they uphold and defend the US Constitution... even when I don't happen to like their ruling... which contrary to popular belief here at Mylot, there are examples of that too.

May I fill in some details for all that are still whining
because a Republican didn't get in?
Once, Bush had Homeland Security put into action, every
person involved with the legal system can be checked out
to the MAX.
Don't be silly, Obama would NOT be where he is now, if he
wasn't legally qualified to be there.

Then why doesn't he allow his birth certificate to be released?

You act like the Dept of Homeland Security has put an end to all corruption in the government.

They did the background checks, the checks raised the questions, the questions haven't been answered and it's easy to see why your rating is so low

Sorry, I don't see a silver lining in a situation that would almost be sure to cause civil war.

I think your making a mountain out of a molehill, ParaTed. I'd expect rioting, yes - and incessant complaints about how whitey is still trying to keep the black man down. Civil war sounds very far fetched, though.

"Civil war sounds very far fetched, though."
It really isn't as far fetched as you might think. While we aren't on the brink, we are probably close than we have been in about a century and a half. It wouldn't take much to spark it.

Latriva, that is how many of his supporters would react. However, you have to remember that if Obama isn't eligible, those of us who appose him will rightfully call for his arrest along with everyone who was involved in the conspiracy. Watergate be nothing in comparisan to what would happen with this kind of scandal.


There would be no Constitutional reason why any US Servicemember should have to obey his orders, no constitutional authority for the Secret Service to continue protecting him. No bill he passed into law would be valid, no treaty negotiated by him would have to be recognized. No decision by himself, or anyone he appointed would have any legal backing whatsoever.

It wouldn't just be riots, it would be full scale war. The Civil War back in the 1860s was fought for far smaller reasons.

repeat after me class: "TOO BIG TO FAIL"

If Obama is found ineligible before the electoral college meets the college must elect the guy with the next highest vote count. There will be 4 years of "McCain stole the election" then right minded republicans will replace him. After the electoral college meets we have an elected president. Even if we prove him ineligible it is a situation the founders didn't consider. They set rules for illegibility and assumed they would be followed. Having someone who isn't qualified get elected would be a true constitutional crises and at that point, even constitution loving patriots might be inclined to cover the whole thing up in order to avoid the problems it causes. There is literally no precedent for such an occurance and no law, rule or procedure to deal with it.