March on Washington to tell president to quit

[sirs]

The problem again is the Judicial system is designed to deal with
a conflict in the law, not to write new legislation.

And I think BOTH are present in this case and obviously you don't.

*snicker*   Obviously.  To me, the law has been made very clear.  You merely have to be a U.S. citizen.  The paperwork currently on file, which Ami has been demonstrating over and over again, makes that point moot.

I think Obama was not born in the US.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise.  That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law, perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their ancestry to the U.S.

[Amianthus]

It clearly states at the top of the document what it is.

I've asked this now three or four times: What part of the requirements published by the Department of State for proof of birth in the United States is missing from that document?

Don't bother to answer with anything (more diversions) that does not directly answer that question.

(And I know that a "Certification of Live Birth" is acceptable as a "birth certificate" for a passport - I've used three of them, myself, my wife, and my daughter, to get passports and none have been questioned by the Department of State.)

[Christians4LessGvt]

I've asked this now three or four times:

Well I've asked you 3 or 4 times why Obama will not call for the complete
release of his 1961 long form birth certificate......

But ok smartass....taking a line from you:

Don't bother to answer with anything (more diversions) that does not directly answer that question.

What part of the requirements published by the Department of State for proof of birth in the United States is missing from that document?

It's a moot point, that's why I never bothered to answer.
It's a moot point.....satisfied?
No you wont be satisfied because you don't like the answer.

It's a moot point as to what the State Dept accepts from Joe Blow citizen
getting a passport to travel to Cancun. In fact if the State Department
was made aware of some possible questionable circumstances involving
a passport request they could very well ask for more documents.

And I know that a "Certification of Live Birth" is acceptable as
a "birth certificate" for a passport

I never said it wasn't.
I said you were wrong when you stated it was a "Birth Certificate" and you are wrong.
Look at your own statement..."it is acceptable as a birth certificate for a passsport.
But it is not a birth certificate.

[Amianthus]

It's a moot point as to what the State Dept accepts from Joe Blow citizen
getting a passport to travel to Cancun.

The State Department determines the regulations for proof of birth in the US. Those regulations are posted above. It is NOT a moot point.

The document provided by Obama meets all requirements for proof of birth in the United States. Therefore, ACCORDING TO US LAW, he was born in the United States.

[Amianthus]

I said you were wrong when you stated it was a "Birth Certificate" and you are wrong.
Look at your own statement..."it is acceptable as a birth certificate for a passsport.
But it is not a birth certificate.

Some states use ONLY a certification of live birth.

So, I guess there is no such thing as a "birth certificate" in those states?

Guess I can't prove I was born in the United States - oops, New Jersey ONLY issues "Certification of Live Birth" and they're not "Birth Certificates".

God, you're an idiot. It's two different phrases for the same thing. Like "State Department" or "Department of State". Are you now going to argue that there are two different cabinet level departments, one called the "State Department" and the other called the "Department of State"?

[Christians4LessGvt]

To me, the law has been made very clear.

Well of course you think it is clear....but to others they think the
current President is in violation of the US Constitution.

That's what this is all about.

And those others have tried to find remedy to this violation
of the Constitution in the courts.

They have not been successful.

History is littered with failures to remedy an injustice.

As stated I think they probably wont be successful for the time being.

I don't lose any sleep over it.....I didn't bring this subject up.

You merely have to be a U.S. citizen. The paperwork currently on file,
which Ami has been demonstrating over and over again, makes that point moot.

And the paperwork said a slave was a slave.....courts now say a fetus can be aborted
Courts can change that.
Again....that's the point.....that's what this is all about.
So far Obama is winning.

Wishful thinking perhaps

Like I said "we'll see"

but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise

We don't know that.
What Ami is showing is not a birth certificate.
It is a "Certification of Live Birth".

That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law,
perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their
ancestry to the U.S.

Not really....I think a court needs to simply enforce the Constitution.
There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as stated.
It just in my opinion has been circumvented by political correctness.
But I would not oppose a proper legislative procedure that ensures
another non-US born President is elected again in the future.

[Christians4LessGvt]

God, you're an idiot.

No you're the idiot because Obama has BOTH.
In 1961 it was called a Birth Certificate.
That document exists.
And he refuses to release it?
Why?

[Christians4LessGvt]

The State Department determines the regulations for proof of birth in the US.
Those regulations are posted above. It is NOT a moot point.

Whether it's a moot point is for Courts to decide....

until now they usually don't decide anything in
this case except to say "weDontWannaTouchThis"

Fine....we'll see.

The document provided by Obama meets all requirements for proof of
birth in the United States. Therefore, ACCORDING TO US LAW, he was born
in the United States.

Well obviously he sits in the Oval Office in Feb 2010.
ACCORDING TO US LAW an African American was a slave.
Until others decided an African American was not a slave.

If the State Department is given a document that contains
falsehoods, but those falsehoods are not investigated,
then sure anyone can be shown as being born in the
United States.

[Amianthus]

No you're the idiot because Obama has BOTH.
In 1961 it was called a Birth Certificate.
That document exists.
And he refuses to release it?
Why?

Because the Hawaii Code forbids release of those documents other than as a notarized "Certification of Live Birth" - the originals are, by law, mandated to remain in the records room. Same as most other states.

[Amianthus]

If the State Department is given a document that contains
falsehoods, but those falsehoods are not investigated,
then sure anyone can be shown as being born in the
United States.

So, now you're saying the Registrar in Hawaii committed fraud by notarizing a document he knew is false?

You might need to adjust your tin foil hat there...

[sirs]

Registrar also being quite psychic in knowing this newborn was destined to be the "illegitimate" President of the United States, thus facilitating their fraud

[Amianthus]

I mean, it's pretty simple.

The US Constitution mandates that only a "natural born citizen" can be President; and this has been held to mean someone born in the US or one of it's territories. However, the Constitution does not provide a means of proving this.

So, we go down to the next level, which would be the US Code. In the US Code, the authority to determine US Citizenship is delegated to the Department of State. The Department of State has published, within the Code of Federal Regulations, a list of what pieces of information need to be on a document from a state registrar to prove birth within that state.

The document supplied by Obama meets all of these requirements. Therefore, according to current US law, Obama has met the requirement for proving he is a "natural born citizen." The document can have any title in the world on it - it could be titled "Ibitty Bibity Boo" instead of "Birth Certificate" and would be sufficient to prove his birth in Hawaii, since it has all the correct information and is notarized.

The only step at this point would be to somehow show that the notary committed fraud - which would be a long shot, and pretty hard to prove. Especially since there at least *three* notarized statements from different people to the effect that the first document is accurate. So, now you have to prove collusion between all four notaries.

[sirs]

To me, the law has been made very clear.

Well of course you think it is clear....but to others they think the current President is in violation of the US Constitution.

Well, it wouldn't be bcause the law is ambiguous.  It'd be based on "other things".  He has provided a certified copy of his Birth Certificate.  The law has been adhered to.  He is a Citizen of the U.S.  Those are the FACTS.

You want the law changed, by all means, lobby your congress critters.  and please, you can dispense with the slavery analogy.  Obama isn't a slave, nor is he trying to impose anything that remotely comes close.  It was bad law then, and had been properly dealt with.  I'm still wating for this demonstration of how current law that one be a citizen of the U.S. is as bad as slavery.

but the certified copy of his Birth certificate says otherwise

We don't know that.  What Ami is showing is not a birth certificate.  It is a "Certification of Live Birth".

We do, actually.  I say potato, you say potaato.  They're interchangable, as far as the State Dept is concerned.  And it's the State Dept that recognizes citizenship

 

That's why you're going to have to have legislators change the existing law,
perhaps in order to require that a POTUS also demonstrate proof of their
ancestry to the U.S.

Not really....I think a court needs to simply enforce the Constitution.

There's no need to "enforce" anything that's already being adhered to.  So yea, you're going to have to go to your legislators.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as stated.

You're right....hoooraaaaa

It just in my opinion has been circumvented by political correctness.

Your opinion is duely noted

[sirs]

The US Constitution mandates that only a "natural born citizen" can be President; and this has been held to mean someone born in the US or one of it's territories. However, the Constitution does not provide a means of proving this.

So, we go down to the next level, which would be the US Code.
- In the US Code, the authority to determine US Citizenship is delegated to the Department of State.
- The Department of State has published, within the Code of Federal Regulations, a list of what pieces of information need to be on a document from a state registrar to prove birth within that state.

The document supplied by Obama meets all of these requirements. Therefore, according to current US law, Obama has met the requirement for proving he is a "natural born citizen." The document can have any title in the world on it - it could be titled "Ibitty Bibity Boo" instead of "Birth Certificate" and would be sufficient to prove his birth in Hawaii, since it has all the correct information and is notarized.

Apparently, Cu4 has a problem with this set of laws governing who can or can't be the POTUS, that its akin to slavery

So, what would Cu4 like congress to change in the above set of mandated legal requirements, to be eligible for President of the United States??

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Because the Hawaii Code forbids release of those documents other than as a notarized
"Certification of Live Birth" - the originals are, by law, mandated to remain in the records
room. Same as most other states"

It forbids release to the public.
They wont release it to you, me, or Katie Couric.
But the Obama could get a certified copy of his own birth certificate.