8 thoughts on “Eligibility Update: Updated Obama Facts, Apartment Mystery, Taitz and CA SoS”

  1. As I’ve said many, many times before, there is no law in existence that determines (1) how to enforce presidential eligibility

    There aren’t laws for many situations. And? Candidate challenges have routinely been handled by the courts; there’s an existing body of law. (And with respect to the presidency, there are other safeguards, i.e., the Electoral College and Congress.)

    (2) to what extent any documentation is required to make such a determination.

    That’s a simple evidentiary question. In Obama’s case, all the law requires is proof of birth in United States, and there are many methods to prove that, with a birth certificate being the most obvious.

    This is also why I think that presidential eligibility is a 10th Amendment issue as well

    Again, your non-expert opinion is in the distinct minority. (But no one is preventing you from holding or expressing your opinions.)

    the Constitution spells out who is eligible but never goes about discussing what (definition) that is nor how to enforce.

    The Constitution is vague on lots of things; that’s why the courts exist (and have given sufficient guidance thus far).

    Well, as I’ve just stated in the above paragraph, since there is no legal basis for presidential eligibility enforcement, how could you honestly say that my opinion would have any legal support?

    Because enforcement is possible: pre-election challenges are handled by the courts, and, as the courts have made clear, Congress alone has the power to remove a sitting president.

    My opinion has no support legally because there is no existing law that would provide said legal support!

    Exactly; you are making legal assertions that have no basis in existing law, and ignoring the law that does exist.

  2. And even if the images are legite, no independent third party with actual document analysis credentials has ever actually inspected the physical piece of paper.

    Here’s something even better: The State of Hawaii’s index data regarding Obama.

    Secondly, you’ll have no argument with me that a certification of live birth is acceptable by the State Department and other entities for the purposes of identification outside of presidential eligibility.

    Funny how there’s no law, rule, statute, or case saying eligibility issues are subjected to heightened evidentiary standards.

    Also remember that FactCheck.org has already admitted that Mr. Obama was a British subject at birth — that alone is a disqualifier in my view for someone to be President.

    And your non-expert opinion is in the distinct minority (and without legal support).

    1. bob,

      As I’ve said many, many times before, there is no law in existence that determines (1) how to enforce presidential eligibility nor (2) to what extent any documentation is required to make such a determination. This is also why I think that presidential eligibility is a 10th Amendment issue as well; the Constitution spells out who is eligible but never goes about discussing what (definition) that is nor how to enforce.

      Regarding my opinion, of course it “is in the distinct minority;” that was never a question, yet it also does not diminish in any way my right to hold an opinion.

      Secondly, when you say “(and without legal support),” you’re actually being intellectually disingenuous. How? Well, as I’ve just stated in the above paragraph, since there is no legal basis for presidential eligibility enforcement, how could you honestly say that my opinion would have any legal support?

      To me, that is recursively circular reasoning. My opinion has no support legally because there is no existing law that would provide said legal support!

      Nice.

      10th Amendment is the way out.

      -Phil

  3. Obama has proven his birth in Hawaii by showing the OFFICIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF HAWAII. He has shown his birth certificate. He posted it and showed the physical copies of the document to both Politifact and FactCheck.

    The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and it is the only one that Hawaii issues, and Hawaii no longer issues the original birth certificate even when someone asks for his own original birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military, and in Obama’s case the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

    In addition, there is this witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 and writing home to her father about it (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts).

    Also, we have transcripts of the grandmother interview in which the Kenyan grandmother says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii, and in a separate interview she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of the birth was in a letter received from Hawaii many months after the birth.

    ALL US citizens born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. The citizenship of a parent has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a citizen born in the USA.

    1. BlueOhio,

      Welcome to the site.

      Of course, when you say that “he” has shown his birth certificate and posted it on various third-party sites and blogs, I suppose you’re referencing Mr. Obama? In reality, all that we’ve seen are images of documents posted by other people that could just as easily have been Photoshopped for all anyone knows. And even if the images are legite, no independent third party with actual document analysis credentials has ever actually inspected the physical piece of paper.

      Secondly, you’ll have no argument with me that a certification of live birth is acceptable by the State Department and other entities for the purposes of identification outside of presidential eligibility. After all, we’re not talking about getting a driver’s license here.

      Also remember that FactCheck.org has already admitted that Mr. Obama was a British subject at birth — that alone is a disqualifier in my view for someone to be President.

      If you wish, I’ll give you the last word.

      Thanks for the comment,

      -Phil

  4. And don’t forget to visit Dr. Orly Taitz’ web site (virus-free) where she has posted a number of postings where she is garnering a fair amount of support in her run for California’s Secretary of State job.

    If by “fair amount,” you mean losing nearly 3:1, sure.

Comments are closed.