Senator questions Obama eligibility

[BloodEclipse]

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Shelby: 'They said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate'[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: February 22, 2009[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6:50 pm Eastern[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]© 2009 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.
WASHINGTON – A U.S. senator has weighed in on the continuing controversy over Barack Obama's eligibility for office by saying he has never seen proof the new president was actually born in Hawaii.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 250,000 others and sign up now!
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.


Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
• Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
• In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?

While I welcome this, I just wonder why didn't Shelby and others with a voice didn't come out before the election? What would happen to the things he has signed illegally? Would the stimulus money have to go back to the government? What a freaking mess. I will be surprised if anything comes of this but if it does WOW!

 

[Plague421]

I want to know where he was born as well.

I don't think he or anybody else should have EVER been sworn into office without providing any and all proper documentation. The president of the U.S. is a job, just like any other job you have requirements. I don't think McDonald's will even hire you if you check "NO" next to "Can you prove you are eligible to work in the U.S.A.?".

 

[HICKMAN]

Been looking for an answer to this question for more than a year. Still curious as to what records Kenya felt they had to seal as well.

 

[CulpeperMM]

the O-man is a usurper, and the entire political machine (including the media) is complicit. That includes Luger, Souder, and all our Republican elected officials. I personally wrote them about the Obama sham. they ignored me, didn't even respond. They did not say a word during the proceedings of confirming the electoral college. They are in contempt of our Constitution that they swore to uphold.

 

[dross]

I've followed a pretty detailed analysis of this issue, and it ain't the answer for us. I, too have my suspicions, but here's why it won't come to anything. The Dems are in charge. Even if it were proven right now that Obama was born outside the country, public opinion would be with him, as most people don't even know of the requirement, and would think of it as a technicality if they did. The only remedy for this is impeachment, which will not happen in a Democrat controlled house. Our only hope for this issue was the media making it an issue during the campaign, which of course they would have had Obama been a Republican. BTW, John Kerry still hasn't released his medical records, which would have DQ'd him politically early on.

This one ain't gonna happen.

 

[SavageEagle]

I've followed a pretty detailed analysis of this issue, and it ain't the answer for us. I, too have my suspicions, but here's why it won't come to anything. The Dems are in charge. Even if it were proven right now that Obama was born outside the country, public opinion would be with him, as most people don't even know of the requirement, and would think of it as a technicality if they did. The only remedy for this is impeachment, which will not happen in a Democrat controlled house. Our only hope for this issue was the media making it an issue during the campaign, which of course they would have had Obama been a Republican. BTW, John Kerry still hasn't released his medical records, which would have DQ'd him politically early on.

This one ain't gonna happen.

As highlighted above, this is not the problem. The Supreme Court could bring about impeachment. No, the problem is that he could have records changed/added to a Hospital in Hawaii and poof! automatic citizenship. We all know that the White House, Secret Service, and other agencies have in the past changed records, made cover-ups, etc. all at the request of the President or indirectly from one of his consipiritors.

Look, this isn't tinfoil hat talk either. We all know this is a GREAT possibility. The Kenyan Gooberment won't neither be forced nor voluntarily open up any records stating he was born there because obamatard being President is most likely seen as a great victory, or something to that effect, for them. Now that obamatard is Prez, this will be swept under the rug.

Popluar opinion means nothing if he's not Natural Born. It's against the Constitution and only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

 

[dross]

As highlighted above, this is not the problem. The Supreme Court could bring about impeachment.

Popluar opinion means nothing if he's not Natural Born. It's against the Constitution and only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with impeachment. They can do nothing about this issue - no way to enforce. Yes, it's the Constitution, but the problem is the remedy. The only remedy is impeachment. The Dems control Congress so the only motivation they have for impeachment is if they will suffer from public opinion. That's why public opinion is important.

 

[SavageEagle]

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with impeachment. They can do nothing about this issue - no way to enforce. Yes, it's the Constitution, but the problem is the remedy. The only remedy is impeachment. The Dems control Congress so the only motivation they have for impeachment is if they will suffer from public opinion. That's why public opinion is important.

I agree that impeachment is the only remedy. But the SCOTUS CAN bring about Impeachment! It's already bring tried. Failed twice(?). If the people petition it to be so, they can petition the SC to have obamatard show proof. If he refuses or cannot, he becomes eligible for impeachment and the Congress MUST move forward. If there is no proof that he's Natural Born they MUST impeach him. Otherwise we can have those Congressmen/women impeached for not upholding the Constitution.

When Congress fails in their job, our only legal recourse is through SCOTUS. Period.

 

[dross]

I agree that impeachment is the only remedy. But the SCOTUS CAN bring about Impeachment! It's already bring tried. Failed twice(?). If the people petition it to be so, they can petition the SC to have obamatard show proof. If he refuses or cannot, he becomes eligible for impeachment and the Congress MUST move forward. If there is no proof that he's Natural Born they MUST impeach him. Otherwise we can have those Congressmen/women impeached for not upholding the Constitution.

When Congress fails in their job, our only legal recourse is through SCOTUS. Period.

Can you reference this information? My reading of this is different than yours. The only role the Supreme Court has in impeachment is to preside over the trial in the Senate, which occurs after a president has already been impeached. My understanding is that impeachment is soley a legislative prerogative.

 

[HICKMAN]

or elect a new Congress

 

[INRanger]

Impeachment? That would be HILARIOUS! Actually It will never happen, but one can dream.

 

[CarmelHP]

If you have a copy of the Constitution, you better read it again. That's not how it works.

I agree that impeachment is the only remedy. But the SCOTUS CAN bring about Impeachment! It's already bring tried. Failed twice(?). If the people petition it to be so, they can petition the SC to have obamatard show proof. If he refuses or cannot, he becomes eligible for impeachment and the Congress MUST move forward. If there is no proof that he's Natural Born they MUST impeach him. Otherwise we can have those Congressmen/women impeached for not upholding the Constitution.

When Congress fails in their job, our only legal recourse is through SCOTUS. Period.

 

[dross]

or elect a new Congress

I hate to sound cynical, but I'm terribly afraid that most people just don't hold the Constitution in the regard most people here do. The concept of the "living" Constitution has been force fed in schools to the point where I'm afraid that much of the population would say, "What's the big deal?" and the press would claim that the people who supported the Constitution were just playing politics.

Look at the Clinton impeachment. Clearly, the man should have been impeached, even by the standards of his own administration, which had impeached and even criminally convicted officers who "lied about sex." But this man perjured himself. He was declared unfit to practice law, yet he was fit to be President? My faith in peoples fidelity to the Constitution is shaky.

 

[SavageEagle]

If you have a copy of the Constitution, you better read it again. That's not how it works.

Article III, Section 2, snippet of first Paragraph:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Minister and Consuls....

Article III, Section 2, Last Paragraph:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Cases of Impeachment require no Jury. SCOTUS is not, has not a, Jury.


I would say the Constitution clearly states that the Impeachment would be held under SCOTUS jurisdiction. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution it says otherwise. I mean I'm pretty sure I'm reading that right, but I could be wrong. Reading the rest of the first Paragraph of Section 2 leads me to believe that the citizens can bring up a case between them and one, more than one, all states, or the Government as a whole and those who represent us.

If I'm wrong please point out where it says I am.

 

[CarmelHP]

Art. 1, cl. 5:The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Art. 1, cl. 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The only role the Supreme Court has in Impeachments is that the CJ presides as a trial judge during Presidential impeachments.

Cases of Impeachment require no Jury. SCOTUS is not, has not a, Jury.


I would say the Constitution clearly states that the Impeachment would be held under SCOTUS jurisdiction. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution it says otherwise. I mean I'm pretty sure I'm reading that right, but I could be wrong. Reading the rest of the first Paragraph of Section 2 leads me to believe that the citizens can bring up a case between them and one, more than one, all states, or the Government as a whole and those who represent us.

If I'm wrong please point out where it says I am.

 

[SavageEagle]

Art. 1, cl. 5:The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Art. 1, cl. 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The only role the Supreme Court has in Impeachments is that the CJ presides as a trial judge during Presidential impeachments.

Ok, I stand corrected. Thank you.

So who then decides to impeachment the President? Can the people not bring about impeachment through the SC? Also, if our entire Congress fails the people, can we not petition to have them all thrown out and have special elections? Surely this is possible since our entire Gooberment is neglecting its duties to follow the wishes of the people. Especially since they passed bailouts the majority of Americans were against and protesting....

Waiting 2-4 years to throw these guys out of office will not work if the elections are rigged in the first place.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Waiting 2-4 years to throw these guys out of office will not work if the elections are rigged in the first place.

You think the government will be sending us our own

?
We are just in the first stages of the take control forever plan.

 

[dross]

Ok, I stand corrected. Thank you.

So who then decides to impeachment the President? Can the people not bring about impeachment through the SC? Also, if our entire Congress fails the people, can we not petition to have them all thrown out and have special elections? Surely this is possible since our entire Gooberment is neglecting its duties to follow the wishes of the people. Especially since they passed bailouts the majority of Americans were against and protesting....

Waiting 2-4 years to throw these guys out of office will not work if the elections are rigged in the first place.

That's the thing - it's entirely up to the House to impeach or not. The recourse for us is to vote them out the next time they're up for election. No special elections, who would schedule them? That would take an amendment anyway.

This is the point of elections. We are supposed to elect people who will follow the Constitution. When they don't, we can vote them out. That's how the system works.

That's why I started my comments in this thread saying I don't think in the current climate that he would be removed even if evidence came forward that he wasn't born on U.S. soil.

This is why elections are so important. It's why the gerrymandering in the House districts is so counter to our representation. Most House seats are not even a question - they'll go strong in one party or the other. Some really nasty stuff is about to happen with the 2010 census, and the redistricting to follow. The Dems play hardball, and the Republicans play softball, and it's costing us now.

 

[oldschoolmuscle]

so what exactly happens if its proven he isnt a us born citizen?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

The question is not so much WHERE he was born...

The question is "What were the status of his parents at the time he was born".

If I would've been born in a Berlin hospital, I'd still be a US Citizen fair-and-square because my parents (mother, especially) were of legal age and themselves US Citizens.

The "catch" that keeps hanging ME up about his birth is, if it DID happen in another country, wasn't his mother ineligible due to her age...she was under 18 at his birth, IIRC.

I can't recall the ins and outs, but I KNOW that I've read something to the effect that a person born outside the US can be considered a US Citizen provided that the birth mother was 18 at the time.

Keep in mind that John McCain was NOT born in the United States, either. He was born on a military base in Panama.

-J-