Isn't that the primary he didn't apply for until after the deadline?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Kansas to try to take Obama off of the ballot
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
Yes at least one of them perry as well
So, if Obama didn't apply until after the deadline, then it makes sense to take him off of the ballot.
i dont recall if the dems had a primary as bo is generally unopposed but he would have to qualify for nov which im dure was completed.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
I am not wondering ....
I believe the evidence or even lack there of makes this situation crystal clear!
Yes. Crystal clear that the birthers are just grasping at straws.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Not exactly a rebuttal there PLC1.
The facts remain that the evidence on Obama's fraudulent birth certificate has never been allowed to be presented is in no way "grasping at straws".
Dozens of lawsuits had been filed challenging Obama's eligibility in states including North Carolina,Ohio,Pennsylvania,Hawaii,Connecticut,New Jersey, Texas and Washington.
When Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi was going to allow the evidence to be presented in the birther case in Georgia back in January, Obama's attorneys stated they did not recognize the "state" level court and boycotted the the court. By not showing for the hearing, Obama was essentially in contempt.
The case was eventually thrown out, like the rest on a technicality. The evidence against Obama was never presented. The Alantic-Journal Constitution originally carried this story but, of course it has now been removed form their website.
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Everyone wants to turn the "birthers' into the bad guys for questioning the obvious. Either he's qualified or he's not. Why didn't he even try to clear up the mess instead of spending millions of dollars not to? Doesn't really make any sense does it?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Clearly something would have come out that would have been used against him. The only thing we don't know is what that something was. It might not have been at all related to his birthplace. It might even have been the general rule that all candidates use, even Romney right now with his extra tax returns, "never give up what you can avoid because you never know how it is going to be spun."
Then again the consequences of a sitting president being found to not be a citizen could be perceived to be so grave that officials on both sides of the aisle might even be willing to engage in a cover up. Seems far fetched but it is an honest theory.
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
That sounds logical to me. But what everyone seems to be missing, in this case anyway, is that this particular complaint wasn't saying that Obama wasn't born in this country. What it was addressing was that his father wasn't an American citizen, he was a British subject, and according to some who read the constitutional requirements to run for president, interpret it to say Obama isn't qualified on those grounds.
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; .....
The problem with the above, is that it does not clarify what a natural born citizen is, and there are arguments on both sides of what prior Supreme Court rulings have said in the past. It's a lot legal jumbo, and there really needs to be an unambiguous ruling made on this issue. There are a lot of other people in power today whoes parents were not born in this country, who very well might run for President some day. The left has already brought up Mark Rubio's citizenship status, when it was thought he might be picked for VP.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I believe each state makes its own determination on that. In Hawaii at the time either the mother or the father had to be citizens and meet certain age requirements. I looked at it a few years ago. It was complicated but if he were born in Hawaii he probably is a natural born citizen.
My personal take is that his father was long gone and not a citizen. his mother was probably a citizen of age but it is just possible that he was visiting relatives at the time of his birth. Even if that visit was just at an island a few miles away but not part of Hawaii he would not be a citizen. And if that did occur it would be easy peasy for his mother, wanting him to have the benefits of citizenship, to return to Hawaii, and request a birth certificate for her newborn (common then when most children were born at home) and the hospital would record it just like his birth certificate says. All I am saying is this is possible and should be looked at.
Beyond that what does not get talked about very often is the reason for the natural born requirement. Could it be that president who spend much of their younger and formative years in another country just might not be very loyal to the American way?
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Considering Obama's attitude towards America and his policies .... I would say that was spot on!
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Consider this ....
Despite the fact that Obama's birth certificate is alleged to be fraudulent, and in all cases has been thrown out of court each time on a technicality before the plaintiffs were able to present this evidence, lets look at what the law says about a natural born citizen.
You can read through all the rule changes below if you want but, the part pertaining to Obama is the last paragraph.
Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the U.S. (with the minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel). This is perhaps the only simple rule of U.S. citizenship.
Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934, to a U.S. citizen father who had resided in the U.S. at any point before the birth are considered U.S. citizens at birth. The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to U.S. citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the U.S. However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen. The U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. prior to the birth. This residence could have been in the U.S. itself, or in certain U.S. territories.
The rules changed for people born between May 24, 1934, and January 13, 1941. In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing U.S. citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad. If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the U.S., and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the U.S. Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision.
The rules changed again for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially. To pass on citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens. For a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father, to obtain U.S. citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.
The rules changed again for people born between December 23, 1952, and November 13, 1986.(BHO was born in 1961...so this would pertain to him) When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. (Ann Dunham was only 18...so she was~according to the law in effect at the time~UNABLE to confer US citizenship to BHO,Jr) Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.
Despite the fact that Obama's birth certificate is alleged to be fraudulent, and in all cases has been thrown out of court each time on a technicality before the plaintiffs were able to present this evidence, lets look at what the law says about a natural born citizen.
You can read through all the rule changes below if you want but, the part pertaining to Obama is the last paragraph.
Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the U.S. (with the minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel). This is perhaps the only simple rule of U.S. citizenship.
Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934, to a U.S. citizen father who had resided in the U.S. at any point before the birth are considered U.S. citizens at birth. The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to U.S. citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the U.S. However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen. The U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. prior to the birth. This residence could have been in the U.S. itself, or in certain U.S. territories.
The rules changed for people born between May 24, 1934, and January 13, 1941. In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing U.S. citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad. If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the U.S., and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the U.S. Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision.
The rules changed again for people born between January 14, 1941, and December 23, 1952. When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, the rules changed substantially. To pass on citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens. For a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father, to obtain U.S. citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.
The rules changed again for people born between December 23, 1952, and November 13, 1986.(BHO was born in 1961...so this would pertain to him) When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. (Ann Dunham was only 18...so she was~according to the law in effect at the time~UNABLE to confer US citizenship to BHO,Jr) Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.
at the time, there was also a residency requirement of the American parent which she failed.
being born on state soil trumps all and so is the angle the prez has pressed.
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
There are both state and federal regulations to this ....
I don't proclaim the law I posted to be 100% accurate. If is not however .... please enlighten me!
Similar threads
