The Glade 4.0

So the president or any other member/facet of the federal government can just violate constitutional law as long as they don't "hurt" anyone? Is that how that works?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Holy crap dude. You display that you either know or understand absolutely nothing about the ideals this country was founded on.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'm guessing a FOIA request is not sufficient for this?

_________________

No, that isn't true. That suit was dismissed for lack of merit, not lack of standing. There's also the problem that Orly's client was suing based on her membership in the military, which definitely calls her standing into question, as civilians control the military, not the other way around. Military membes cannot be allowed to use the court system as a smoke screen to avoid duty.

In any case, that was one court. The court in this case has decided to hear it, so no, you cannot say it would just "get tossed".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe he demonstrates that he doesn't care what the country was founded - or its laws - so long as what he believes is correct is forced on everyone.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think a few such requests have been suppressed.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

If he violated a law, then evidence needs to be provided. Or is he guilty until he proves his innocence? If Orly Taitz and Jerome Corsi say you are not a citizen, are you then obligated to prove you are a citizen beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of a lack of evidence against you supporting the accusation? Since when did the President abdicate his own right to due process?

"Mr. President, do you still beat your wife?"

Really? Is that the Board conservative burden of proof that the President must answer to in a court of law. Somebody *says* he's not legit, without any credible evidence to back up their claim, and now he has to jump through every hoop they set up for him before his innocence is proven?

Or are we just cherry picking the bits of the constitution we want to worry about and forgetting the rest?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It's his personal medical records *which he has already bloody well produced for the public*. FOIA requests are for federal government documents, IIRC. Kaffis' claims that such a request were "suppressed" is hyperbole, I think.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

And if access to the evidence is suppressed by the Government then what.
Through random searching some unconfirmed facts come to raise interest.
Obama's birth certificate is out of sequence on the numbering based on the date he was born.
There have been others that have demonstrated that Hawaii can produce long form birth certificates from the same year and years prior to Obama's.
There also appears to be a discrepancy in the way obama's certificate is stamped,
His is only marked as received, yet others show both received and accepted.
Again this is all unconfirmed, I'm not a document expert, nor do I know the state of Hawaii's procedures.
But If these Documents are real it would raise some questions.
FOIA has been suppressed several times in this case.
FOIA applies to states as well and birth Records are public data.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Okay, so lets assume for the sake of argument that somebody does have what you consider credible evidence? How do they go about challenging his eligibility? Court cases so far say nobody has the standing to challenge it.


Heh. That's a ridiculous question. There's been many other threads about things that aren't Constitutional (i.e. the czar threads). If you really want to go there, we can start another thread.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I agree. That's why we have this thing in a legal system called "discovery". And here's the legal catch-22 that you're championing -- you don't get go through discovery at all if the judge simply refuses to hear the case based on standing.


No, he is not guilty until proven innocent, and no he has not abdicated his right to due process. Due process and discovery is all that's being asked for, here.

That said, in accepting the office of the president, a candidate is proclaiming that (s)he meets the eligibility requirements. As such, it is their burden of proof to establish the veracity of their own claims. Look at this way -- if you get in a car and drive on a public street, it is your responsibility, should you be pulled over, to furnish proof that you are a licensed driver. You are not guilty until proven innocent in this matter. However, it would be clearly absurd for the courts to establish the precedent that you can refuse to furnish your license unless someone is able to prove conclusively that you are not a licensed driver. Or, further, unless they can prove they are harmed by your unlicensed status.

Now, I know what you're thinking -- you're about to say, "but he did show proof..." etc. Fine. But ultimately, whether or not this satisfies you or me personally is not really relevant. Because the important point in all of this that you seem to be missing is that by the precedent being established by these courts, he was not obligated to do even that. With respect to Obama, it makes no practical difference in my mind. But the precedent itself is stupid and dangerous. Essentially, it says that no presidential candidate is under any obligation to furnish any proof of citizenship to anyone, because no one has standing to challenge this matter, period, end of discussion.

So even if it's all a moot point for Obama in particular, surely you can see why this is a bad precedent at least for future hypothetical presidential candidates. I think you're being entirely myopic on the issue because the litmus test happens to be Obama.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Exactly. You need to actually have a reasonable claim before you can get to that point. No one has a reasonable claim. There is no credible evidence to show that there could be a conspiracy to defraud the American public about his birth. None. If there was, a warrant could be issued for his arrest, search warrants could be issued, subpoenas, etc.



That is not true at all. Due process is what is killing these frivolous lawsuits. They go to court, they show that they have no credible evidence, and that they have no standing to sue, and they are tossed out on their ear.

Due process is what is at work here. It's not being denied.



Which he proved. He provided his certificate of live birth, his Social Security number, and that's enough. He was of age and born in the United States of America.




Which he did.

Orly Taitz claims that the President *lied* about where he was born, and that he was born in Kenya. That is an entirely new accusation and must be backed up with evidence, evidence she has never been able to provide.



That isn't the precedent being established by the courts. The courts are judging based on past legal prescedent that the plaintiffs 1) have no standing to sue and 2) have no credible evidence to base their accusations on.

This is not a dangerous prescedent. It is a foundation of our law and how it works. These precedents do not deny the citizens the right to challenge something like this entirely, however, citizens still have to have credible evidence to back up their claims and they need to be able to have standing, like in any other court case.

This is due process.



This is a fine precedent. It's been around for a very long time. If you lack credible evidence, your case gets tossed. If you lack standing, your case gets tossed.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

*Rubs his forehead*

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's easy. You present your evidence to a judge after filing a claim, or you bring it up as a criminal matter. They did it with Bill Clinton. It can be done with any President through the normal legal channels.

What folks seem to be ignoring is that there is no credible evidence that Barak Obama was born outside of the US, and a ton of evidence that he was born here. The burden of proof does *not* lie with Obama. He proved he was a US citizen using the same exact methods anyone would be able to use. I have a certificate of live birth, and not a long form certificate, and that was good enough for my Driver's license, my social security card, and several other uses (college, etc). These cases aren't just being dismissed based on a lack of standing, but also based on a lack of credible evidence.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What is the problem? Walk through this slowly with me.

1) Barak Obama won the election to become the President of the United States of America.

2) Barak Obama has a social security number, identification, and a birth certificate. He was born in Hawaii. There is a birth announcement, and the secretary of state confirmed that the birth certificate is valid. Weather or not Obama is a citizen is absolutely a done deal. He *is* a citizen. He has always *been* a citizen. There is *no reasonable question* that he is a US Citizen, and eligble to be president.

3) Some people have come up with a hair brained, insane, lunatic idea that he was secretly born in Kenya, and that this is all a great big cover up. These lunatics have never provided a single shred of credible evidence to back up their accusations. They have attempted time and again to get their insane, hair brained, lunatic conspiracy theory heard by the courts, and time and time again they have been tossed out on their ear. They have been tossed out not only because Obama's lawyers successfully argued that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue, but *also* because the plaintiffs had no credible evidence to back up their case.

How is this difficult to understand? The constitution does not require a long form birth certificate in order to become president. It simply requires that you be a natural born citizen, which Obama is, and that you be of a certain age, which Obama is. That's it. He has met the eligibility requirements. Just because some lunatics think that his birth certificate, birth announcement, and social security number are not enough to cover it doesn't mean they are correct, or even sane. They don't get to set the bar of proof for Obama. He has met the threshold any of us would have to meet to be eligible.

If they have credible evidence that he was not born in Hawaii, then by all means, let them present that evidence.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

*starts to drink*

You can't even understand that this isn't about Obama can you? If it doesn't relate to something that you're belief system is invested in its either evil, racist, or doesn't actually exist. Since this isn't the first two - there must not exist any issue regarding nuance of law.

Why is he even on this board - really?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It is about Obama, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something. This is about a few things. One, to de legitimize Obama's clear victory by muddying the waters. Two, to get the base riled about the "Other", the "foreigner" that stole the country from "real" America. Three, to attempt to get the President into a Discovery situation in order to go on a fishing expedition like they did with Clinton.

This is not about precedent. The precedent being followed here is not new, it's not ground breaking, it's not new waters, and it's not dangerous. You must have standing to sue, even in a case like this. If you don't have standing, you can't sue.

You must have *evidence* to sue or make a criminal charge. If your evidence is not credible, out you go.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

"It is about Obama, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something."

You keep repeating this despite all of these people taking the time to carefully explain to you the fundamentals of the issue. Do you comment on them? Do you address them? No - you just ignore it because as I've shown above - it doesn't even exist to you.

Monte you don't get to show any evidence if you don't have standing - why am I wasting my time?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Prove it.



No, it isn't. I'm sorry, but someone has lied to you.



Again, prove it.



More conspiracy theory. This has also been debunked. His certificate is legitimate. It has been approved by the Sec State of Hawaii, and examined in hard copy by several independent organizations. You have been lied to.



No. FOIA does not cover personal health records. Those records are private. State law in Hawaii prevents them from disclosing the records, and I am pretty sure they are covered by HIPPAA as well.



Those records have been produced in the form of his certificate of live birth. You are sadly misinformed on the subject, Leshani.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

This is the last time that I'm going to ask you stop telling me what I "really" think and believe -- especially when you're making a not-so-thinly veiled accusation that I'm a racist.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

And you, and the others, are absolutely, fundamentally wrong about the fundamentals you are talking about.




Yes I have. I have done so in every single post.

This is not unprecedented. You must have standing to sue, even the President. This is not dangerous. This is part of due process. No one's rights are being infringed on by the courts. The courts are doing their job. The case has not just been dismissed on Standing, but also on *EVIDENCE*.



Yes, you do. Orly Taitz has already done so, and her case was tossed out because her evidence was entirely lacking. Furthermore, she was fined 10,000 dollars because she couldn't stop herself from using the courtroom as her own crazy pulpit, accusing the judge of treason, etc.

You are ignoring one glaring fact - the entire case is predicated on the very accusation you want to ignore - that the President was born in Kenya. There is no case without that accusation.

Let me explain it again.

1) The president either is, or is not a citizen.

2) There is ample evidence that the president is a citizen. More than enough for him to prove his citizenship in any other fashion or forum in this country.

3) There is no evidence that he is not a citizen.

So, which is it? Is he a citizen, or is he not? All the evidence says he is, none of the evidence says he is not. Why should the courts even bother to hear yet another argument that he isn't?

Obama's lawyers *must* argue the standing issue first, as RD explained a long time ago. And they have successfully done so. Painting that as some sort of judicial misconduct or underhanded tactic displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. This is how the law works. No standing, *no case*. No evidence, no case. The case does not exist independent of it's accusation.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Reread my previous post with special attention to the italicized parts I never claimed these as true just questions from random searching. Birth Certificates are not health records They are a legal recorded statement of fact, generally available to the public for a variety of reasons, research, genealogy, genetics and medical. to name a few. To get a certified copy requires showing cause of need or relation.

Fun fact: I was born in New York 1964 last year I was able to get the long form of my Birth certificate additional, Fee's as it had to recovered from microfiche records
My father born Ohio 1938, Long available on microfiche.
Mother born in New Jersey 1940, Long form available microfiche records.
There's reasons these records exist, and requirements for the storage and archival of them.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

I wasn't talking about you, Stathol. I was talking about Taitz and her ilk.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I can't get mine. I can get a certificate of live birth. In fact, I have one. It got me my drivers license, my Passport, my social security card, and it worked for college applications and federal background checks.


Those of you who think this is some kind of new or dangerous precedent need to read this decision by the 10th. They dismissed on Jurisdictional grounds, but they could only do that *if* the suit itself was frivilous and without merit. In other words, the case had zero merit, and was dismissed as a result. You cannot seperate the merit of the cases being brought forth from their dismissal. Each of these cases is predicated on some form of the argument that Obama is not a legal citizen. You can't just set that aside and talk about the issues in a case, because they are entirely connected.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

False.



False.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine