[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

Us doing the dodging ? REALLY !!!! The only one here failing to comprehend the argument seems to be you. You're like a dog chasing his tail. I'm done arguing with Fence posts.

I figured as much. You have no argument. You want something to happen even though there is no legal standing for it.

Further more, you want to throw out one of the core ideas of this country; innocent until proven guilty. You would rather see people required to prove their innocents over the state proving their guilt. That is disguising and un-American. I see everyone comparing Obama to Hitler and turning this country into a gestapo state, yet the very form of logic YOU are using is the hallmark of a gestapo state.

Ironic, isn't it?

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

All the Constitution states is that you must be a US citizen; there is nothing in there about you needing to prove it. You're right common sense would dictate that you should have to prove it, but the law doesn't necessarily follow common sense, and you need to understand that.

I agree with you; you should have to prove the requirements to run for president. HOWEVER, at the moment you don't have to. Do you understand the difference?

I understand what you are saying. I do not agree that you are right.

Oh, what question am I dodging? And if you have a minute, I'm still waiting for your opinion on the fourth amendment as it applies to police checkpoints.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

I understand what you are saying. I do not agree that you are right.

How can you not agree that I am right? I am stating a fact. Presidential candidates don't have to prove their citizenship. That's not an opinion; it's a fact. Is that the way it should be? Personally, no, I think you should have to prove it. However, until it is written in the law that one needs to prove their citizenship, I will not expect any candidate to do so regardless of what people say (unless that is, a legal burden of proof is meet in the eyes of the judicial system).

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Oh, what question am I dodging?

You are dodging my question regarding the logic you and all birthers are using. Once again, here is what you are doing:

"I heard that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a little girl in 1990. Now, I don't have any proof that he did, nor am I saying he did. All I know is that he has not said that he did not rape and murdered a little girl in 1990. Furthermore, he has tried to take down the website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com: Home Page. Isn't it highly suspicious that he will not come out and deny raping and murdering a little girl in 1990? Isn't it even more suspicious that he is trying to take down that website? What does he have to hide?"


Do you see how that is wrong? This, just like the bither argument, is completely unfounded. There is no legal evidence to support either claim (Obama not being a US citizen or Glenn Beck Murdering a little girl). Instead of proving their (Obama or Beck) guilt, you are saying they need to prove their innocents. That is what I want you to comment on. How can you think that is ok?

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

And if you have a minute, I'm still waiting for your opinion on the fourth amendment as it applies to police checkpoints.

I'm going to answer this, however, I want to restate again; this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is simply this: Obama doesn't have to prove that he is a US citizen because the law doesn't require it. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

Now, what is my opinion on the Forth Amendment with regards to DUI checkpoints? It's legal. Why? Well, in the case of DUI checkpoints, a person is in the act of driving a car. Well-settled law has deemed (and in my mind common sense) that a person(s) has a lessened expectation of privacy with respect to stops and visual inspections of their car on public roads. Remember, you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint; you can take a different route to bypass it. Now, if you drive down the road where there is a check point, see it, then turn around, you can be pulled over for suspicious behavior, which in the case of a traffic stop the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect. Furthermore, the Forth Amendment doesn't protect anything "a person knowingly exposes to the public."

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

How can you not agree that I am right? I am stating a fact. Presidential candidates don't have to prove their citizenship. That's not an opinion; it's a fact. Is that the way it should be? Personally, no, I think you should have to prove it. However, until it is written in the law that one needs to prove their citizenship, I will not expect any candidate to do so regardless of what people say (unless that is, a legal burden of proof is meet in the eyes of the judicial system).




You are dodging my question regarding the logic you and all birthers are using. Once again, here is what you are doing:

"I heard that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a little girl in 1990. Now, I don't have any proof that he did, nor am I saying he did. All I know is that he has not said that he did not rape and murdered a little girl in 1990. Furthermore, he has tried to take down the website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com: Home Page. Isn't it highly suspicious that he will not come out and deny raping and murdering a little girl in 1990? Isn't it even more suspicious that he is trying to take down that website? What does he have to hide?"


Do you see how that is wrong? This, just like the bither argument, is completely unfounded. There is no legal evidence to support either claim (Obama not being a US citizen or Glenn Beck Murdering a little girl). Instead of proving their (Obama or Beck) guilt, you are saying they need to prove their innocents. That is what I want you to comment on. How can you think that is ok?



I'm going to answer this, however, I want to restate again; this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is simply this: Obama doesn't have to prove that he is a US citizen because the law doesn't require it. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

Now, what is my opinion on the Forth Amendment with regards to DUI checkpoints? It's legal. Why? Well, in the case of DUI checkpoints, a person is in the act of driving a car. Well-settled law has deemed (and in my mind common sense) that a person(s) has a lessened expectation of privacy with respect to stops and visual inspections of their car on public roads. Remember, you are not forced to drive through the checkpoint; you can take a different route to bypass it. Now, if you drive down the road where there is a check point, see it, then turn around, you can be pulled over for suspicious behavior, which in the case of a traffic stop the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect. Furthermore, the Forth Amendment doesn't protect anything "a person knowingly exposes to the public."

Difference being, in your story, you are accusing Glenn Beck of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a criminal trial. I am merely questioning 0bama's eligibility. Not accusing him of a crime. Again, at the time of the constitution, there were no id's or birth certificates. It COULD NOT be written into the constitution. Why not quote the constitution where it says you do not have to prove citizenship. Not the lack of a statement saying you do have to prove it. I'd like you to post a quote from the constitution stating that it is not necessary to prove citizenship. This is how I disagree with what you are attempting to present as FACT.

I find it interesting that you feel 0bama should not have to supply his birth certificate based on the 4th amendment, yet support roadside checkpoints which are a textbook definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

[strtrcr50]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

What would be the probable cause of stopping every other car down a certain road?
How about the fifth amendment vs a breathalizer?
How about the lack of a jury trial in many states?

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Difference being, in your story, you are accusing Glenn Beck of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a criminal trial. I am merely questioning 0bama's eligibility. Not accusing him of a crime. Again, at the time of the constitution, there were no id's or birth certificates. It COULD NOT be written into the constitution. Why not quote the constitution where it says you do not have to prove citizenship. Not the lack of a statement saying you do have to prove it. I'd like you to post a quote from the constitution stating that it is not necessary to prove citizenship. This is how I disagree with what you are attempting to present as FACT.

I find it interesting that you feel 0bama should not have to supply his birth certificate based on the 4th amendment, yet support roadside checkpoints which are a textbook definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

You are accusing Obama of a crime; fraud. Also, if you read what I wrote again, I didn't accuse Beck of anything.

Originally Posted by 6stang7

"I heard that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a little girl in 1990. Now, I don't have any proof that he did, nor am I saying he did. All I know is that he has not said that he did not rape and murdered a little girl in 1990.

See? I didn't accuse him of anything.

I can't quote the Constitution with regards to not proving citizenship because the it says nothing about it either way. All the Constitution says is that you must be a natural born citizen. Since the founders didn't specify as to how one shows they are, it was left to the states to decide, and all states have decided that a candidate doesn't have to prove it. Look, if you don't believe me, then go look it up for yourself. Go find where it says in any legal document that a presidential candidate must prove that they are president to be on the ballot. Go.


Once again, when you are in your vehicle, you have a lessened expectation of privacy. There is a big difference between checking to see if you are drunk when you are on a public road and asking someone to show their private records.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

What would be the probable cause of stopping every other car down a certain road?

You can't directly apply the 4th Amendment to DUI checkpoints. Once again, you have a lessened expectation of privacy while in your car.

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

How about the fifth amendment vs a breathalizer?

Well, first you can refuse a breathalyzer; but it doesn't end there. Look up implied consent with regards to getting your drivers license. Breathalyzer is also not counted as testimonial in nature, which is what the Fifth Amendment deals with. More specifically, the Fifth Amendment states that the police cannot make you "be a witness against self." The word witness is the key here. Courts have concluded that because of the use of the word witness, the Fifth Amendment refers to anything testimonial in nature. A breathalyzer is no testimonial in nature.

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

How about the lack of a jury trial in many states?

Well, there are only several states that do no provide the right to a trial by jury for a DUI (California does). Now, doesn't this conflict with the Sixth Amendment? Yes and no. Why yes and no? Well, as with all law, it is subject to interpretation, and it is just this that has caused some states to deny you the right to a trail by jury. How did this happen? Well, there was a court case in 1968 (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145) in which it was determined that the framers intended for a trail by jury to only be attached to "serious" criminal prosecution; not "petty." What does serious mean? In 1970 (Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66), it was determined that a "serious" trial if the punishment would result in more then one-half of a year in prison.



What was the point of all of this by the way? This seems like a really big tangent. If you're trying to argue that the law isn't fair or doesn't seem to make sense, then I'd be inclined to agree with you to some extent. However, it's the law, and unless you are ok with the consequences, don't break it.

Like I said, go look up what is legally required for you to prove to run for president.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

I can't quote the Constitution with regards to not proving citizenship because the it says nothing about it either way. All the Constitution says is that you must be a natural born citizen. Since the founders didn't specify as to how one shows they are, it was left to the states to decide, and all states have decided that a candidate doesn't have to prove it. Look, if you don't believe me, then go look it up for yourself. Go find where it says in any legal document that a presidential candidate must prove that they are president to be on the ballot. Go.

Lack of mention of something does not make it fact. Perhaps you could tell me where to look to see where the states have explicitly stated that there is no requirement of proof of citizenship.
I bring up the other things because you seem to want it both ways. You state that 0bama should not have to show his birth certificate and school application records due to the 4th amendment, but are personally ok with trampling on the 4th amendment in other circumstances.

[Wart]

Originally Posted by rbohm

so much crap about nothing. but lets say obama is found to be ineligible to be president,

You know thats not going to happen.

But it does seem to be the rallying point for some of the truly dull.

Its almost as though your unaware this was appealed to the SCotUS and it was kicked.

Making it Game Over.




what then? do we just install joe biden? or do we go back to the general election and make it a fight between hilary and mccain?[/QUOTE]

[Wart]

At this point what makes this whole Obamas Birth Place hilarious is,

Righties hate attorneys.

Righties bitch about frivolous law suits.

This particular issue has been bounced so many times it seems to define frivolity.

But still Righties support it.

Which goes to demonstrate, once again, the 'whichever way the wind blows' nature of the Rightie.

....

What was that Rightie was fond of saying in '00 and '04? You Lost, Get over it?

You Lost, Get over it.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by Wart

What was that Rightie was fond of saying in '00 and '04? You Lost, Get over it?

You Lost, Get over it.

And we STILL get to hear about how the election was stolen in 00 and 04. How did that work out again?

BTW... Since this was an accepted weekly practice from the whining democrats.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Lack of mention of something does not make it fact. Perhaps you could tell me where to look to see where the states have explicitly stated that there is no requirement of proof of citizenship.
I bring up the other things because you seem to want it both ways. You state that 0bama should not have to show his birth certificate and school application records due to the 4th amendment, but are personally ok with trampling on the 4th amendment in other circumstances.

You can look it up yourself; in fact, it will be good for you so you will know how to fact check!

And I don't want it both ways. You are just being way too broad with with the Amendments. I was also stating the Forth Amendment not as a legal reason, but as a personal reason (even though records such as those are sealed and can't not be viewed by others unless given permission or a court order). Obama doesn't have to show his BC or school records because he is not legally required to. I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

[strtrcr50]

Ahhh.. I love the condescending tone of an enlightened progressive. I don't know how to look for something that isn't there. Why not post me a link? First it was the constitution, then the 4th amendment, then the state's individual decisions. You are basing your FACTS on something you have decided based on a lack of clarification either way.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

And we STILL get to hear about how the election was stolen in 00 and 04. How did that work out again?

My thoughts exactly, but you beat me to it

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

How can you not agree that I am right? I am stating a fact. Presidential candidates don't have to prove their citizenship. That's not an opinion; it's a fact. Is that the way it should be? Personally, no, I think you should have to prove it. However, until it is written in the law that one needs to prove their citizenship, I will not expect any candidate to do so regardless of what people say

So using your analogy, then a woman's "right" to an abortion is also, "not constitutional" either. But it is legal. There are many things at present deemed to be "constitutional provisions" Yet, try as you might, they're found nowwhere in the Constitution. Like the "Separation of Church and State" That's not in the Constitution either. What IS is in the Constitution is a clearly spelled out "separation of State from Church". Nowhere does it say the church cannot particpate in the affairs of the state. Yet you libs are quick to claim that to be illegal.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Ahhh.. I love the condescending tone of an enlightened progressive. I don't know how to look for something that isn't there. Why not post me a link? First it was the constitution, then the 4th amendment, then the state's individual decisions. You are basing your FACTS on something you have decided based on a lack of clarification either way.

How was I being condescending? You're the one who obviously hasn't researched the legality of this issue, so why should I be doing your work for you?

Again, let me re-state my argument since you still have yet to totally grasp it:

The Constitution states that one must be a natural citizen to run for president. It says nothing about having to prove it. You can't just imply that they meant for one to prove it in whatever means the current time had. In fact, they designed the amendment system into the Constitution so that the document could be updated to fit the times.

States set the rules as to what someone needs to do to run for president. Of all 50 states, none require you to prove you are a natural born citizen to be on the ballot. Most states just put generally recognized candidates on the ballot. If you are a third party candidate, you need to do more. Sometimes it's showing ID, sometimes it is filling out a forum (for example:http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/05-302-2.pdf or http://www.elections.il.gov/Download...n/pdf/P-1C.pdf). At the end of the day, Obama did everything that was required of him to get onto the ballot.

The Forth Amendment point was made for two reasons. First it was to show that documents such as your BC or college records are private unless you either give consent OR there is a court order. The second reason was because you asked me what my opinion was on why Obama hasn't released said records. They are his personal records, and he does have a right to privacy just as you do.

Again, these are not my facts; they are the facts. You're an adult. You have this air about you that you are very informed about the political state of this country. You act as if you know what is the truth and what is not. So, I can only assume that, as someone who can find the truth, you can do detailed research yourself. I've clearly made my point over and over again. If I'm wrong, you should easily be able to prove it.

If you come back and tell me, "well, why don't you just post your sources", then I will, but I will lose all respect for you with regards having an informed decision. I'm not asking you to do a ton of work. This is something you should have done on your own when I first posted saying that Obama did everything he was required to do to be on the ballot.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

So using your analogy, then a woman's "right" to an abortion is also, "not constitutional" either. But it is legal.

You lost me here. What analogy? Saying that the Constitution doesn't say anything about needing to prove that you are a natural citizen? You're going to have to spell this thought out a little more for me.

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

There are many things at present deemed to be "constitutional provisions" Yet, try as you might, they're found nowwhere in the Constitution. Like the "Separation of Church and State" That's not in the Constitution either. What IS is in the Constitution is a clearly spelled out "separation of State from Church". Nowhere does it say the church cannot particpate in the affairs of the state. Yet you libs are quick to claim that to be illegal.

Things that are law that are not defined in the Constitution have been defined elsewhere. You also need to understand that the law is subject to the judge's interpretation and judges give a lot of weight to precedence (this is one of the reasons why I hate that the Supreme Court judges are political appointments for life). Even though the Constitution says "separation of State from Church", it has been deemed that the founders meant church and state. Is that right? Matter of opinion. If through the legal processes it is decided that a church can't play a role in politics, then that becomes the law of the land. If through the legal frame work of the Constitution they outlawed all gun ownership, then that would be the law of the land. You better believe I would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, but if it was done in a legal manner then I will either continue to fight to change it back, deal with it, or leave.

As for the last part, it is comments like that which cause me to lose some of the respect I have towards you. How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I am a lib? I'm registered as an Independent if you must know, and vote ~70% conservative ~30% liberal if you averaged all issues out. It really depends on the issue though.

[6Stang7]

This occurred to me while working out about 30 mins ago. If it was in some way required for a presidential candidate to prove that they are a natural born citizen, then why would Rep. Bill Posey introduce H.R. 1503:

HR 1503 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1503

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 12, 2009

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING.

Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATE’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended--

(1) by striking ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting ‘; and’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.

H.R. 1503: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of... (GovTrack.us)


Seriously, once I remembered hearing about this bill, it only took me five minutes to look this up.

[strtrcr50]

This bill has been introduced only now because before this, no one has run under questionable circumstances and refused to release information. Kind of like how they are trying to get a bill passed that requires congressmen to actually read a bill before voting on it. And disallowing the bill to be made available one hour before the vote. Common sense, but no one has ever shown such a lack of common sense before that it had to be tested.
I've been very busy with classes this week(It's not the easiest thing in the world to go back to school at 37), but I'll be done on friday. I'll see what I can dig up in regards to whether proof is truly not required due to language stating that it is.

[strtrcr50]

As I start to look into this, I come across this. Check the date. Long before it looked like Obama was to run. Also, using your same standards, why was a candidate's divorce records released to the Chicago Tribune? Is that expressly allowed?
http://web.archive.org/web/200406271...ws26060403.htm
I like the way you feel that enforcement of the law of the land should not be able to be performed.

[D.Hearne]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

You lost me here.

As for the last part, it is comments like that which cause me to lose some of the respect I have towards you..

Don't patronize me. I could care less whether you respect me or not. That's not going to "win" me over to your side. Thsi country is in a battle for it's very existence with Obama & co. in power. If they continue on the path they've chosen, it WILL not survive. And you & others ignoring the fact that Obama refuses to release his birth & school records doesn't help things either. Just "going along with the flow" cause he's in charge doesn't cut it. He's in this for himself and his political leanings, he clearly doesn't care about being the president of all the people and keeping this country together.

[strtrcr50]

I do find it funny that you present something as fact, but yet can not confirm it. Instead, you want me to look all over for your interpretation of a lack of a law.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

This bill has been introduced only now because before this, no one has run under questionable circumstances and refused to release information. Kind of like how they are trying to get a bill passed that requires congressmen to actually read a bill before voting on it. And disallowing the bill to be made available one hour before the vote. Common sense, but no one has ever shown such a lack of common sense before that it had to be tested.
I've been very busy with classes this week(It's not the easiest thing in the world to go back to school at 37), but I'll be done on friday. I'll see what I can dig up in regards to whether proof is truly not required due to language stating that it is.

You're absolutely right; common sense would dictate that a candidate would have to prove their eligibility. However, that isn't the case at the moment with regards to the law. That's all I am saying.

It's just like your example. How on earth could someone in Congress vote on something they haven't read? That should be illegal. However, at the moment, it's not. See my point?

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

As I start to look into this, I come across this. Check the date. Long before it looked like Obama was to run. Also, using your same standards, why was a candidate's divorce records released to the Chicago Tribune? Is that expressly allowed?
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
I like the way you feel that enforcement of the law of the land should not be able to be performed.

I don't really get the point of that, but if his divorce records were supposed to be sealed but were released by someone, then who ever is responsible should be prosecuted.

Once again, I'm not arguing this point because I love Obama. I don't. I really, REALLY don't. I didn't vote for Obama. You somehow think that because I'm showing you that Obama did everything that was required of him to be on the ballot, that I MUST love him and be a liberal. Politics as usual I guess....

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

Don't patronize me. I could care less whether you respect me or not. That's not going to "win" me over to your side. Thsi country is in a battle for it's very existence with Obama & co. in power. If they continue on the path they've chosen, it WILL not survive. And you & others ignoring the fact that Obama refuses to release his birth & school records doesn't help things either. Just "going along with the flow" cause he's in charge doesn't cut it. He's in this for himself and his political leanings, he clearly doesn't care about being the president of all the people and keeping this country together.

What side am I on? I'm not trying to get you to like Obama or anything; I'm merely telling you what the law states.

Your logic and way of thinking are what is destroying this country. We don''t just ignore laws whenever it seems convenient to.