Obama officially ineligible for presidency

[Symmetry]

I know this story isn't exactly vetted, but just out of curiosity would you Obama supporters have your opinions of the man's candidacy altered in any way if it turns out that the allegations of deception and forgery (a felony ) proved to be true?

Actually kind of an interesting question, which pretty much parallels questions of who should be heir to the throne in monarchies. Take for example Henry VII of England, who had a shaky claim to the throne by blood at best, but who won it anyway. It's fascinating to see the same kind of debate about blood played out in a modern democratic setting.

Does he have the right to rule? Should popular success via election overrule his bloodline? Should we dismiss him as an illegitimate heir? Of course, within a democratic society, the pool of legitimate heirs is larger, but the question remains the same. Who can inherit the throne?

Questions like yours were very common in the middle ages and renaissance era. Can you support a king who has the support of the people, and behaves benevolently rather than someone who has a stronger claim to the throne by right of blood?

My take- Obama was born in Hawaii, USA. End of.

[Baron Von PWN]

Personally I think the only requirement should be citizenship, who care where they were born so long as they are a citizen?

Let the people choose.

[saxitoxin]

I know this story isn't exactly vetted, but just out of curiosity would you Obama supporters have your opinions of the man's candidacy altered in any way if it turns out that the allegations of deception and forgery (a felony ) proved to be true?

Actually kind of an interesting question, which pretty much parallels questions of who should be heir to the throne in monarchies. Take for example Henry VII of England, who had a shaky claim to the throne by blood at best, but who won it anyway. It's fascinating to see the same kind of debate about blood played out in a modern democratic setting.

Does he have the right to rule? Should popular success via election overrule his bloodline? Should we dismiss him as an illegitimate heir? Of course, within a democratic society, the pool of legitimate heirs is larger, but the question remains the same. Who can inherit the throne?

Questions like yours were very common in the middle ages and renaissance era. Can you support a king who has the support of the people, and behaves benevolently rather than someone who has a stronger claim to the throne by right of blood?

lolwut

Personally I think the only requirement should be citizenship, who care where they were born so long as they are a citizen?

Let the people choose.

Should there be a deliberative process for updating or amending laws or is it better if whoever controls the army at the moment just chooses to stop following laws that don't seem relevant anymore?

For instance, if Obama had forged his birth certificate and then publicly lied to people it was authentic (which I remain to be convinced he did), do you feel that was the best course of action or would he have been better advised to - in an open and transparent manner - announce that this portion of the constitution was no longer relevant and he would not be paying attention to it. If option 2, are there other sections of the constitution Obama should feel at liberty to unilaterally amend? Let's say the Supreme Court struck down Obama's PATRIOT Act, should he feel at liberty to dissolve the Supreme Court, have the male justices executed and order Justice Ginsberg to be publicly raped in Lafayette Park as a regime opponent? Or is there a limit to which constitutional provisions a president can choose to strike down via decree?

[Symmetry]

I know this story isn't exactly vetted, but just out of curiosity would you Obama supporters have your opinions of the man's candidacy altered in any way if it turns out that the allegations of deception and forgery (a felony ) proved to be true?

Actually kind of an interesting question, which pretty much parallels questions of who should be heir to the throne in monarchies. Take for example Henry VII of England, who had a shaky claim to the throne by blood at best, but who won it anyway. It's fascinating to see the same kind of debate about blood played out in a modern democratic setting.

Does he have the right to rule? Should popular success via election overrule his bloodline? Should we dismiss him as an illegitimate heir? Of course, within a democratic society, the pool of legitimate heirs is larger, but the question remains the same. Who can inherit the throne?

Questions like yours were very common in the middle ages and renaissance era. Can you support a king who has the support of the people, and behaves benevolently rather than someone who has a stronger claim to the throne by right of blood?

lolwut

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Should rulers have hereditary rights to rule by blood- say a king via lineage, or a president via lineage, or should that legitimacy be decreed by the public?

The question I was responding to was if Obama was not of the direct line of Americans, but instead, an illegitimate bastard prince, would he still have a claim through right of popular opinion and conquest over his rivals.
No?

[saxitoxin]

I know this story isn't exactly vetted, but just out of curiosity would you Obama supporters have your opinions of the man's candidacy altered in any way if it turns out that the allegations of deception and forgery (a felony ) proved to be true?

Actually kind of an interesting question, which pretty much parallels questions of who should be heir to the throne in monarchies. Take for example Henry VII of England, who had a shaky claim to the throne by blood at best, but who won it anyway. It's fascinating to see the same kind of debate about blood played out in a modern democratic setting.

Does he have the right to rule? Should popular success via election overrule his bloodline? Should we dismiss him as an illegitimate heir? Of course, within a democratic society, the pool of legitimate heirs is larger, but the question remains the same. Who can inherit the throne?

Questions like yours were very common in the middle ages and renaissance era. Can you support a king who has the support of the people, and behaves benevolently rather than someone who has a stronger claim to the throne by right of blood?

lolwut

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Should rulers have hereditary rights to rule by blood- say a king via lineage, or a president via lineage, or should that legitimacy be decreed by the public?

The question I was responding to was if Obama was not of the direct line of Americans, but instead, an illegitimate bastard prince, would he still have a claim through right of popular opinion and conquest over his rivals.
No?

[Symmetry]

I know this story isn't exactly vetted, but just out of curiosity would you Obama supporters have your opinions of the man's candidacy altered in any way if it turns out that the allegations of deception and forgery (a felony ) proved to be true?

Actually kind of an interesting question, which pretty much parallels questions of who should be heir to the throne in monarchies. Take for example Henry VII of England, who had a shaky claim to the throne by blood at best, but who won it anyway. It's fascinating to see the same kind of debate about blood played out in a modern democratic setting.

Does he have the right to rule? Should popular success via election overrule his bloodline? Should we dismiss him as an illegitimate heir? Of course, within a democratic society, the pool of legitimate heirs is larger, but the question remains the same. Who can inherit the throne?

Questions like yours were very common in the middle ages and renaissance era. Can you support a king who has the support of the people, and behaves benevolently rather than someone who has a stronger claim to the throne by right of blood?

lolwut

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Should rulers have hereditary rights to rule by blood- say a king via lineage, or a president via lineage, or should that legitimacy be decreed by the public?

The question I was responding to was if Obama was not of the direct line of Americans, but instead, an illegitimate bastard prince, would he still have a claim through right of popular opinion and conquest over his rivals.
No?

[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/239347100_99d01fa0a3.jpg/img]

I'll chalk you down as a maybe.

[Baron Von PWN]

Personally I think the only requirement should be citizenship, who care where they were born so long as they are a citizen?

Let the people choose.

Should there be a deliberative process for updating or amending laws or is it better if whoever controls the army at the moment just chooses to stop following laws that don't seem relevant anymore?

For instance, if Obama had forged his birth certificate and then publicly lied to people it was authentic (which I remain to be convinced he did), do you feel that was the best course of action or would he have been better advised to - in an open and transparent manner - announce that this portion of the constitution was no longer relevant and he would not be paying attention to it. If option 2, are there other sections of the constitution Obama should feel at liberty to unilaterally amend? Let's say the Supreme Court struck down Obama's PATRIOT Act, should he feel at liberty to dissolve the Supreme Court, have the male justices executed and order Justice Ginsberg to be publicly raped in Lafayette Park as a regime opponent? Or is there a limit to which constitutional provisions a president can choose to strike down via decree?

Obviously there should be a deliberative process. I wasn't really responding to Gabon's question. However if it emerged that Obama had in fact forged his birth certificate I think he should step down for violating the law. However I think that part of the constitution should be amended.

Though if Obama were to go dictator he obvious course of action would be to burn the supreme court to the ground, salt the earth around it and put the justices heads on pikes. So that all may no he will not tolerate opposition. Anything less and he'd look like a bit of a puss.

[natty dread]

I'm going to vote for obama

[saxitoxin]

Obviously there should be a deliberative process. I wasn't really responding to Gabon's question. However if it emerged that Obama had in fact forged his birth certificate I think he should step down for violating the law. However I think that part of the constitution should be amended.

That's fair enough. I remember many Republicans were calling on the constitution to be amended to allow Schwarzennegger to run for president. I haven't seen anyone argue that the constitution should or should not be amended in here, just that - as long as a law exists - it should be obeyed and violators prosecuted.

If it were discovered that he had used forged documents to gain office every law passed in the preceding four years possibly would be invalid. Since the president has to promulgate laws that would mean that no law or treaty in four years had been legally brought into force and none of them really existed. It would throw, not just the U.S., but every western nation, into complete chaos.

I'm going to vote for obama

Nathan - just out of curiosity, have you - in real life - ever seen anyone who is darker than "1" on the Von Luschan skin colour scale? Or do Finns like Obama the way little girls like unicorns, it's something magical and far away with an air of the exotic about it?



Being old enough to have seen my fair share of unicorns, and how they shit all over the place, try to dry-hump you when you're watching television and use their horns to harass the cats, I can tell you an unicorn IRL isn't as cool as the books make them out to be.

[natty dread]

Nathan - just out of curiosity, have you - in real life - ever seen anyone who is darker than "1" on the Von Luschan skin colour scale?

Saxi, you're so old, you use the fax machine to send email.

Unlike in the 1920:s or whenever it was that you were young, these days there are plenty of people with various skin colours in Finland.

[saxitoxin]

Nathan - just out of curiosity, have you - in real life - ever seen anyone who is darker than "1" on the Von Luschan skin colour scale?

Saxi, you're so old, you use the fax machine to send email.

Unlike in the 1920:s or whenever it was that you were young, these days there are plenty of people with various skin colours in Finland
during the Helsinki Star Trek Convention.

fixed

[saxitoxin]

[natty dread]

Saxi, you're so old, you get flashbacks from playing Napoleonic Europe.

[betiko]

your country is among the newest in the world, not even 250 years old

As a country the U.S. is 405 years old (as a state it's 236).

Obama is just American, do you really think he feels closer to kenya? does he speeks like a kenyan?

I don't think Scott, et. al., are arguing Obama is engineering a vast conspiracy to propel Kenya to world power status. The only argument is whether Obama forged his identity documents or not.

Are some things illegal in France and other things legal? If some things are illegal, and Sarkozy did one of those things, should he be held to account or not?

in france we have a norwegian born and raised woman with french passport running for president (the elections are this week end) and we are not making a big deal about it, even if she has a huge accent.

The U.S. and France do not use the same constitution. France uses a constitution imposed by a military junta after an army coup d'etat in 1958. The U.S. uses a constitution approved after a convention in 1783 (which followed an army coup d'etat in 1776).

- Article 65 of the French constitution requires members of the Conseil Superieur be French citizens.

- Article whatever of the U.S. constitution requires the U.S. President be a U.S. citizen.

- The constitution of the so-called "Federal Republic" of Germany requires the "FRG" president be 1,000 years old.

a bunch of colonies is not a country. you became a country when you obtained your independence.
regarding the constitution, I know you guys are very proud of it because you think of it as "old". Every article in your constitution is seen as biblical, it's like the ten commandments! you guys have way too much respect towards your constitution, and some stuff evolve. all the stuff with the NRA claiming it's in the cnstitution and all is ridiculous. comon sense prevails.

[betiko]

are you guys serious?

probably none of you guys are true americans; you are all european, asians, africans descendants.. so because your grandpa or your great grandpa made it to the US you are looking down on people who are like second generation? how stupid is that? the US is just a regroupment of different nationalities,your country is among the newest in the world, not even 250 years old and isn't based on a specific ethnicity.

And the "natives" came over 14k years ago (and killed off many native species), so what's your point? What's an acceptable time for true american-ness?

-TG

you just made my point right there actually. since your are all freshly americans in your bloodlines, judging the americanness of Obama is ridiculous.

[saxitoxin]

your country is among the newest in the world, not even 250 years old

As a country the U.S. is 405 years old (as a state it's 236).

Obama is just American, do you really think he feels closer to kenya? does he speeks like a kenyan?

I don't think Scott, et. al., are arguing Obama is engineering a vast conspiracy to propel Kenya to world power status. The only argument is whether Obama forged his identity documents or not.

Are some things illegal in France and other things legal? If some things are illegal, and Sarkozy did one of those things, should he be held to account or not?

in france we have a norwegian born and raised woman with french passport running for president (the elections are this week end) and we are not making a big deal about it, even if she has a huge accent.

The U.S. and France do not use the same constitution. France uses a constitution imposed by a military junta after an army coup d'etat in 1958. The U.S. uses a constitution approved after a convention in 1783 (which followed an army coup d'etat in 1776).

- Article 65 of the French constitution requires members of the Conseil Superieur be French citizens.

- Article whatever of the U.S. constitution requires the U.S. President be a U.S. citizen.

- The constitution of the so-called "Federal Republic" of Germany requires the "FRG" president be 1,000 years old.

a bunch of colonies is not a country. you became a country when you obtained your independence.
regarding the constitution, I know you guys are very proud of it because you think of it as "old". Every article in your constitution is seen as biblical, it's like the ten commandments! you guys have way too much respect towards your constitution, and some stuff evolve. all the stuff with the NRA claiming it's in the cnstitution and all is ridiculous. comon sense prevails.

First, I'm not US-American.

Second, there is a difference between state and nation. France has been a nation since 8XX (whenever the Treaty of Verdun was signed) and a state since 1789 when the French nation was separated from the person of the Bourbon chief. The U.S. has been a nation since the Jamestown settlement of 1607 when unified language, customs and borders were first established, and a state since 1776. It would be simple to suggest, during the period of the English Civil War, where contact with Britain was interrupted and North America sealed off from the rest of the world for some decades, it didn't operate as a nation, even if it didn't have legal state status.

Your third point is ridiculous in the face of my observation that the French constitution has citizenship requirements for offices of state.

Your (new) fourth point is completely ludicrous. For someone to hold up a constitution drafted by the dictator DeGaulle after he staged an armed, military coup, as a legal document worthy of emulation is beyond hilarious. Reminds me of the Spanish who finger wag Latin America for their lack of progressiveness while sitting in a country that is still littered with statues of Franco and whose current king was Franco's former errand boy.

you just made my point right there actually. since your are all freshly americans in your bloodlines, judging the americanness of Obama is ridiculous.

No one is judging his "Americanness." They're judging whether he forged a legal document.

You don't seem to understand the subject of this discussion.

Also, your tone of participation is that of a colonialist-imperialist.

[Phatscotty]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things are gonna get nuts...and they know things will get nuts, so there is no way in hell they are going to let any information out regarding the issue, and anyone who does is going to be viciously attacked and socially buried.

[saxitoxin]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things will get pretty nuts...

Describe the logistics of how it would be shown. Since a digital copy isn't sufficient, what method of exhibiting the paper copy would be okay?

[Phatscotty]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things will get pretty nuts...

Describe the logistics of how it would be shown. Since a digital copy isn't sufficient, what method of exhibiting the paper copy would be okay?

The same method I use would be okay. The paper with the stampy. And it's not like I'm saying it should be "released" or anything, but it should be requisite with the application, or something. Honestly, I think it just got skipped over because John Mccain was born in Panama.

I do however think Obama's college transcripts should be released though. Then at least I would have more information to decide on whether he is super intelligent, or just intelligent, or just average, or just partied a lot through college.

[saxitoxin]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things will get pretty nuts...

Describe the logistics of how it would be shown. Since a digital copy isn't sufficient, what method of exhibiting the paper copy would be okay?

The same method I use would be okay. The paper with the stampy. And it's not like I'm saying it should be "released" or anything, but it should be requisite with the application, or something.

Who is the HR rep who reviews the job application for the job of president? I'm still unclear exactly to whom the paper birth certificate is going to be shown.

[Phatscotty]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things will get pretty nuts...

Describe the logistics of how it would be shown. Since a digital copy isn't sufficient, what method of exhibiting the paper copy would be okay?

The same method I use would be okay. The paper with the stampy. And it's not like I'm saying it should be "released" or anything, but it should be requisite with the application, or something.

Who is the HR rep who reviews the job application for the job of president? I'm still unclear exactly to whom the paper birth certificate is going to be shown.

I do not know. I just know that we need to go a little further than "trust me, I was born here"

[saxitoxin]

Whoa there Saxi! I don't think I have ever once stated that Obama's birth certificate wasn't legitimate, or that he was born in Kenya . (trolls begin your search now, don't bother reading the rest) The only things I have ever said is that he should just show it to get everyone to shut up, and thing to the effect of he should show it because it's creating a lot of controversy, or it doesn't look right, or the debate about it certainly will not work to be a positive for Obama, or that it would be wise just for him to end it. I have wondered if he was hiding it, suspected maybe something wasn't in order, but I have always felt this no matter what the truth is, it's too late now, so I don't focus on it at all. The time for that to happen was before the election, and it probably should have happened. I had to show my papers when I got a job.

If there is some kind of evidence the BC is a forgery, well, things will get pretty nuts...

Describe the logistics of how it would be shown. Since a digital copy isn't sufficient, what method of exhibiting the paper copy would be okay?

The same method I use would be okay. The paper with the stampy. And it's not like I'm saying it should be "released" or anything, but it should be requisite with the application, or something.

Who is the HR rep who reviews the job application for the job of president? I'm still unclear exactly to whom the paper birth certificate is going to be shown.

I do not know.

It sounds like this isn't a very well thought out plan.

[Phatscotty]

Toxin, just because I do not know where the birth certificate should be shown, does not mean it's a bad idea to require that it be shown.

How about he FEC

it's time to file a Statement of Candidacy. This includes the candidate's name and address, the name and address of his or her principal campaign committee, and little else. Technically, you don't need to fill out the paperwork until you've raised or spent $5,000 on your campaign; after that, you have 15 days to send the form to the FEC and the opposing candidates. A candidate gets another 10 days to fill out a Statement of Organization, which registers his or her principal campaign committee with the FEC. The document designates a treasurer and a custodian of records to oversee money in and money out.

Other candidates never register with the FEC at all. In fact, you can dodge the whole bureaucracy if you can run for president without spending more than $5,000 of your own money. In the 1996 presidential campaign, Ralph Nader made a point of not filing a statement of candidacy; he came in fourth in the voting.

Once you've declared your candidacy, federal law requires you to file monthly or quarterly financial reports on campaign spending. To get matching campaign funds from the federal government, you'll need to prove that you raised at least $5,000 in each of 20 states, and then submit a letter and written certification to the FEC agreeing to play by its rules. Your campaign will also have to fill out forms for personal expenditures, debt settlements, and pretty much everything else. You can find all the reporting forms here.

[saxitoxin]

If a FEC clerk reviewed Obama's birth certificate you would be satisfied, case closed? (Keeping in mind three of the five FEC commissioners are Democrats.)

The problem isn't that you don't know where it should be shown. The problem is I haven't heard a single person articulate a concrete standard by which Obama could prove his birth. It's always just a vague "he should show it to someone." Since birth skeptics are asking he do something for which no process exists and no past US president has had to do, the onus is theirs to articulate specifically what it is he's supposed to do, beyond "just show it to someone."

To the best of my knowledge he hasn't refused to show it to any state chief elections officer (Sec of State/Commonwealth) who's requested to see it ... just that none (including Republicans) have asked. Short of a door to door bus tour, I'm unsure what else he's supposed to do. So, too, it seems are you! (I agree with you he should release his university transcripts.)

[Phatscotty]

If a FEC clerk reviewed Obama's birth certificate you would be satisfied, case closed? (Keeping in mind three of the five FEC commissioners are Democrats.)

The problem isn't that you don't know where it should be shown. The problem is I haven't heard a single person articulate a concrete standard by which Obama could prove his birth. It's always just a vague "he should show it to someone." Since birth skeptics are asking he do something for which no process exists and no past US president has had to do, the onus is theirs to articulate specifically what it is he's supposed to do, beyond "just show it to someone."

To the best of my knowledge he hasn't refused to show it to any state chief elections officer (Sec of State/Commonwealth) who's requested to see it ... just that none (including Republicans) have asked. Short of a door to door bus tour, I'm unsure what else he's supposed to do. So, too, it seems are you! (I agree with you he should release his university transcripts.)

The process should exist, for all candidates. That is generally what I have been saying.