Really? How do you know this?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Pastor Larry said:
That is my point, no one questioned the 42 white guys, why all of sudden we want a higher standard when a black guy gets elected? That's why I am glad Roberts said if you have solid piece of evidence (not rumors or hearsay) that Obama is not qualified bring it forward and he will look at it. Otherwise, there is no case. The burden of proof is not on Obama, it is with his accusers. Since he satisfied the election commission requirements (like the 42 white guys did) then has nothing further to proove.
LadyEagle said:
Yes, they provided what the election commission requires which is how their names got on the ballot. And it does not matter what they require, whatever it is they require he provided it the same as the other 42 presidents. The requirements don't change because you don't like a candidate or because someone starts a rumor against him.
LadyEagle said:
How can it be reverse discrimination? How can you say he believes he is above the law? He provided ALL requirements to the election commission which is what the law says. He is not breaking any laws, he obeyed the law 100%. There is no law that says he has to produce additional documents.
The ones breaking the law are the ones trying to require MORE than what the election commission requires. That is what is against the law and because they have singled out the only black president to demand increased requirements, it sure sounds like discrimination to me.
Speaking about when others have had to produce an original birth certificate is irrelevant, he didn't apply for any of those things. He ran for president and the requirements are set forth by the election commission and he met them. That is all the other 42 presidents had to do. It is all the black guy has to do also. Requiring anything more is unlawful and discrimination.
LeBuick said:
But you don't know this - does anyone know what the election commission requires? It does matter that he didn't provide proof of citizenship and as far as I know, we have never had this situation arise before, everyone who was ever elected president was a natural born citizen, could prove it if required, and didn't have questions about dual citizenship, etc.
Color has nothing to do with it, unless you are playing the race card again.
It wasn't Roberts.....it was Scalia. Look at the thread topic.
You don't know this...unless you can provide links.
Well, not really, but I guess you'll keep throwing up the race card since that is all you have.
How do you know he met ANY requirements set forth by the election commission? How do any of us know if there are any requirements set forth by the election commission? We don't. Not unless someone can provide a link that outlines what those are.
I say it is reverse discrimination because of fear - fear that if the truth were found out and if it were found that he doesn't meet the constitutional requirements for POTUS, fear would be Watts replayed thousands of times all over this land. It may come to that anyway, no matter who is POTUS.
Not true in KY, at least since 1911. I have never had to show my original birth certificate, and in this state, I do not even possess it, nor have I ever even seen it. - Frankfort has it, and has had all known birth certificates of all individuals born in KY since 1911, by law.LadyEagle said:
The state will send me one or more copies (for only a small non-refundable fee for each copy, of course) when I request one or more, and will certify that that the copy is, in fact, a true copy of the original in their possession. They will also do the same for "stillbirth" certificates, marriage and divorce certificates and death certificates (again, all for only a small non-refundable fee for each copy, of course). FTR, no pun intended, there is no per copy discount for multiple copies of any or all the above, regardless of the number requested.
I have received both 'birth' and 'death' certificates over the years, and I can assure you that, at least up until ~5 years ago, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services undoubtedly possessed only the cheapest cut-rate copiers that could be procured, likely through someone's 'sweetheart, no-bid contract'
(or else copiers that must have been 40 years old and still run on 'vacuum-tube' technology :laugh: ), considering the very poor quality of those that I have received. If the printer we use with my bride's computer :type: had produced copies of such poor quality, she would have immediately tossed it, and purchased another within the next couple of days, I can assure you.
Ed
LadyEagle said:
Again, it doesn't matter what they require. That is entirely irrelevant. What they require is what the other 42 presidents provided for the same position without question. Obama provided the same things the other 42 provided, so if what they provided was adequate for the other 42 it has to be adequate for number 44 and number 45.
LadyEagle said:
There is no fear provision in the election commissions rules. There is no fear provision in the law. According to the law, he satisfied the rules of the commission so he has satisfied all laws. Someone fear doesn't change or add to the law.
There is no law that says you must meet the election commissions criteria unless there is fear, then you might be asked to provide more, go to court etc.... If there is such a clause then you have a point.
Robert Snow
New Member
Pastor Larry said:
Do you believe you know constitutional law better than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
EdSutton said:
Two points I can add from experience...
My Dad didn't have a birth certificate because he was brought in the world by a midwife in the backwoods of LA. He was born in 28 but had only a piece of paper dated 33 which was when the census people came around. It basically said he looked about 5 at the time.
Secondly, I don't have an official birth certificate. I was born in LA Cali and because of how manual records were kept back then the state somehow don't have my birth recorded. My parents had to sign notarized affidavits when I joined the Military. Luckily I've had a SSN since I was a child so there was little doubt of my citizenship.
Lastly, Obama mother was a US citizen so he is a natural citizen no matter how this comes out.
Refresh my constutitional knowledge here, but is the "election committee" charged with defending the constitution?
Furthermore, if he gave proof to the "election committee" (whoever that is), then give it to everyone else.
This is simple.
I don't know if anyone questioned the 42 white guys. They may have. But how can it be black and white? No one questioned Jesse Jackson, at least on citizenship grounds, because it was clear. No one questioned Alan Keyes on these grounds. Obama is not the first black to run. He is the first to be seriously questioned because there are apparently sufficient questions due to Obama's lack of transparency.
Really? According to who? Should we just assume everyone is a citizen until someone proves otherwise? What about the millions of "illegals"? Are they no longer illegal unless someone proves it?
You see, I don't think you seriously mean that. You see all kinds of problems with it. You are just stuck defending Obama no matter what. And that's a big difference between you and some others, and a big similarity with you and some others. There were some like you during the Bush years who defended Bush no matter what. You are doing they did. You should do what a number of us did, and call 'em straight. When someone is wrong, they are wrong. Whether it is Bush or Obama.
It is easy to see that this is a problem Obama brought on himself. These questions have been around for more than a year. This could be over and done with, but it's not due to poor leadership on Obama's part.
targus said:
Because their names got on the ballot. You must satisfy the election committee requirements to get your name on the ballot. His name was on the ballot so he met the criteria. Their names were on the ballot so they met the criteria.
targus said:
Again, irrelevant... What ever the criteria is they met it because their names were on the ballot.
targus said:
It doesn't matter because in order to get your name on the ballot you must fulfill the criteria. The other 42 fulfilled it because their names made it on the ballot. Obama fulfilled it because his name was on the ballot. What ever the criteria is, you must fulfill it before your name can get on the ballot.
Pastor Larry said:
It doesn't matter, the election commission is all that was required for the other 42 white guys, why do we now run at the black guy waiving the constitution? If the FEC has been good enough for over 200+ years, why suddenly we need more proof?
Pastor Larry said:
We likewise don't know or question what proof the other 42 gave, no one is asking to see their poof. Why are you questioning the only black guy demanding to see his proof. 42 were white and no one questioned their qualifications. 1 is black and suddenly we need more proof and what the other 42 supplied is no longer sufficient. Sounds like discrimination to me... My hearing is working well.
Pastor Larry said:
What we do know is none of them submitted extra verifications or history would have recorded the incident. So even if they were questioned, they provided no extra proof. So Obama not providing extra proof is following previous example so must be the correct way to handle accusations like this.
Pastor Larry said:
Alan Keyes and Jesse were never a threat to get in the oval office. For that matter Al Sharpton ran but who was threated by that. Initially Obama was not questioned either, it was not until it appeared he could beat Hillary (a viable candidate) that this card came out.
Pastor Larry said:
Now you are seeing the light... How man times have you filled out a form that asked if you were a citizen? So yes, an illegal can say they are a citizen but it would be easy to prove they are not. With all the people from the right who are trying desperately to prove Obama is not a citizen, if there were concrete proof, it would have been found and presented by now. Even this grandmother who lives in a shack, if she did indeed say he was born in Kenya, she would have been drug here to testify before a judge and be living in a all expense paid mansion by now.
Pastor Larry said:
That is where you're wrong, I have no skin in this game. I am just standing on the sidelines calling it as I see it. My point is simple, Obama met what was required of the previous 42 white presidents, just seems so coincidental that we demand more from the first black president. If this case were accepted by any court with authority over the matter, discrimination could be easily proven by a first year la student.
Pastor Larry said:
I see it the opposite way, I think he is showing strong leadership but not catering to any naysayer that comes along with an accusation. This shows strength and will be a required attribute when our domestic and foreign enemies make similar accusations. It shows he will not stoop in standing times. If he did stoop, the right would only pick up a new accusation against him which might very well be the fact that he is weak because he stooped.
In an unintended Freudian slip, you have identified the problem ... waiving the constitution. We should not do that however. As I said (and you have not disputed), there has never been any serious doubt about others.
Because of the questions and the refusal to answer them.
I am not. I said I don't think there's an issue here. I am questioning his judgment that he let this go on for this long when it was an easily answerable question.
Cheney's were questioned. But again, there has been no serious charge that anyone before was not qualified. Here there is, and it is absolutely ridiculous for you to make it about race.
No it's not. I pointed out two previous black candidates, neither of whose qualifications were questioned. So that ruins your whole theory.
No one is asking for "extra verifications." But again, there was no question. Why do you ignore that?
That's silly. But it works well for you because you have no other answer.
A number of times. So?
Yeah right ... LOL ... Hilarious. No one has ever confused you with a bystander on this. I have no doubt you call them as you see them. but you see them wrong, and this is a clear point.
Look, I agree with you that there is nothing here. But to call is racism is absurd, and does great injustice to actual cases of racism. You know that.
How is it leadership to let this issue drag on for more than a year when you could have addressed it and been done with it? All it would have taken was a few phone calls. And he didn't do it. That is gross negligence, bordering on incompetence.
One of the rules of leadership is pick your fights. A person who picks the wrong fights demonstrates lack of ability and judgment.
Another rule is win the easy ones. This was an easy one and he chose not to shut these people up.
One of the most brilliant constitutional scholars in this country thinks it should be heard. That should carry some weight with you.
Again you are letting your bias get in the way. You should be able to see how silly this is. When you defend Obama on things where it is easy to see he is wrong, it calls into question your judgment on other things and makes you look like an Obama slappy.
Remember that people questioned McCain's citizenship, and his race is different from Obama, so race isn't a factor.
No doubt some are questioning this because of his party and policies (like they did McCain). There's more to life than just race, people. Get over yourselves and get into the 21st century.
No doubt some are questioning this because of his party and policies (like they did McCain). There's more to life than just race, people. Get over yourselves and get into the 21st century.
LeBuick said:
You said that Obama provided the same as the other 42.
That Obama and the other 42 got on the ballot does not prove that they provided the same proof.
How do you know that the election committee asked for the same proof over all the years?
How do you know that Obama was not held to a lower standard?
You are the one using the word "exactly" so the burden of proof lies with you.
How do you know that the election committe did it's job exactly the same in each presidential election?
BTW - the logic of your arguement here is REALLY weak. Instead of just spouting off with thoughtless Obama defenses how about putting some real effort into it? It would make discussing things with you a lot more interesting.
Pastor Larry said:
Yes they are. They are asking that he provides the original copy of his BC when a certified copy has already been provided and validated by Hawaiian officials. That is already more than the other 42 so why push this further.
Pastor Larry said:
The issue is not dragging on for him. He is running the nation which is what the president does. That is true leadership. It is dragging on for those who won't give up this idea that they can force the president of the US to produce his BC because THEY don't believe what's been provided so far. I think it takes great leadership not to get bogged down in distractions so you can focus on the importance of your job.
Pastor Larry said:
No, it doesn't. It simply means there are brilliant constitutional scholars who hold the opinion of the right. Because the supreme court won't take the case, means there are other brilliant constitutional scholars who disagree. I guess we're just lucky the ones you site are not on the supreme court or they would violate Obama civil rights by forcing him to adhere to a different standard than the other 42.
That would be sad day for America and would mean anytime someone doubts any legal document you provide, it would then become your burden to prove them wrong instead of their burden to prove what you provided is not valid. This could cascade to any level and would be a frivolous waste of tax dollars and court time. If someone has proof the certified copy of his BC which he provided is not real, present the proof and we'll all be grateful. If all they have is doubt that is something THEY need to deal with and get over.