More on that Birth Certificate thing...
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
The Associated Press: State declares Obama birth certificate genuine
:shrug:
But I still don't get why he just can't show it to some official authority and be done with it. And I don't agree that Berg has "no standing." While I can see the courts taking action to keep every crackpot in the country from demanding a look at a candidate's BC, there has to be SOMEONE keeping an eye on the constitution and if the court system is going to do their part in the checks and balance process, that means someone, somewhere, has to file a case....if not Joe Citizen than who?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
...there is obviously something awry with this thing; the name, some sort of decsriptions, something, and Obama has MADE this an issue by not coming clean. Even if/when he does, there is the 'WHY?'
Why?
This was his first mistake.
Emmanuel was #2.
If he cans Gates that's 3 and he hasn't even sat in the chair yet.
...there is obviously something awry with this thing; the name, some sort of decsriptions, something, and Obama has MADE this an issue by not coming clean. Even if/when he does, there is the 'WHY?'
Why?
This was his first mistake.
Emmanuel was #2.
If he cans Gates that's 3 and he hasn't even sat in the chair yet.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
...because there is something wrong.
Now that they're in, they can fight it. This is a sign of a complete lack of principles and is nothing new for this guy; his state senate seat was handed to him by an ex mentor who wanted to run for US House, couldn't win and wanted her old seat back. He would not step aside. She petitioned and EVERYONE says she would have wiped up the floor with him. He had her petition thrown out for cheating...because he knows how its done.
His disciples do not wanna face how calculating this guy actually is and that his record means they are nothing to him any more than a means to an end regardless of what they want to fantasize he'll do for them.
...because there is something wrong.
Now that they're in, they can fight it. This is a sign of a complete lack of principles and is nothing new for this guy; his state senate seat was handed to him by an ex mentor who wanted to run for US House, couldn't win and wanted her old seat back. He would not step aside. She petitioned and EVERYONE says she would have wiped up the floor with him. He had her petition thrown out for cheating...because he knows how its done.
His disciples do not wanna face how calculating this guy actually is and that his record means they are nothing to him any more than a means to an end regardless of what they want to fantasize he'll do for them.
donbarzini
Well-Known Member
It seems like a logical assumption. BUUUUUUUUUT............ever heard of Thomas Eagleton? How could something as simple as mental health issues be overlooked?
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
The article says that they have no doubt that he was born in Hawaii. They can say that if the record on file actually says that he was born in Hawaii. If they said "there's no doubt he's a citizen" THEN I would agree with you that the laws in Hawaii would allow for doubt. If they had merely said that they had a birth certificate on file, then too, I would agree with you that it doesn't prove citizenship. However, if they have a bc on file, then someone could have looked at it and seen the place of birth and made such a statement.
Of course, now we get into, "Did someone actually look at the place of birth or did they just assume since there was a certificate, he was born in Hawaii?" Well, I assume that Hawaii Health Dept officials know Hawaii law better than most as it pertains to this sort of thing, so they would know that a Hawaii BC could be issued w/o actually having been born in Hawaii, so they would know to look at such a thing before declaring they have no doubts, especially since no one is really disputing that there is a bc on file in Hawaii, the only dispute is what it actually says regarding birthplace.
There is also the credibility of the source and if someone who has access to viewing BCs actually made such a statement. AP would be likely to confirm the credibility of the source, but you never know. :shrug:
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are saying, but there wasn't any quoted statements in the AP account where anyone said that Obama was born in Hawaii, only that they have a record on file containing an original birth certificate for him. One would think that if it was stated by either Fukino or Onaka that "Obama was born in Hawaii" they would have quoted them as saying so, but that isn't what was provided by the AP.
What was denied was the petition for an injunction on the election pending the decision on the writ. Berg actually tried to halt the election process.
ylexot
Super Genius
It's obvious that you're not a lawyer. 
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
I believe that Ken is correct. If you check the supreme court docket listing, there are actually two items listed: No. 08-570, which is the original filing requesting court review of the lower court decision, and 08A391, which is asking for an injunction to stop the election pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari from the 08-570 docketed item. Justice Souter denied the request for an injunction (08A391), NOT 08-570.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. It would seem to me to be a "no-brainer" for President-elect Obama -- give the court the document & get this out of his hair once & for all. What is keeping it going is that he has not done that. Perhaps it is because he feels that he has already produced the document and that this is ridiculous that it hasn't gone away as an issue. If that is the case, what does it harm to submit it one more time to the highest court in the land to put it to rest once and for all? Letting it sit like this only opens the door to more speculation and some of it is pretty far-fetched! However, because he hasn't addressed it at all, I have to wonder (along with everyone else on the forum) --- WHY???
And before some of you slap me back on this one, don't bother -- I've been reading it since the beginning, doing my own research, and listening to both sides. I still haven't seen a good answer to the "WHY?" Just put me down as perpetually curious and still waiting to be convinced one way or the other...
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
The first line of the AP article says that according to state officials, there is "no doubt" that he was born in Hawaii. They don't actually quote a specific person, but it would be very shoddy journalism on their part to draw that conclusion, if all they were told was that there was a bc on file. That doesn't mean you can rule out shoddy journalism, but AP is generally better than that.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staffers. In other words aren't they simply the main stream media and haven't we recently seen how "better than that" they have been lately?
PsyOps
Pixelated
That was to stay the election results until the BC thing can get sorted out.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Docket: No. 08A391 refers to Berg’s request to stay the election results. This was denied.
Docket: No. 08-570 refers to the demand by Berg for BO to produce the BC that is locked up in a vault in HI.
The way I read it according to the articles that have been provided is Souter has given BO until Dec 1 2008 to provide this, at which time Berg has to respond with further action. I’m no lawyer and can only conclude this from the scant bit of articles that are talking about this. Since no major news media seems to want to talk about this I am wondering where it is really going or if there is any real validity to it. But it does seem that at least Souter is giving Berg a change to prove this to be USSC-worthy.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
All they have to do is reply. The reply could be to produce the BC, or it could be reasons why Obama shouldn't be compelled to present his BC.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Tilted
..
They don't even have to do that. Generally speaking nobody is required to respond to a petition for a writ of certiorari; however, if anyone wishes to, they have 30 days to do so (usually 20 if it is a response in support of the petition).
SCOTUS could order someone to respond, but they usually don't, and there is no indication that they have in this case.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is just a request for the court to review the case. The overwhelming majority of such requests are denied. Until they grant the petition, they generally don't consider the merits and arguments of the case in specific.