Republican birther hokey pokey

[palerider]

In the United States, the right of national citizenship is defined by federal law; which legislative authority, under the Constitution, resides in Congress. In the 1950's, the Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. §1401, et seq. defining nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. These provisions, some of which apply retroactively, govern a person’s status as a natural born citizen; which federal statutes supercede prior case law (including decisions of the Supreme Court) on the subject of citizenship to the extent inconsistent with the Congressional legislation. Under this law, both Barack Obama and John McCain are eligible to be President of the United States. (NB: Prior to the enactment of § 1403(a) of title 8 of the United State Code in 1952, Senator McCain would not have been deemed a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President.)

However, as I have explained before, the spurious claims challenging the eligibility of President Obama will not be heard because the plaintiffs lack standing to sue. In this regard, what standing means is that the plaintiff must be the owner (or holder) of a claim for an '"injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."' Goode v. City of Philadelphia, 539 F.3d 311, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153, 9-10 (3d Cir. 2008), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Without proper standing, the court does not have "subject matter" jurisdiction. For example, a prior case filed by a voter who sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee alleging that Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States was dismissed for lack of standing. See Hollander v. McCain, LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008).

Mccain was born to a US military man overseas on orders and an American citizen mother, quite a different situation from obama.

 

[Richard Savage]

Under the law, it is a distinction without a difference.

 

[palerider]

Under the law, it is a distinction without a difference.

Sorry, but it isn't. The diplomatic "status of forces agreements" between nations with regard to children born to american military parents while in those nations makes it different.

 

[Richard Savage]

Inapposite.

 

[Richard Savage]

"This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises."
- Charles Dickens, Bleak House (1852-53)

These spurious lawsuits and frivolous appeals over President Obama’s eligibility have no merit. They will slacken when their proponents are sanctioned under the federal rules. No doubt, the speculation will continue unabated; but after speculation has done its worst, they will finally cease when the lawyers find nothing more to be made from champerty.

 

[palerider]

Inapposite.

It may be irrelavent with regard to the case at hand, but it does create a legal distinction between the case of mccain and obama.

And you are probably right with regard to nothing likely coming from this case. It does prove, however, that the system is broken if no citizen has legal standing to challenge the president based on constitutional requirements levied upon him.

 

[top gun]

There is no requirement that a senator be born in the US and no one has ever required that he provide a birth certificate. Further, you have not seen proof that he was born in the US. Your entire position is no more than an article of your faith.

I never said a Senator had to be born in the US just to be a Senator... but he still must be throughly background checked just like anyone else for National Security Clearance. A Clearance that Senator Obama held. Had he not been born in the US this would certainly and without any doubt whatsoever be known way back then.

Furthermore the President does have to be born in the US and is security checked as well even before he's elected but just even a candidate. To base your misbegotten belief on the ludicrous idea that all of the National Security Agencies of the United States of America know that our President wasn't born in America but just decided not to mention it. Well there's no other word for it... that's just plain being stupid.

And the only thing I have faith in is that our National Security Structure does do it's job. On top of the fact that I've seen a Hawaiian certificate of birth and the not one but two newspaper announcements in Hawaii of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii.

But basically it's like this. I don't personally know when you get your drunk & disorderly what your alcohol level was. But I trust the proper authority to know and prosecute you accordingly.

You've already been checkmated here. If President Obama wasn't born in America prove it. If he's in the full control of the office of President and you can't prove why he shouldn't then you by definition have lost this debate.

 

[top gun]

Well, he is in the white house and does have full authority. What is disturbing is that you simply accept that he is american born because he says so. My bet is that the place of his birth doesn't matter a whit to you so proof of his birthplace is completely irrelavent as far as you are concerned.

Well you assume incorrectly.

If I felt that Barack Obama was not a US citizen and as such could not legally hold the office of President I would not have supported him any more than I would have supported John Edwards after his affair.

I wanted a Democrat to win because the Party platform most reflected my beliefs. Having a candidate that could be removed would not serve my purpose.

The best man won... I'll leave it at that.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by palerider Well, he is in the white house and does have full authority. What is disturbing is that you simply accept that he is american born because he says so. My bet is that the place of his birth doesn't matter a whit to you so proof of his birthplace is completely irrelavent as far as you are concerned.

BY JOVE I THINK HE'S FINALLY GOT IT...LMAO
WOW...and it only took him...how many days

 

[palerider]

I never said a Senator had to be born in the US just to be a Senator... but he still must be throughly background checked just like anyone else for National Security Clearance. A Clearance that Senator Obama held. Had he not been born in the US this would certainly and without any doubt whatsoever be known way back then.

Name the congressman or senator who ever got sent back home because he or she could not get a security clearance, then tell me that every single one of them could actually pass a background security investigation for even a top secret clearance, much less the clearances required for senators and congressmen.

By the way, if you or I had friends, aquaintances, associates, or people who lent assistance with criminal records or who publicly voice anti american beliefs like William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Or "Tony" Rezko, there is no way we could ever get even a top secret clearance, much less the multitude of special compartmented clearances the president has. If you believe he has been thoroughly vetted for his clearance, then you are living in a dreamland.

 

[top gun]

Name the congressman or senator who ever got sent back home because he or she could not get a security clearance, then tell me that every single one of them could actually pass a background security investigation for even a top secret clearance, much less the clearances required for senators and congressmen.

By the way, if you or I had friends, aquaintances, associates, or people who lent assistance with criminal records or who publicly voice anti american beliefs like William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Or "Tony" Rezko, there is no way we could ever get even a top secret clearance, much less the multitude of special compartmented clearances the president has. If you believe he has been thoroughly vetted for his clearance, then you are living in a dreamland.

You keep going around in circles not facing the reality of a National Security Clearance background check. My wife worked directly with NSA for almost 8 years. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You're simply doing the old...

If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.


The point isn't that you can send an elected official "home" because something comes up on their background check. The point is that EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS UNCOVERED AND FROM THEN ON WELL KNOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here... let's try this as a math equasion...

An intense FBI (plus other agencies depending on scope) background check is done on elected officials that may require National Security Clearance. This is above and beyond the background checks that most politicians have had done on them since day one of their political career by the opposition candidates and their Party.

Senator Obama had high National Security Clearance and even spearheaded an effort to eliminate loose nukes with Republican Senator Lugar. So he was background checked here. Everything about him was known here... actually before... but for the purpose of this we'll just say here.

SEnator Obama then ran for President of the United States.

It's against the law for a person to be President of the United States and not have been born in America.

President Obama took office January 20, 2009. Still in office... still doin' just fine.

This isn't even an issue with anyone not sporting a tin foil hat because both political sides know this has been fully vetted and how it is done. The only ones still bringing it up are simply doing it for mud slinging effect to stir up the stupid.

 

[palerider]

The point isn't that you can send an elected official "home" because something comes up on their background check. The point is that EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS UNCOVERED AND FROM THEN ON WELL KNOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are saying that your wife worked for NSA and you believe that you can get a TS clearance with all the necessary compartments without regard to what is in your past so long as you disclose it, you are a liar.

Mere associations are enough to disqualify one for even low level clearance, much less high level whether you disclose them or not.

In fact, neither congressmen, senators, or the president undergo any sort of security clearance process. If you believe otherwise, then show me the law that requires and mandates it. If, as you claim, your wife worked with NSA for all those years, she should be able to name the law off the top of her head or if she was just mediocre at her job, at least tell you were to begin looking.

My bet is that no such reference to law will be forthcoming becaues no such law exists. Elected officials merely take an oath of security and it is a done deal and your whole fantasy about NSA vetting of politicians is just a product of your terribly biased imagination.

 

[Richard Savage]

There are only a few real secrets. The real secrets are: (1) the number, location and readiness status of strategic military forces; (2) the number, location and readiness status of strategic nuclear weapons systems; (3) contingency plans for theatre military operations; and (4) authentication codes for Corps level command communication channels and diplomatic messages at the ambassador level. Everything else is presumed compromised.

 

[top gun]

If you are saying that your wife worked for NSA and you believe that you can get a TS clearance with all the necessary compartments without regard to what is in your past so long as you disclose it, you are a liar.

No you're reading skills are just nonresistant.

I never said that. I said that regardless of the clearance being granted or not THE BACKGROUND CHECK IS THOROUGH AND COMPLETE AND UNCOVERS EVERYTHING. That if you missed it includes where you were born.

Mere associations are enough to disqualify one for even low level clearance, much less high level whether you disclose them or not.

And again you're simply spamming. Nobody is saying anything different. Simply saying the government knows all this DUE TO the high level background check.

In fact, neither congressmen, senators, or the president undergo any sort of security clearance process. If you believe otherwise, then show me the law that requires and mandates it. If, as you claim, your wife worked with NSA for all those years, she should be able to name the law off the top of her head or if she was just mediocre at her job, at least tell you were to begin looking.

I'll address you last part first. My wife was a Russian linguist fluent in 4 languages. Her job was not to investigate security clearance her job was to break down intercepted messages for codes and patterns, then translate them into English reporting her findings directly to NSA personnel. She was a Captain in Army Intelligence attached directly to the NSA for just that purpose.

As a sidebar: You wouldn't be smart enough or at the time anywhere near cleared to even carry her briefcase when it was empty.

On your first babble that anyone off the streets can just get National Security Clearance as a Senator or even as President because no one has a law telling them to check so they just don't (we're all a little bit stupider just for reading your words on this). There is no law disallowing the background checks so they are done as SOP a matter of National Security procedure.

Even cabinet positions are background checked.


Background Checks for White House Appointment

Background check has become an everyday process in any HR office in the land. Every time an applicant comes for an interview, background check is always expected to be conducted. For quite some years now, background checking has become an important tool for many companies to determine the credibility and capability of their prospect employees. The same procedure is what helps many businesses in awarding promotions to their employees. In schools, background check is an important tool to determine if a student has no derogatory record that might in one way or another affect the environment he/she is trying to join. All the more this process has become a government’s aide in choosing appointees for critical positions in the White House and other departments.

Many people depended on background check as the presidential campaign was on the go. Many searches have been recorded in Google’s analytic tools which, Obama and McCain topped as keywords. This is no longer surprising as the internet provides much information of people, places, things, and situation which can let one think decisively according to the facts and figures he/she has just read. It has not been made a practice before but these days, background screening of politicians is simply taking wide acclaim.

After the election of Sen. Obama to the highest office of the land, came followed the appointment of cabinet officials and other positions in the executive branch. The process is not so easy that until now, the line up of Obama’s team is not yet completed. There had been already some positions that have been filled up such as the White House Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State, but other positions as secretaries of the different positions are yet to be filled up.

Representative Artur Davis of Alabama is among the many politicians and Democrats eyed by the Obama Transition Team that will hold a position in White House. But before he can be appointed extensive background check is going to be conducted on him. Though Davis did not in any way confirm the appointment he continues to dismiss the idea of joining the Obama team because of his plan to run as governor of Alabama. With his wide background and circle of friends, even the FBI is having second thoughts because the agency houses many friends of Davis. But, considering his history of service to the House and his constituents, chances are that if he accepts the nomination to be a secretary for Obama cabinet, background checks will never be a hindrance.

Today, background search is not just a tool for ordinary employee but as well as to big politicians and celebrities aiming for a position in the government. As background search can give one an idea of the possibilities of fraud and other similar problems that might be done by the nominee, public service competence can be secured and that better administration is well assured.

As of the moment, the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Transportation has not yet filled in. Other’s departments are still moot and will undergo several processes still. Background check is mandatory process that is done to all nominees and candidates for any position in the cabinet before they can be appointed to the position.

 

[palerider]

I'll address you last part first. My wife was a Russian linguist fluent in 4 languages. Her job was not to investigate security clearance her job was to break down intercepted messages for codes and patterns, then translate them into English reporting her findings directly to NSA personnel. She was a Captain in Army Intelligence attached directly to the NSA for just that purpose.

So she was an interpreter. So what? Your claim was that she had a clue with regard to the security clearance process. Clearly she doesn't. That she had a security clearance, doesn't mean that she knows anything about the laws that govern who must have them and the process itself.

]As a sidebar: You wouldn't be smart enough or at the time anywhere near cleared to even carry her briefcase when it was empty.

An interpreter? Are you kidding. I hire people like her for $18 an hour when foriegn scientists visit our lab if they don't bring their own. I hold an advanced degree in one of the hard sciences. And among my assignments while I was in the military was an operations post in the Defense Nuclear Agency and the Air Force Weapons Lab at Kirtland AFB. My clearance was up to and including CINWDI (ask your interpreter wife what it means. My bet is that she doesn't have a clue). An interpreter? Don't make me laugh.

On your first babble that anyone off the streets can just get National Security Clearance as a Senator or even as President because no one has a law telling them to check so they just don't (we're all a little bit stupider just for reading your words on this). There is no law disallowing the background checks so they are done as SOP a matter of National Security procedure.

I note that you didn't provide the law that states that congressmen, senators, or presidents must undergo the security clearance process. No surprise, as no such law exists. Take a look at the constitutional requirements for congressmen, senators, and presidents. No security clearance requirements there.

And sorry, but you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Neither congressmen, senators, or presidents have to undergo the security clearance process.

Even cabinet positions are background checked. [/COLOR]

In case you are unaware, cabinet members are not elected officials. I never said that unelected people don't have to undergo the security clearance process, I said that congressmen, senators, and presidents don't.

Background Checks for White House Appointment

Whitehouse apointees are not elected. Again, senators, congressmen, and presidents do not undergo the security clearance process. If you believe they do, then provide credible documentation of it.

By the way, your own article confirms my statements. If you weren't so blinded by your bias, you might have seen it.

Representative Artur Davis of Alabama is among the many politicians and Democrats eyed by the Obama Transition Team that will hold a position in White House. But before he can be appointed extensive background check is going to be conducted on him. Though Davis did not in any way confirm the appointment he continues to dismiss the idea of joining the Obama team because of his plan to run as governor of Alabama. With his wide background and circle of friends, even the FBI is having second thoughts because the agency houses many friends of Davis.

If this congressman has already undergone the security clearance process, why then would it be necessary to undergo it agan and why might the FBI have any second thoughts at all over whether he would be given the clearance that you claim that he already has?

Clearly, once again, you don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Your claim is that senators and presidents undergo the security clearance process. Prove it.

The FBI says cleary who must undergo the security clearance process here:

http://www.fbi.gov/clearance/securityclearance.htm

Note that they clearly state that elected state officials with a need to know must undergo the clearance process and even that is a new procsss that arose from 9/11/ Note that federal elected officials are conspicuously absent from the requirements.

Here, have a read.

http://www.alanedmunds.com/news/security-clearance-double-standard/

Here, from Buck Revel:

'Well that’s very difficult to say how you would do that – no elected official – senator or congressman or the vice president or president – goes through a security clearance process.'

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1581/pub_detail.asp

Now you have made the claim so lets see you prove it. Simply stating it ad nauseum and providing news articles about people who are hired for positions reather than being elected to them does nothing more than further degrade any particle of crediblity that you might still retain.