Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Darius871]

If it was so easy to shirk a long-standing precedent like that, then how justified is the fear that shooting out one birth certificate would set a bad precedent opening the floodgates to a relentless deluge of unreasonable demands to which all must accede to survive? Oh the horror...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
Sure there is - not withholding any fact pertaining to one's past. Providing an exception for disclosing classified material - which involves obvious criminal sanctions - is not subjective. Adding a categorical exception for things invoking one's always-waivable privacy "rights" would be subjective.

And what is pertinent? More importantly, who is in a position to decide what is pertinent? You still haven't reached fabled "objectivity."

Privacy laws very emphatically protect medical records and many financial records, but apparently that doesn't paint demands for them "unreasonable." I'm just curious why that is. In fact, medical records are more tightly protected than even birth certificates are, as the latter can be obtained by even the most perfunctory subpoena, while the latter raise complex issues of privilege requiring a very compelling state interest. There's no "DoH clerk-patient privilege" that I'm aware of...

Campaings are free to chose what they make available and what they don't. If campaings make financial and medical records available, it is because the masses and the press that informs those masses demands it.

Perhaps the simple point is that most people can't believe that someone would spend so much time and effort to gain an office if they knew something so easily verifiable today as the cirsumstances of ones birth, could at any moment disqualify them. This is why the vast majority of people don't demand such information - they assume as a given. The campaign never has to make ANYTHING available unless it is demanded by some law or regulation - whenever they do, it is an issue of managing expectations. Obama doesn't need to, and the majority of the country isn't asking, so there is no reason why he should take the action, except to mollify people who would be and remain critical anyways.

If any of the members of the Electoral College decide to demand the information, or any person in Congress mounts a challenge, then Obama will be forced to account. Until then, they don't have to, and that is their choice.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
And what is pertinent? More importantly, who is in a position to decide what is pertinent? You still haven't reached fabled "objectivity."

I'd edited before your post for that reason; "not withholding any fact in one's knowledge" is about as objective as you can get.

Originally posted by GePap
Campaings are free to chose what they make available and what they don't. If campaings make financial and medical records available, it is because the masses and the press that informs those masses demands it.

Not in dispute. It was just an example in reply to your suggestion that "privacy laws" are some sort of barrier between what should or should not be disclosed. Apparently we agree that they define only what one's waivable rights are, not what should or should not be disclosed. That remains subjective.

Originally posted by GePap
Perhaps the simple point is that most people can't believe that someone would spend so much time and effort to gain an office if they knew something so easily verifiable today as the cirsumstances of ones birth, could at any moment disqualify them. This is why the vast majority of people don't demand such information - they assume as a given.

This has never been disputed. I make the same assumption, after all.

Originally posted by GePap
Obama doesn't need to, and the majority of the country isn't asking, so there is no reason why he should take the action, except to mollify people who would be and remain critical anyways.

As I said, "mollifying" the incorrigible isn't the only reason. Far more importantly it also saves a ****-ton of money, such that the present course of stonewalling is an unnecessary detriment to the DNC, counterbalanced by no gain whatsoever, aside from perhaps the illusion of preserved privacy (which would not actually be sacrificed by the innocuous details in this particular document). Hard numbers on a balance sheet from exhorbitant attorney invoices are about as goddamned objective as you can get. That's the only thing that truly bothers me. The rest about what "should" be public is just subjective bloviating on both sides.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871

I'd edited before your post for that reason; "not withholding any fact in one's knowledge" is about as objective as you can get.

So what, he should release his reports cards, all of them, detailed notes on every doctor's appointment, his schedules if any since birth? There are counteless "facts" about any human being's lives that could be demmanded depending on the whims of those asking. Either you spend all your time meeting these requests or you have to make decisions as to which ones you follow.

As I said, "mollifying" the incorrigible isn't the only reason. Far more importantly it also saves a ****-ton of money, such that the present course of stonewalling is an unnecessary detriment to the DNC, counterbalanced by no gain whatsoever, aside from perhaps the illusion of preserved privacy (which would not actually be sacrificed by the innocuous details in this particular document). Hard numbers on a balance sheet from exhorbitant attorney invoices are about as goddamned objective as you can get. That's the only thing that truly bothers me. The rest about what "should" be public is just subjective bloviating on both sides.

People spend money on dumb things all the time.Think of it as economic stimulus.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
So what, he should release his reports cards, all of them, detailed notes on every doctor's appointment, his schedules if any since birth? There are counteless "facts" about any human being's lives that could be demmanded depending on the whims of those asking. Either you spend all your time meeting these requests or you have to make decisions as to which ones you follow.

That's what a staff is for. We're talking about merely retrieving and presenting documents here, like administrative assistants do all the time with nothing more than a phone and email address, not hours of face-to-face depositions. But yes, it's certainly a pipe dream that would never happen.

Originally posted by GePap
People spend money on dumb things all the time.Think of it as economic stimulus.

Fair enough. I just wish I was a DNC lawyer right about now.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama's staff wouldn't have to do any work to release a lot of his records, anyway. He just needs to give permission to Columbia, Harvard, etc. to make his records publicly available and then they'd handle all the requests.

[Darius871]

Yeah, but I'm sure sifting through all the kooky emails & letters to find legitimate ones, filling out and and arrowing consent forms for the big man to sign in a 2-minute batch, etc. would take up at least half of a full-time entry-level job. But not much more than that, and probably not for more than a year or two.

[Deity Dude]

I don't see why it is a bad/unreasonable precedent to prove you are legally eligible to seek/hold the office you are running for/elected to.

Gepap's method of waiting until after the primaries are over, then the general election is concluded, the incoming administration is appointed and then hoping one of the electors challenges him seems much more unreasonable than just providing the records that prove you are a citizen.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Gepap's method of waiting until after the primaries are over, then the general election is concluded, the incoming administration is appointed and then hoping one of the electors challenges him seems much more unreasonable than just providing the records that prove you are a citizen.

How can an administration be "appointed" before it takes power?

As for the record, the vast majority of people are satisfied that Obama meets the qualifications, otherwise you would see the RNC up in arms at least. A small but vocal fringe is harping on this.

[KrazyHorse]

put him on ignore. his posts on this thread are reason enough.

[Docfeelgood]

Originally posted by GePap




Sorry to break it to you, but facts are facts no matter who delivers them, and no matter what you think of those people.

You have no shown no documentary or testimonial evidence that Obama wasn't born in the United States, or links to any site showing such evidence.

All you have is supositions, rumors, and an asenine beliefe that somehow you or any tom, dick, or harry is entitled to view someone's confidential information cause you care to.

Hey, you know what? You are a tax cheat. Prove you aren't! Post your tax returns for the past 10 years. Until you do, it is clear that you can't disprove the claim. After all, making a claim seems sufficient to create an "issue" in your mind.

What facts?

You have no shown no documentary or testimonial evidence that Obama wasn't born in the United States, or links to any site showing such evidence.

Oh, but he has?
Lack of I should note.

[Docfeelgood]

BTW
I just want him to prove he was born in the USA.

[Theben]

Now I want McCain to provide evidence that he is qualified running for political office in the USA.

[TCO]

Come the Revolution, we liquidate the fellow traveller tools first.

[Theben]

I can't believe this thread went 8 pages.