Wednesday, March 23, 2011

May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 22, 2011


WND in its recent story, Why Short Forms Fall Short, states that Washington D.C. and Virginia Passport Offices do not accept short-form birth certificates as acceptable items of proof of identify, but Hawaii does.

Joseph Farah reports: “I recently conducted a little experiment. I called three passport offices with the following apocryphal tale: I said I needed to apply for a passport but only had a short-form certification of live birth from Hawaii. Would that suffice? The three passport offices I contacted were in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

Hawaii said "no problem."

Washington and Virginia both said no way.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753

I checked the U.S. Department of State web site on this issue. The U.S. Department of State, in giving instructions to the public on how to apply for a U.S. passport, states that a birth certificate is one method of proof of identify. It then states:

“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html.

The U.S. Department of State also has this to say about birth certificates from Puerto Rico:

“As of October 30, 2010 the United States Department of State does not accept Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 as primary proof of citizenship for a U.S. passport.

The Puerto Rican government passed a law that went into effect on October 30, 2010, invalidating all Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010. The law does not affect Puerto Rican born citizens who already have a U.S. passport. As of October 30, 2010 the Department of State only accepts Puerto Rican birth certificates issued on or after July 1, 2010 as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753 .

And in New Jersey, the Department of Health and Senior Services says this regarding the reliability of some birth certificates which have been proven to be forgeries:

“Birth certificates previously issued by the Jersey City/Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (with the raised seal from Hudson County):

• Are no longer accepted by the federal government when applying for a U.S. passport;

• May not be accepted by other federal agencies; and

• May not be accepted by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, depending on year of birth.”
http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/jerseycity.shtml .

So, as we can see, birth certificates by themselves are not necessarily reliable pieces of evidence of where someone was born. That someone is registered as born in a certain place does not necessarily mean that the person was in fact born there. It is the corroborating information that is stated in the certificates or any other supporting evidence that gives one any reasonable degree of assurance that the birth event occurred as is represented in the document.

As the only proof of his birth place, Obama has presented a 2008 computer image (not a piece of paper) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is a short-form birth certificate and not a long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. This computer image does not include the name of the birth hospital or the name and signature of the delivery doctor or of any other witness to the birth. The Hawaii Department of Health has publicly stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. But we have not seen any evidence to support their assertion. Even the two newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii are nothing more than a repeat of what someone allegedly told the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 regarding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. On the contrary, there is much evidence putting into serious doubt Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii. See this evidence at, A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html.

Additionally, on July 4, 2010, Lucas Smith provided each member of Congress with his or her own personal copy of the Coast Province General Hospital Kenya Birth Certificate, bearing Certificate No. 32018, which shows that Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Coast Province General Hospital in “Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya.” On March 12, 2011, Mr. Smith called into the Hagmann-McLeod Report on CFP Radio, a radio show on which Commander Charles Kerchner and I were guests. I directly asked Mr. Smith if he is willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before Congress as to how he obtained this birth certificate. He said that he has always been ready to do so. One may listen to the show via podcast at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio/2011/03/13/hagmann-mcleod-report . Despite all this, Congress has not asked for any investigation into the authenticity of the Lucas Smith birth certificate. Nor has this Kenyan birth certificate yet been proven to be a forgery.

Obama’s short-form birth certificate, which states that it is only prima facie evidence of place of birth, is not only unreliable, but fails to adequately prove Obama’s place of birth in light of all this other conflicting evidence. Evidently, Obama’s internet-posted COLB has not convinced a great majority of Americans. A new poll and survey shows that 91% of Americans doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. In other words, only 9% believe Obama has adequately documented his eligibility to be President. See the recent WND story by Bob Unruh, entitled, “Shocking scientific poll on Obama's eligibility” at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=276865.

Obama is not only applying for a passport. Rather, he wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Is it not past time that Obama produce to the American people his certified long-form, hospital generated birth certificate from Hawaii or some other evidence showing that he and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, were patients on August 4, 1961 in the hospital in which he claims he was born, Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children? Is it not also past time that Congress honestly and thoroughly investigate Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii so that we can finally put this pesky issue to rest? Or are the powers that be expecting that Obama will not run for re-election in 2012?

Finally, if Congress is not going to honor its constitutional duty to protect the American people and the Constitution, than it is up to the States to do so. On the States’ constitutional power and duty to address presidential eligibility requirements, see “The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5", at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 22, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

29 comments:

MichaelN said...

Part 1
The COLB image posted on the internet proves nothing.
Do you tell a cop to look on the internet for a copy of your driver's license?
Even so, if you look at Obama's internet image of a COLB, you will see it says 'Date FILED With the Registrar'
If you compare that to COLBs issued to two other people with COLBS dated before and after Obama's COLB, you will see that their COLBs state 'Date ACCEPTED by the STATE Registrar'.
All ObAMA's COLB is good for (if it is a document actually issued by HDoH) is proof that someone reported a birth and that report was filed.

MichaelN said...

Part 2
When, satisfactory proof of the birth is provided, THEN the HDoH may issue a COLB 'ACCEPTED by the STATE Registrar'.
If he was genuine, he would show his real BC no problem.
Here's what it seems might have happened for Fukino to change her ambiguous & deliberately misleading statement from 'I have seen the vital records' to 'have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record"
Hawaiian Revised Statutes.

MichaelN said...

Part 3
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Consider that Obama was not issued a hospital Hawaiian BC from day one, granny may have lodged her statement claiming home birth in Hawaii and it got filed, and subsequently a newspaper listing entries were generated.

So it was 'filed', but not 'accepted', waiting some form of verification that quite possibly was not forth-coming.

Later down the track Obama finds a need to have some form of evidence of Hawaiian birth, so he gets issued the COLB still marked as 'filed' but still not marked as 'accepted', for Obama this suffices for the time being, hence Fukino's ambiguous first statement i.e. stating 'vital records' but NOT 'birth certificate' at THAT TIME.

With the presidential election looming, Obama goes to Hawaii and applies for a birth certificate to be issued under 338-17.8

All he needs to 'prove' is that 'that the legal parents' 'had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child'.

So granny signs an affidavit attesting to Obama's parents' residency requirements & granny had CONNECTIONS from way back.

Granny as the astute banker, etc that she was, had a high degree of credibility & trustworthiness in Hawaii.

HDoH accepts granny's affidavit as 'good enough for me', so Obama gets his application in the system for issuance of a 'real' BC, hence Fukino came out with her follow-up statement where she could safely say 'birth certificate on file'

So the 'birth certificate' may have been issued on the sole affidavit of granny, and Obama may very well have been born 'out of state', and to a British subject to boot.

It is also highly possible that Obama refuses to produce this BC for scrutiny, because it will have notations revealing the basis of its issue.

MichaelN said...

Part 4

See posts numbered 9, 18 & 31 for the images of the COLBs that show the 'Date Filed by Registrar" and
"Date Accepted by State Registrar"

Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304917/posts

MichaelN said...

Even Hawaiian Statute HRS338-13 excludes a COLB as 'for all purposes the same as the original'.

A COLB is by definition a 'part thereof' as distinct from 'the contents' which must mean ALL the contents because of the mention of 'part thereof'.

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant
a certified copy of any certificate, or
the contents of any certificate, or
any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

MichaelN said...

LUCAS SMITH TO TELL HIS STORY OF OBTAINING OBAMA KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE
http://conservativearizonapatriot.blogspot.com/2011/03/mark-your-calendar-now-lucas-smith-to.html

Puzo1 said...

The Obots are funny people. They ridicule those who maintain that certain Kenyan officials have removed all evidence of Obama’s birth in the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. They say that such a claim is preposterous and that if Obama were in fact born there, the evidence would still be there. Then at the same time they ridicule Lucas Smith. They say that it cannot be that Lucas Smith obtained any birth certificate from that hospital, for how could Kenyan officials have forgotten to remove all evidence of Obama’s birth existing in that or any Kenyan hospital. Nice logic.

James said...

Mario,

Any luck with making headway with Lucas Smith regarding his Kenyan BC?

Bob Freeman said...

Judge Land said that the Kenya BC failed under Federal Rule of Evidence 901:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/09/fed-judge-warns-birther.php?page=10

How did Judge Land get that wrong?

coptop72 said...

You want nice logic?

How about any proof whatsoever that Lucas Smith traveled to the continent of Africa in February of 2009?

1. Passport stamps?
2. Plane ticket?
3. Western Union receipt for the money allegedly wired to him?
4. Hotel/motel receipt?
5. Pictures that clearly identify the area?
6. One reliable person who can coroberate any part of his story?

Puzo1 said...

coptop72,

I guess I was right about the Obots being funny guys. I said that Lucas Smith is willing to testify before Congress. I'm sure he will bring his bag full of goodies for them to look at when they call him in.

Brianroy said...

Mario,
I do not recollect you ever using Nguyen --

“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” @54

" In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.” @ 62

Nguyen v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62

-- isn't this a relevant case that you can use in argument, along with
"The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 ?

Why aren't you utilizing these two cases to press the Birth Certificate / Identity issue home? Of a side issue would be we should be also co-challenging his likely Arcadia Retirement Center of Honolulu, Hawaii stolen Social Security Number from a Connecticut Senior Citizen he has identity theft used for some three decades, issued on or about March 21, 1977, each time we bring up his birth certificate.

And perhaps the truth of the matter about the Obama Birth Certificate is like how Obama joked at the May 1, 2010 corespondent's dinner:
“There are few things in life that harder to find and more important to keep than love…well, love and a birth certificate.” That one was just less than 3 minutes from: “It’s been quite a year…since I’ve, uh, spoken here last. Lots of ups. Lots of downs. Except for my approval ratings which have just gone down. But that’s politics, it doesn’t bother me. Besides I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth. So…"
What if he can't find his birth certificate because he knowingly threw it away, because, as he confesses, a country other than the USA is de facto and de jure the country of his birth? What if he was being serious (like Groucho Marx often was) and was simply taken as funny by the sheer partisan ignorance of the audience? And to Obama, that confession when presumed to be joking, when he was not, was part of the thrill for him? He put one over his own idolaters, and felt like he was a god to them...he was at a point where he thought he could do and say no wrong.
Thanks in advance for any reply.

coptop72 said...

"Lucas Smith is willing to testify before Congress."

Lucas was willing to have relations with a 14 year-old girl when he was 24. "In the past I often kissed and had sex with a girl that was 14 years old (I was 24)..."
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/typography-on-the-lucas-smith-kenyan-birth-certificate/#comment-97847

Lucas was willing to sell one of his kidneys for $200K in 2006. "Fact: I sold one of my kidneys the year 2006 for $200,000."
(See comment left by Lucas Smith Monday, September 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/05/exclusive-lucas-daniel-smith-speaks-with-the-post-email/comment-page-2/#comments

I guess you could say that Lucas Smith is willing to do just about anything Lucas wants to do, regardless of the laws created to discourage such activity, as long as it furthers his agenda.

So color me Obot for recognizing that Lucas Smith has demonstrated that he is willing to do whatever he wants to do, laws be damned. And I didn't even address his criminal past for which he became a convicted felon.

That's some fine witness you've got there, Puzo1.

James said...

I would like to believe Lucas Smith's Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate, but I have to honestly agree with the Obots. Given Lucas Smith's past, (He has a conviction of forgery) and his reluctance to provide proof he was actually in Kenya, I in all honesty and good faith have trouble believing Lucas Smith. Until Lucas Smith provides proof he was actually in Kenya, I will have some unswayed doubt as to validility of the Obama Kenyan BC.

MichaelN said...

coptop72 said...
"You want nice logic?
How about any proof whatsoever that Lucas Smith traveled to the continent of Africa in February of 2009?"

Well then, how about any proof whatsoever that Obama has a Hawaiian long-form/hospital birth certificate?

How about any proof whatsoever that the internet image of an alleged COLB, is a copy of a genuine document that was in fact issued by HDoH?

Puzo1 said...

coptop72,

You can say anything you want about Lucas Smith. You can assassinate his character. But that does not change whether his Kenyan birth certificate is real or not. That is the simple point that you miss or should I say do not want to recognize.

Do we judge whether a painting is authentic based on the person who possesses it or do we analyze the painting itself to make that determination?

Congress has the resources to tell us whether the Kenyan birth certificate is authentic. They should use them.

Why do you continue to attach Lucas Smith rather than his birth certificate?

You really do not want to find out the truth.

Rather, you want to suppress the truth.

Puzo1 said...

In reference to H.B. 2177, consider these statements made by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema:

"The law of the land is very clear. The question we’ve been facing ... is whether we want to reset the definition of natural-born citizen,” said Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. “I would submit we did (decide) that last week.”

Sinema, of Phoenix, said as many as eight prior American presidents wouldn’t have been eligible for that office because they had one or more noncitizen parents."

Read the full story in the Washington Post at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/arizona-lawmakers-see-tie-between-birther-bill-and-issue-of-who-is-a-us-citizen-at-birth/2011/03/23/ABIQ6AKB_story.html

Would somebody find out from Senator Sinema just who these 8 Presidents might be because I can only think of two, Chester Arthur (prior) and Barack Obama (currently the putative President).

cpanon said...

Hello All
A moment of levity, enjoy this. It appears someone has an excellent and higher sense of humor. And yes for all Obots with their so "sophisticated" cynicism, I called the WEWS New desk and they confirmed it and it ran on their noon hour. Here the Seal of the Presidency had enough and fell off before the Usurper could claim who he is not. Two precursors in a row now we need our Honduras event, however with the Quisling "conservatives" on the SCOTUS that may not be possible.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

There is one thing I simply cannot understand. Why focus on this birth certificate when it is not even necessary to check it out? Why? There are 2 conditions for being a "natural born citizen":
1) the president of the USA must be an American citizen who was born in the USA.
2) both parents of the president of the USA must be American citizens.
We already know that condition 2) is not met because Obama's father has never ever been an American citizen. Therefore, why on earth waste one's time by focusing on getting Obama's birth certificate when we already know perfectly well that, according to the Constitution of the USA, Obama is not eligible to be president of the USA because he is NOT a natural born citizen? why on earth such an unnecessary focus on Obama's birth certificate?

Puzo1 said...

MichaelsGreat,

I see the same comment as yours posted many times in various places.

The simple answer to your question is that even the Obots agree that if Obama was not born in the USA, he cannot be President. Hence, that is the simplest issue to pursue. It is also the easiest one for the American public to understand.

If Obama was not "Born in the USA," then case closed and we do not have to continue to defend Emer de Vattel from the Obot trashing of him and our history, all done by them for the sake of political expediency of the moment.

This does not mean that we should not continue to fight to protect the "natural born Citizen" clause as it was envisioned by the Founders and Framers, who looked to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," as codified in the law of nations, and not to the English common law for its definition.

Puzo1 said...

I covered the problems with SB1308 (interstate compact) in my February 24, 2011 article entitled, Arizona’s Proposed Interstate Birth Certificate Compact Law As Now Written Is Both Unconstitutional and Contrary to the Best Interests of the United States, which you can read at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/arizonas-proposed-interstate-birth.html

This bill failed by a vote of 18 to 12 on 3/17/11.

MichaelN said...

Hawaii issues Certifactions of Live Birth to people born outside of USA.
Hawaiian Revised Statute.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

Birdy said...

MichaelIN, you have your dates backward. Fukino's statement issued Oct. 31, 2008 states that Fukino has seen "Obama's original birth certificate." Fukino's statement issued July 27, 2009 states that Fukino has seen the "original vital records."

Puzo1 said...

On January 5, 2011, Pennsylvania State Representative and State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) founder Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County), state lawmakers and Constitutional scholars from across the nation convened in Washington D.C. at a press conference to unveil historic legislation addressing the misapplication of the 14th Amendment.

"Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a national leader on the issue of birthright citizenship was unable to attend the press conference due to state business, stated that, 'The law is clear, the history is clear, the 14th Amendment is clear; natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country,' said Pearce."

Source: http://statelegislatorsforlegalimmigration.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=10195

Puzo1 said...

Arizona Senate rejects 5 major immigration bills
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/03/17/20110317arizona-birthright-citizenship-bills-rejected.html

This article comments on the failures. http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/az-rinos-crumble-to-business-lobby-demands/

MichaelN said...

I sent this to senator Lieberman of CT, in response to his default statement, when asked to look into Obama’s birth-place and back-ground.
Quote Lieberman:
“According to information provided to me by his former Senate office, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. A copy of his birth certificate has been made available to the public, and you can view this document by visiting the following website: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.”
Dear Mr. Lieberman.
Did you know that Hawaii issues Certifications of Live Birth (CoLB) to people born out of state?
Hawaiian Revised Statute.
"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
In light of this statute you can see that the image placed on the internet that alludes to being a copy of an official HDoH certification, is NOT PROOF of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii or USA.
Furthermore, if you examine the Obama CoLB posted on the internet, you will see the notation "Date Filed by the Registrar", but there other CoLBs issued by HDoH with the notation "Date Accepted by the State Registrar"
You may examine these other CoLBs by viewing them in posts 9, 18 & 31 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304917/posts
Did you know that Barack Obama is using a social security number that was issued to another person other than Mr. Obama?
Did you know that Mr. Obama claims to have attended Columbia University for 3 years, but the records show that he attended for only 9 months?
In summary Mr. Obama has not proved birth in Hawaii by posting a CoLB on the interent and there is sufficient evidence that suggests he has committed social security number theft and lied to the citizens of USA about his tern of attendance at Columbia University.
This is sufficient to seek a Congressional or Senate investigation into Mr. Obama's credentials and back-ground, which I suggest you initiate in keeping with your oath of office.
Regards,
MichaelN. (non partisan)

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

I was wondering. The latest case that came in front of the Supreme Court has been discussed two times. At the end of the second time, the Supreme Court simply rejected the case without comments and I am sure that the two Supreme Court judges appointed by Obama dishonestly avoided to recuse themselves from this case and also voted to reject the case.

---What can be done when obviously the Supreme Court judges are simply dishonest?
---More, what is the point to present cases to the Supreme Court when it is so obvious that these cases on Obama's eligibility will, DISHONESTLY, be rejected automatically by the Supreme Court.

In other words, as the Supreme Court automatically (and dishonestly) rejects the cases on Obama's eligibility, what the law-abiding citizen could do to force Obama to prove his eligibility to be President of the USA? The unbelievable answer seems to be NOTHING?!!!

Puzo1 said...

MichaelIsGreat,

You ask what can be done now regarding the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military? For now, let The People act through the States which by consent of The People created the Federal Government. The States can address the presidential eligibility question through Article II, the 12th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 25th Amendment, through retained rights by The People under the 9th Amendment and through retained powers by the States and The People under the 10th Amendment, and through their own state laws.

We are a Constitutional Republic, with a self-representative form of government. Hence, ultimately, The People, who are the sovereigns of our Constitutional Republic, may act through themselves by changing their representatives.

MichaelN said...

"A Colorado Springs “birther,” retired Air Force Col. Gregory Hollister, has Internet blogs abuzz with what may be an illegal foray into an online Social Security data base and how he obtained a copy of President Barack Obama’s draft registration from 1980."

http://www.gazette.com/articles/springs-115381-colorado-obama.html