Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by Dr. Chiyome Fukino

July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.

Dr. Fukino attests to "the original vital records... verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i."

Obviously, she is not qualified to judge Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen.

One more time... what invalidates her "Obama was born in Hawaii" statement?

The possibility of Mr. Obama being the antichrist/pseudo-messiah (cont.).

Daniel's vision included animals as figures of world empires, a horn being a king or a kingdom:

• a ram with two horns = Media and Persia;
  a goat with a notable horn = Macedonia and Greece with Alexander;
  the four notable horns succeeding the first =[list:39x6mj4k]Ptolemy I Soter (Egypt, Libya, and south Asia Minor),
  Cassander (Greece and Macedonia),
  Lysimachus (Thrace and north and west Asia Minor), and
  Seleucus I Nicator (central Asia Minor, Syria, and east to the Indus River):[list:39x6mj4k]the little horn which grew out of Nicator = Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the type of the future antichrist.

[/list:u:39x6mj4k][/list:u:39x6mj4k]
The significance of the bold text in the scripture quoted below is this:
"the little horn" arose from one of the four horns and grew south and east toward the land of Israel.

That indicates that the antichrist will probably come from Syria, Turkey, or from that direction (England?).
However, Israel is north and east of Kenya, which makes Mr. Obama an unlikely pick (but not impossible).
[quote="Around 500BC, the prophet Daniel"][size=117]Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.

And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand.

Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. . .

Then it happened, when I, Daniel, had seen the vision and was seeking the meaning, that suddenly there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.â€

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

For those of you who are interested, there is an online Constitutional course offered by Michael Badnarik. The following YouTube link will take you to the series of course elements divided into smaller 8-10 minute sessions.

http://tinyurl.com/ycrtopw

I emailed that link to my non representing representatives. Maybe they will take the course

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

For those of you who are interested, there is an online Constitutional course offered by Michael Badnarik. The following YouTube link will take you to the series of course elements divided into smaller 8-10 minute sessions.

http://tinyurl.com/ycrtopw

I emailed that link to my non representing representatives. Maybe they will take the course

That's really funny.

Michael J. Badnarik (born August 1, 1954) is an American software engineer, political figure, and former radio talk show host. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections, and placed fourth in the race, behind independent candidate Ralph Nader. Two years later he ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the 2006 congressional elections for Texas's 10th congressional district seat near Austin. In a three candidate field, Badnarik came in third receiving 7,603 votes for 4.3% of the vote.

So where are the Obama executive order challenges by Congress? Also, because of the intent to show separation of powers, doesn't this demonstrate that congress has standing to challenge the NBC eligibility question?

=======================

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2655

To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 30, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Separation of Powers Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.

(2) A Supreme Court justice stated, `The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.' Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

(3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47, `There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.'

(4) Article I of the Constitution provides, `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'

(5) A congressional committee print has noted that, `because the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.' 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).

(6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take, `Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution `in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.' (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).

(7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law.

SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS.

(a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY-

(1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect--

(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;

(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or

(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

(2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the term `national emergency' means a general declaration of emergency made by the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.

(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that any Act of Congress in effect on the date of enactment of this Act grants to the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch the power to declare a national emergency, such power is hereby divested to the Congress alone.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.

(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not include the statement required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a congressional enactment.

SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS- A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch.

(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not apply to--

(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;

(2) an order given to military personnel pursuant to duties specifically related to actions taken as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or

(3) a Presidential order citing the specific congressional enactment relied upon for the authority exercised in such order and--

(A) issued pursuant to such authority;

(B) commensurate with the limit imposed by the plain language of such authority; and

(C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or unratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement which--

(i) violates the ninth or tenth amendments to the Constitution; or

(ii) makes a delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution.

SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS INTEGRITY.

The following persons may bring an action in an appropriate United States court to challenge the validity of any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution:

(1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS- The House of Representatives, the Senate, any Senator, and any Representative to the House of Representatives, if the challenged Presidential order--

(A) infringes on any power of Congress;

(B) exceeds any power granted by a congressional enactment; or

(C) violates section 4 because it does not state the statutory authority which in fact grants the President the power claimed for the action taken in such Presidential order.

(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- The highest governmental official of any State, commonwealth, district, territory, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the designee of such person, if the challenged Presidential order infringes on the powers afforded to the States under the Constitution.

(3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any person aggrieved in a liberty or property interest adversely affected directly by the challenged Presidential order.

SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.

In this Act, the term `Presidential order' means--

(1) any Executive order, Presidential proclamation, or Presidential directive; and

(2) any other Presidential or Executive action by whatever name described purporting to have normative effect outside the executive branch which is issued under the authority of the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

So where are the Obama executive order challenges by Congress? Also, because of the intent to show separation of powers, doesn't this demonstrate that congress has standing to challenge the NBC eligibility question?

=======================

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2655

To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 30, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Separation of Powers Restoration Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.

(2) A Supreme Court justice stated, `The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.' Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

(3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47, `There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.'

(4) Article I of the Constitution provides, `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'

(5) A congressional committee print has noted that, `because the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.' 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).

(6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take, `Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution `in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.' (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).

(7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law.

SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS.

(a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY-

(1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect--

(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;

(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or

(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

(2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the term `national emergency' means a general declaration of emergency made by the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.

(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that any Act of Congress in effect on the date of enactment of this Act grants to the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch the power to declare a national emergency, such power is hereby divested to the Congress alone.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.

(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not include the statement required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a congressional enactment.

SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS- A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch.

(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not apply to--

(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;

(2) an order given to military personnel pursuant to duties specifically related to actions taken as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or

(3) a Presidential order citing the specific congressional enactment relied upon for the authority exercised in such order and--

(A) issued pursuant to such authority;

(B) commensurate with the limit imposed by the plain language of such authority; and

(C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or unratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement which--

(i) violates the ninth or tenth amendments to the Constitution; or

(ii) makes a delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution.

SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS INTEGRITY.

The following persons may bring an action in an appropriate United States court to challenge the validity of any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution:

(1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS- The House of Representatives, the Senate, any Senator, and any Representative to the House of Representatives, if the challenged Presidential order--

(A) infringes on any power of Congress;

(B) exceeds any power granted by a congressional enactment; or

(C) violates section 4 because it does not state the statutory authority which in fact grants the President the power claimed for the action taken in such Presidential order.

(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- The highest governmental official of any State, commonwealth, district, territory, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the designee of such person, if the challenged Presidential order infringes on the powers afforded to the States under the Constitution.

(3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any person aggrieved in a liberty or property interest adversely affected directly by the challenged Presidential order.

SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.

In this Act, the term `Presidential order' means--

(1) any Executive order, Presidential proclamation, or Presidential directive; and

(2) any other Presidential or Executive action by whatever name described purporting to have normative effect outside the executive branch which is issued under the authority of the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.

I am not certain about the NBC issue, but somehow I do not see our current congressional leadership letting this get any further than the trash bin. If they had tried to pass it when Bush was in office, well then it would have passed with flying colors.

Originally Posted by cayla99

I am not certain about the NBC issue, but somehow I do not see our current congressional leadership letting this get any further than the trash bin. If they had tried to pass it when Bush was in office, well then it would have passed with flying colors.

I especially like this section:

(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.

Do you suppose the usurper in charge has done this?

BTW, this Heritage Foundation article (a long one) discusses executive orders through Clinton's reign. I've asked the author (via e-mail) if he has an update coming out.

THE USE AND ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS
AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES
Author: TODD F. GAZIANO

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalI ... d/lm_2.pdf

Todd F. Gaziano is Senior Fellow in Legal Studies and Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

BTW, this Heritage Foundation article (a long one) discusses executive orders through Clinton's reign. I've asked the author (via e-mail) if he has an update coming out.

Give me advance warning if you decide to post the update here.

I'm not sure my broadband connection can handle it.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

BTW, this Heritage Foundation article (a long one) discusses executive orders through Clinton's reign. I've asked the author (via e-mail) if he has an update coming out.

Give me advance warning if you decide to post the update here.

I'm not sure my broadband connection can handle it.

Wilco. I'll probably get permission to load it up on Scribd.com, or, alternatively, simply provide a link at Heritage. The current article is a good one - it's just shy of the important period we are in right now.