Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner

[edward]

Last night on C-Span

President obama:



Seth Myers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGITlxfT6s&feature=relmfu


Donald Trump was the only one not laughing

 

[arildno]

Elected politicians have no right whatsoever to actively withhold from the public any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility. (That is what Obama has done here).
The only legitimate reason to put limits on showing a document is if there is a risk to destroy the document by showing it (for example through wear and tear).

In complete contrast to ordinary citizens, of course, whose zone of privacy is legitimately larger than the politicians', since they do not claim eligibility to offices of political power.

 

[KingNothing]

That was hilarious. I guess Donald Trump and arildno were the only two not laughing.

 

[JaredJames]

Elected politicians have no right whatsoever to actively withhold from the public any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility. (That is what Obama has done here).

The law says that?

 

[arildno]

The law should say that.
If not, it is a bad law.

On basis on the fundamental transparency requirement within a Rechtsstaat.

Information contained in documents that primarily would be relevant for eligibility, like birth certificates and criminal records, should be readily given out, to whatever citizen asking for it, for whatever motive the citizen might have.

 

[zomgwtf]

Elected politicians have no right whatsoever to actively withhold from the public any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility. (That is what Obama has done here).
The only legitimate reason to put limits on showing a document is if there is a risk to destroy the document by showing it (for example through wear and tear).

In complete contrast to ordinary citizens, of course, whose zone of privacy is legitimately larger than the politicians', since they do not claim eligibility to offices of political power.

What are you talking about? Obama was under absolutely no obligation to produce his long form birth certificate.

He did provide his 'normal' birth certificate. (Which is good enough to get anything else so?)

So no he does not have the right to withhold any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility, good thing he never did that.

 

[arildno]

What are you talking about? Obama was under absolutely no obligation to produce his long form birth certificate.

He did provide his 'normal' birth certificate. (Which is good enough to get anything else so?)

So no he does not have the right to withhold any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility, good thing he never did that.

In a state of law (Rechtsstaat) it is to be defined, by law, what the duties of public officials are, and what specific criteria are to be satisfied in order to secure the eligibility of the official.

That means, in the case of birth certificates, that there should exist a law specifying whether short form certificate is strictly sufficient for eligibility, or that long form is needed.

Now, I do not know the particulars of American law here, and if it happens to be ambiguous or silent on those issues, then that is a deficiency in the law.

If, however, the law clearly states that short form is sufficient for eligibility, then it is NOT required of any official to produce anything more (since, for example, medical details contained in a long form are not relevant for eligibility issues).

That is basically what is required of you, or anybody else to point out, in order for yopur argument to be valid.Nowhere have I seen anyone point to such a provision in American procedural law, you least of all.

Which document is invested with formal legal force? That is the only relevant question here, whatever informal practices have developed for sake of convenience&expediency/cost reduction.

 

[KingNothing]

Now, I do not know the particulars of American law here...

That is basically what is required of you, or anybody else to point out, in order for yopur argument to be valid.

Let's not jack this thread. If you didn't enjoy the dinner speech, please leave it at that.

 

[zomgwtf]

In a state of law (Rechtsstaat) it is to be defined, by law, what the duties of public officials are, and what specific criteria are to be satisfied in order to secure the eligibility of the official.

That means, in the case of birth certificates, that there should exist a law specifying whether short form certificate is strictly sufficient for eligibility, or that long form is needed.

Now, I do not know the particulars of American law here, and if it happens to be ambiguous or silent on those issues, then that is a deficiency in the law.

If, however, the law clearly states that short form is sufficient for eligibility, then it is NOT required of any official to produce anything more (since, for example, medical details contained in a long form are not relevant for eligibility issues).

That is basically what is required of you, or anybody else to point out, in order for yopur argument to be valid.


Nowhere have I seen anyone point to such a provision in American procedural law, you least of all.

Which document is invested with formal legal force? That is the only relevant question here, whatever informal practices have developed for sake of convenience&expediency/cost reduction.

Get back under your bridge? If you're interested about the legal matters with running for president in the USA then go look it up yourself. I just found the jokes made at the Correspondents Dinner to be hilarious and you're attempting to ruin that. Just get outta here mang.

 

[arildno]

I just found the jokes made at the Correspondents Dinner to be hilarious and you're attempting to ruin that. Just get outta here mang.

What a whiner.

 

[JaredJames]

What a whiner.

He's whining? He posted what I found to be a hilarious speech.

He didn't complain about anything or bring up the certificate issue for discussion.

You said he has no right to withhold the info - if it isn't set down in law, then he has no obligation to provide it. If I recall, he provided a legally satisfying document anyway, people just didn't want to accept that. As far as I'm aware (and based on the fact Arizona* just passed some bill saying you have to prove eligibility) it isn't written in the law.

All you have done is hijacked a thread and brought it onto the legality of eligibility ('birthers' now a banned topic I believe).

There's only one person who kicked off with whining here and it isn't the OP.

* I think it was Arizona, was in the news not so long ago.

 

[turbo]

Elected politicians have no right whatsoever to actively withhold from the public any document critical to the issue of formal eligibility. (That is what Obama has done here).

Is that so? Please cite your legal authorities and sources.

Until recently (in terms of our country's history), a President's "birth certificate" was at best a notation in the end-papers of a family bible. There is no US law that requires that a President be born in a hospital and have birth records signed by the attending physician, despite the rantings of the birthers.

 

[Disconnected]

Too funny! When it showed his "birth video"... BWAHAHAHAHA!

Love it when heads of state make their comic speeches.

 

[SamirS]

Well, arildno, Obama DID produce a short-form birth certification in June 2008, which is well before he was even elected (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ).

He only produced the long-form birth certificate (note the difference in the name) recently because of rather unqualified comments from people like the guy with the fox on his head.

I very much liked how The Donald was roasted by Obama. Seth Meyer's speech was certainly the best since Stephen Colbert's, even though I liked Colbert's cutting, barb-wired speech better. I also hope that people notice that Obama laughed about every joke Meyer made about him, contrasting to The Donald and Bush on the respective Dinners.

I also liked how Obama did that weary nod to the joke about his idealism in 2008. It's pretty telling about what he wanted to do and what the reality of politic affairs made out of it.

 

[Borg]

Too funny! When it showed his "birth video"... BWAHAHAHAHA!

The birth video looked like it was somewhere in Africa. The birthers might make something of that.

 

[Disconnected]

The birth video looked like it was somewhere in Africa. The birthers might make something of that.

I'm not sure he made it clear enough to Faux news...

Maybe he should have explain that it was "not intended to be a factual statement"?

 

[arildno]

Well, arildno, Obama DID produce a short-form birth certification in June 2008, which is well before he was even elected (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ).

He only produced the long-form birth certificate (note the difference in the name) recently because of rather unqualified comments from people like the guy with the fox on his head.

1. A fox on his head? I thought it was a lemming.
Thanks for the correction!

2. Well, I have never doubted for a second that Barack Obama is an American citizen by birth.
Furthermore, I haven't the slightest doubt that much of the birther movement (including Trump) has moved "forward" on account of sheer spite, and also, quite a drop of racism involved as well.

3. But 2. is completely irrelevant, about as irrelevant as the worthless analogies made by BO in that video.
The point is:
What type of document has legal force in the US in proving "properly placed birth"?
And, in a Rechtsstaat, such issues DO require a law to specify these, that is to specify what is <i>sufficient evidence</i> for fulfilling the criterion "natural born citizen".
Now, there are many reasons why medical hospitals might wish to retain "birth certificates" containing medical information about the baby, and not just a confirmation of its birth.
And if THAT is what the long form is, relative to the short form, then that extra information is superfluous with respect to eligibility criteria, and no politician would have any obligation to provide it, whatever demand, since the short form is <i>also</i> invested by legal force.

4. But, and that might be my misunderstanding:
That the long form IS the proper legal document, the one that is the actual legal PROOF of "natural birth", whereas the short form is a convenient, informal summary of the long form, but that does not on its own have legal force
(It is utterly irrelevant if, say, what document contains "legal force" changes over time, from the written, signed testimony of the delivering doctor in the 19th century, to the fill-in blanket of our times.
The relevant issue is what document, at the relevant point of time, was privileged, by law, to contain "legal force".)

5. And that any politician should provide (in contrast to the private citizen) proofs of their eligibility to office is a necessary feature of the Rechtsstaat, that places stronger requirements on the official, precisely because he is an official.

 

[Ryumast3r]

^Seriously guys, stop jacking the thread. I like reading about my funny jokes in the morning and not some stupid debate that belongs in a different thread because it has little to do with the president, or seth meyer, joking around on state.

This proves, more and more, that the President is a bad ***. :D

Also, Trump has a fox on his head.

 

[arildno]

Also, Trump has a fox on his head.

Nope.
It is a lemming.

 

[lisab]

Nope.
It is a lemming.

Clearly, it's a nutria.

 

[arildno]

Clearly, it's a nutria.

You're in the wrong.
It is a lemmus lemmus, not a myocastor loypius.

As proof:
Look at Trump's front TEETH, and compare them to those of a lemming.
They are identical.

 

[lisab]

You're in the wrong.
It is a lemmus lemmus, not a myocastor loypius.

OK we need to get to the bottom of this...I volunteer you to go in and get a DNA sample from that thing.

 

[arildno]

OK we need to get to the bottom of this...I volunteer you to go in and get a DNA sample from that thing.

No need.
Trump is a clone of the Norwegian politician couple Carl&Eli Hagen, with both the teeth and hair inherited. And THEY went through the lemming DNA test in 2007:

Carl&Eli:
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.6779603

 

[Evo]

No need.
Trump is a clone of the Norwegian politician couple Carl&Eli Hagen, with both the teeth and hair inherited. And THEY went through the lemming DNA test in 2007:

Carl&Eli:
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.6779603

 

[SamirS]

I'm not sure if his double comb lattice effect hair is not actually a macroscopic quantum effect.

My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that just like photons in a double slit experiment, The Donald actually interferes with himself.

 

[Ryumast3r]

"Her hips forcing Hagen out of the house" - Title of the linked article, translated (poorly obviously) by Google Translate.

 

[KingNothing]

"Donald Trump says he has a great relationship with the blacks. Unless 'the Blacks' is a family of white people, he's probably mistaken."

(cue insulted trump supporters)

 

[arildno]

"Her hips forcing Hagen out of the house" - Title of the linked article, translated (poorly obviously) by Google Translate.

Actually, it was his hips that "forced" him out of his house, because they pained him so much he couldn't walk in the stairs any longer.

That's what the article is about, so the google translation is very good.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What type of document has legal force in the US in proving "properly placed birth"?
And, in a Rechtsstaat, such issues DO require a law to specify these, that is to specify what is <i>sufficient evidence</i> for fulfilling the criterion "natural born citizen".
Now, there are many reasons why medical hospitals might wish to retain "birth certificates" containing medical information about the baby, and not just a confirmation of its birth.
And if THAT is what the long form is, relative to the short form, then that extra information is superfluous with respect to eligibility criteria, and no politician would have any obligation to provide it, whatever demand, since the short form is <i>also</i> invested by legal force.

4. But, and that might be my misunderstanding:
That the long form IS the proper legal document, the one that is the actual legal PROOF of "natural birth", whereas the short form is a convenient, informal summary of the long form, but that does not on its own have legal force
(It is utterly irrelevant if, say, what document contains "legal force" changes over time, from the written, signed testimony of the delivering doctor in the 19th century, to the fill-in blanket of our times.
The relevant issue is what document, at the relevant point of time, was privileged, by law, to contain "legal force".)

5. And that any politician should provide (in contrast to the private citizen) proofs of their eligibility to office is a necessary feature of the Rechtsstaat, that places stronger requirements on the official, precisely because he is an official.

No, the short form is the official legal proof of his citizenship and the long form isn't even legal anymore. The LF is not a legal document. This is determined by the State of Hawaii. They made a special exception in releasing the original, non-legal form.

After the long form was released, I saw a bunch of righties [another website] accusing Obama of abusing his position as President in ordering something illegal! Nevermind that he made a request, not a demand, and it was a Hawaiin official who made the exception.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As Obama stated, now Trump can move on to more pressing matters, like whether we really landed on the moon or not.