Correspondence with Senator Crapo

Correspondence with Senator crapo. if you find out that the US attorneys defrauded Judge England an did not notify the senators, congressmen and electors about the case, pleas write to Judge england, advice him that fraud was committed that Dep of justice defrauded the judge and did not notify senators of the case and the TRO motion | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Orly,I thought you would be interested in this ridiculous response I received from Senator Crapo to the Obama fraud.
George Ashford
——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Correspondence from Senator Crapo
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:35:08 -0500
From:	senate.gov>
Reply-To:	senate.gov>
To:

January 18, 2013

 

 

George Ashford

1385 W Villa Norte Street

Boise, ID 83702-6637

 

Dear George:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding citizenship and other eligibility requirements for public office. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

In recent years, questions have arisen about the eligibility of President Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. You are justified to be concerned about a possible violation of the Constitution, and I understand how important your concerns are. Having confidence in the electoral process and our officials is critical to maintaining public confidence in our country. As such, the people must be confident in the integrity of the electoral process and our electoral institutions.

 

A number of provisions of Constitutional, federal and state law govern the resolution of this issue. First, and perhaps foremost, in our system of law, the states have jurisdiction to determine and establish documentation of live births. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

This Constitutional reservation of powers to the states gives them a significant role in determining the eligibility of those running for federal office. In this case, the State of Hawaii has clearly declared that the birth certificate showing that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, is valid. Both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency.

 

In response to remaining questions about documentation, the White House publicly released President Obama’s birth certificate in April 2011. The Certificate of Live Birth released by the White House bears the certification of the Hawaii State Registrar. Experts reviewing the documents generally concur it contains all the elements of a valid Certificate of Live Birth, including all the relevant data and signatures. Claims that the document was forged have not been substantiated.

 

The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) are eligible to be President of the United States. Under our system of law, it is the states that make the determination of and provide the validation of birth to determine qualification to serve as president. In this matter, the State of Hawaii has done so. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.

 

In that context, these and other related allegations have been raised, but consistently dismissed in several courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Berg v. Obama. That case has been taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on multiple occasions, but the Court has refused to hear it each time. The Hawaii Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s request in Martin v. Lingle. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Donofrio v. Wells, which challenged the citizenship of both Obama and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), who was born in the U.S. territory of the Panama Canal Zone. The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, which the U.S. Supreme Court later declined to hear. Finally, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed Hollister v. Soetoro.

 

Under our Constitution, it is the state that determines live birth status and the courts that oversee proper determination of the facts and application of the law. In this circumstance, those requirements have been followed. If additional information is brought to light then further review will be undertaken, as it properly should, in our judicial system.

 

I appreciate hearing from you and appreciate your vigilance in supporting our Constitution. I look forward to working with you on other matters of importance.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike Crapo

United States Senator