LINK

US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.

We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.

My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.


The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.

What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):

"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)


It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.

Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.


The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;


That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.


The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".


The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".


Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.


As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."




The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth". It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth". If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.


If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:


British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "




The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen". The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth". If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.


The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

LINK

An interesting, and serious, argument.

It will be equally interesting to see how the SCOTUS handles this issue as it pertains to what they like to call a "living document" (meaning that the SCOTUS can change it however they feel like doing).

It has been my understanding all my life that the ONLY way that the Constitution can be changed is by way of the Legislative branch of the government proposing and passing an Amendment to the Constitution and then submitting the Amendment to the STATES for ratification. Not even the Congress can unilaterally change the Constitution, that RIGHT is reserved to the People of all the States that make up the Nation.

Being a somewhat "simple minded" citizen, it DOES seem that by his own admission, in addition to the actuality of British Law, that Obama WAS, at a minimum, a "dual citizen" of both the USA and Great Britian at the time of his birth and continued to be so at least until he turned 21.

On that basis it DOES appear that he may be Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office of POTUS.

"Wishing" it were not so is irrelevant in a nation that does pride itself on the "rule of law," especially Constitutional Law.

We shall see.

And the SCOTUS does not have much time to DECIDE before the inauguration.

I guess it's sort of like "instant replay" and "the play is under review" in football. Either the goal was scored in complete accordance with the established rules, or it wasn't. If the runner "stepped out of bounds" on his way to the goal line, the "touchdown" is nullified and the "ruling on the field" of a "scored touchdown" is nulified, the "points" taken off the scoreboard, and the "race to the goalline" is reset at the point of stepping out of bounds. The "inauguration" would seem to be analogous to "snapping the ball on the next play" that would end any "appeal of the ruling." Since we are talking about the Constitution and its rules for the Presidency, there would seem to be no "bigger" ruling that would take precedence at this time in history. It DOES seem as though the Founders and Framers OF the Constitution were quite clear in their choice of words and phrases and INTENDED to convey that meaning CLEARLY to succeeding generation of Americans.

It WOULD seem that the "point of stepping out of bounds" was, according to the Constitution, the "point of birth" where Obama held DUAL citizenship and not exclusive citizenship to the United States of America.

Marsh:

Love ya!

But it ain't happening.

Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President in January.

Everything posted here is someone trying thier darndest to make something out of nothing.

McCain probably would have been more easily blocked from the presidentcy than Obama.

Please check Snopes here> Obama NOT a citizen?

If that NJ lawyer is successful? He might be able to throw enough mud to make it happen. British laws don't apply here. Obama WAS in the US when he was born. So, both of his parents could have been born in Kenya, but at that time, if Barack plops out in the US, he was a US citizen. Had he ploped in Kenya, then he couldn't be prez. HE may have rights to claim dual citizenship because of UK laws, but that is a different issue.

If Judge Thomas has taken the case to take a second look, I hope he returns a direct, powerful statement: "Barack Obama IS Authorized to be President of the US."

I might not like it. I voted for the other guy. But BO is #44.

BO could be impeached in the first two weeks in office, or be the best president we ever had. But he won the office, and he's qualified for the office from a legal point of view.

LG

UNited States Justice Foundation


America's Right


http://ellievel.wordpress.com/

Ummmm...no, it's not "why the Framers declared that". They did it because otherwise it would be 35 years (or more) until someone would be a "jus soli principle citizen" meaning automatic citizenship as long as he/she is born in the country. It wasn't their prior British citizenship that was the problem they were excepting, it was that no one had yet been born in the United States. Attribution citizenship by descent, is legislation that provides a child inherits citizenship from his parents, independently of where he is born. This attribution principle is called "jus sanguini". The ancient Roman concept of jus sanguini wasn't British, American or really anywhere in the 18 century (the French reintroduced in the 1800's). The framers didn't address it because it wasn't even a consideration. Our mother nation, England maintained it's jus soli tradition up until, it appears 1948.

Read this I found:




In addition, I knew if I looked hard enough I could find it. My research lead me to the tiny Pacific Island nation of Cobolosoon ("Coconut Sun"). The Island Country, void of many resources, development or population...just lots of jungle is making (and apparently still making) an effort to open it's doors to the world and encourage people to come there and help develope it. It has always maintained an open citizenry. Their legistlation codifies:

Cobolosoon World Nationality Act of 1984:

Article 4 sub (iii): Subject to the provisions of this article, any person now living or hereafter born anywhere in the world after enactmentment of this Article shall be a citizen of Cobolosoon.

Thus...we (US posters) are ALL both citizens of Cobolosoon and citizens of the US and according to Donofrio, thus, ineligible to be President... ooopps....the elections have been cancelled this year because nobody is qualified to run.


Finally, if the British law of 1948 WERE around back then and the framers did consider it, then they drafted in a real problem. All of their own children, born AFTER (and thus not excluded as Donofrio argues) the Constitution was adopted could be considered dual citizens as well by virtue of their parents being "born" a United Kingdom citizen. Thus, all of those children would have to grow up past some magical age where they finally shed their dual citizenship (age 18 or 21) and THEN finally have children, who themselve must get to age 35 before ANYONE is truly qualified to be President of the United States. So children born the day before the Constitution was adopted were, by exemption, qualified to be President upon attainting the age of 35, but any children born the day after adoption weren't (but their children MAY be).

Do you see how this lawsuit and this attorney are mixing up and twisting the jus soli and jus sanguini principles to make it appear rational? It isn't. He's just grandstanding. Wasting money. Seeking his 3 minutes of fame (attorneys aren't that interesting...we don't get 15 minutes).


If the Supreme Court grants review...it's merely to debunk these trivial type lawsuits which only go to hurt our democracy and the partisan wingnuts that bring them. 1/2 an hour on the internet and I figured this matter out, even Thomas can figure this one out.

Mr. Wondering


edited to add: Before anyone goes and researchs it...I thought I'd mention...Cobolosoon is MADE UP. I conjured it up to counter the ridiculous notion that some law in some other country can somehow negate your American Citizenship when you are BORN on American soil (whether here or deemed American soil abroad).

TR:

The first two websites just repeated what Marsh posted.

So.

The third one listed that BHO, didn't list his second name on his application.

So.

It looks like you don't even have to file that application with a PICTURE. Does that mean I can take Barack's place on the stage in January? After all, I filed that application for Barack....Who to say it wasn't me?

Allen Keyes is a flake also. ANYONE can file a lawsuit in this country. And if your a lawyer, your costs of doing so is your time and the filing fee. If he had to pay attorneys fees of a couple of thousand dollars, that case never gets filed.

I think is would be FABULOUS if Justice Thomas is the one who issues the opinion that stops all this silly stuff.

The left has critized the SCOTUS since 2000 when they voted to "stop the counting" and Bush was deemed the election winner. Can you see the left having to ADMIT, that JUSTICE THOMAS is the one who had to write the opinion clearing the way for Obama?

I can't WAIT!

LG

Yeah, like that's the first time I heard THAT today!

It's my DH's mantra.

LOL


Could be.

Here's how I have always understood the citizen vs. natural born citizen issue...

1)A woman was born in Germany and is German citizen. She married a man who was born in Florida, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. The couple have a son born in the US. The son is a citizen by birth b/c he was born in the US, but he is not a “natural born” citizen b/c his parents each pass on their citizenship to the child, so the son can not grow up to be President.

2) A couple are both German citizens, but are living in the US when they give birth to a baby. Their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen b/c both of his parents are German citizens, so their citizenship is passed to their child.

3)If a man was a U.S. citizen and his W was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen b/c the father passed his U.S. Citizenship to his son. The son could not be President, b/c his mother also passed on her citizenship to the child and also b/c he was born on foreign soil.

Leo Donofrio filed his petition BEFORE the election, and included BOTH McCain and Obama in it.

Not my definition of a partisan wingnut.

And wouldn't he have been a Kenyan citizen at birth too?

Is my understanding of what a citizen vs. a natural born citizen correct?

Interesting stuff...confusing to ME, but interesting nonetheless...

I remember being told by a teacher of mine that I could never be POTUS, which I always found a bit disconcerting...

Both of my parents were American citizens...I was born on a U.S. military base in Germany...My birth certificate says, "Child Born Abroad of American Parents"...[how dare they call me "a broad" -- sorry, bad joke ]

I suppose that teacher said that because of my option for dual citizenship - which I did not opt for...dunno, but weird...I've always considered myself very American, or more accurately, to borrow a phrase from the late Lewis Grizzard, "American by birth, and Southern by the Grace of God"! My parents were both "Southern Americans" after all - and I am a G.R.I.T.S. (Girl Raised In The South)!

Mrs. W

If you're from the South, you gotta love dem Grits! (pass the cheese, will 'ya?)

Being born on the military base is the same as being born on American soil. Being born in an embassy is the same...not saying that babies ARE bron in embassies...just saying IF it were to happen, it would be the same as American soil.

I would wager that your teacher was grossly misinformed.

committed

Quite simply...you and Mr. Donofrio are mixing up the principles to state something the framers never intended.

Check out the wikipedia page.

Mr. Wondering


p.s.- Donofrio may not be that partisan (I'm not going to look into it but I'm guessing he is) but passing along and presenting this bogus case as a real problem or concern after the election certainly is.

p.p.s. - McCain's birth certainly is a bit more problematic, as he was born outside the US...but both his parents WERE US citizens so it's O.K. He's mentioned in the wikipedia article.

p.p.p.s. - Notice that Dukakis isn't mentioned. His parents were both Greek immigrants, who thus maintained Greek Citizenry. Mike Dukakis could have gone to Greece and been drafted into their military as a Greek citizen born abroad to Greek citizens. Under Donofrio's logic...he wouldn't have qualified either.

LOL @ Mrs. W.

Thanks Mr. W.

Yummmmmm, cheese grits...Now I have a mad craving FH!

Thanks c&l, that is the same thing that my parents and Mr. W have always told me as well...Nutty teacher I suppose...Ah well, I didn't actually have presidential aspirations anyhow...lol!

Hehehe Marsh...You have no idea how confused that Mr. W had me trying to explain all that FIRST thing when I woke up - I hadn't even had coffee yet for goodness sakes! I finally cried "uncle" and he gave up and decided to explain it here instead!

Mrs. W

Marshmallow



No, because Kenya was a British Colony at the time, so he would be a UK citizen

Kinda makes you wonder about all those illegal immigrants who have babies on American soil, but who still have their allegiance to Mexico and would like to see the Southwest "returned" to Mexico.

Also makes you wonder about how much "spinning in the graves" the people of the Alamo and Texas might be doing knowing that the prevailing feelings are "if you can't beat them in war, beat them by walking and staying." And did I mention "let's give them amnesty?"

All the "legalese" nothwithstanding, it is patently clear that Obama WAS born a "dual citizenship" person. The only question remaining would seem to be "does the Constitution actually SAY what it says or are we going to allow attorneys and judges to change what it SAYS without any Amendment to what IS SAID.

And choosing to label someone "partisan" is just a means to distract from the merit of the case. It would seem that all who believe in the Constitution AS WRITTEN and/or AMENDED through the Constitutional process for amending the Constitution, ARE, by definition, "Partisan" to that Constitution regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. It would equally seem that those who support "legislation from the bench" are NOT "partisan" to the Constitution and I'll leave to all to apply their own "labels" to those folks.

Indeed it does.

I would think that the framers understood the danger in allowing a person w/ divided loyalties into the most powerful job in the country.

Marsh:

I don't have the exact language, but the case cited atually lists the language, but the law has been changed.

FH words:

You can't stroll across the border, birth your kid, and have that kid immediately become a US citizen anymore.

That's where all the age 16 and more than 5 years in the US, etc rules are all about.

So you can't stroll a pregnant woman across the border.

LG

If a parent met those requirements...16 and more than 5 years in the country, would that make their child a "natural born citizen"? or just a citizen?

Would they be able to become POTUS?

For anyone who is following the Donofrio case...

His blogtext.org site was hacked/destroyed.

His new site can be found HERE.

If this were true, wouldn't the law LG just pointed out be considered unconstitutional?

Either the term "natural born citizen" means literally anyone born in the US, or it means something else.

As of now..."anchor babies" are citizens, and accordingly, natural born citizens.

ANCHOR BABIES

Now maybe the 14th Amendment could either be amended itself or Congressionally clarified to somehow state that, for example, babies of illegal immigrants in this country illegally would not acquire citizenship....not simply because the childs parents were citizens of another country but rather because the child wasn't born subject soley to US jurisdiction (kinda like babies born on Indian land/territories or diplomat babies which is what the 14th Amendment sought to exclude).

If they did this...they may find a way, absent Constitutional Amendment, to exclude anchor babies being "citizens" automatically.

This wouldn't help Donofrio's case as Obama's father was a legal non-diplomatic visitor to the United States on a legal student visa and his mother was a full blown US citizen. Obama was born fully subject to US jurisdiction with access to all the benefits of citizenship from the moment of his first breath.


Consider the differences.

If a Mexican woman crosses the border with her boyfriend and has a baby in California. She then gets caught by immigration and sent back to Mexico. Her boyfriend tries to keep the baby in the US with him so she sues for custody in a Mexican Court of Law. She would likely win custody and American law enforcement would enforce such Mexican courts judgement upon such child as if the child were truly always Mexican. Thus, the baby is somewhat still subject to the laws of another juridiction. (I don't know if this is the case...as currently the 14th Amendment doesn't clarify this point and the mother may still have to bring her case in an American Court for the return of her American citizen child. Consider the case of Elian, the Cuban baby returned to his birth father. He wasn't even born in the US but his American relatives in the US sought relief from the US courts to retain a non-citizen baby.)

Obama's father never really obtained such right over Obama. If he wanted custody of Obama before or after moving back to Kenya when Obama was just a little boy...he'd have had to sue in US court for custody. If Obama's father had taken Obama back to Kenya with him...his mother would have sought redress in an American court first followed by attempting to get the Kenya government to respect and honor such US court decision and return her baby.

It's all pretty messed up...now...but only because of the ease with which populations can and do travel and relocate these days. However, at the time of drafting "natural born citizens", jus soli was the predominant principle applied which means...if a child is born on American soil...it's a "natural born citizen". The legislature may have difficulty, absent a Consitutional Amendment with EXPANDING the definition of "natural born citizen" beyond the jus soli principle to include children of citizens born abroad. But that's not Obama's problem. However, common law practice/tradition would likely result in the Supreme Court either validating the Constitutionality of the laws giving "natural born status" to children of American Citizens born abroad considering that it's been around and utilized since 1790 and 1795 or giving a full judicial review and interpretation of the framers intent by settling the definition of "natural born citizen" themselves.

Conversly, the legislature can also more strictly define the terms of the 14th Amendment to deny or strip "anchor babies" of their birthplace rights to "natural born" citizenship. Doing so would itself likely result in a Constitutional test in the judiciary. However, the tern "natural born citizen" only appears as a test for the qualifications of an individual to be president. The terms use there does NOT, by and of itself, bestow "natural born" babies the immediate and everlasting right to citizenship. (i.e. - the bill of rights does not say "If you are born in the US you are guaranteed citizenship"). Thus the legislature, I believe, could strip citizenship away in such cases. Once stripped, obviously that child would no longer qualify to be President.

Mr. Wondering

Thanks again Mr. W.

Will you tell me your thoughts on this?

I am going to start this very long Article with a summary for those who don’t want to read the whole thing. A bit like Cliff’s Notes.

Article II of the Constitution of the United States DOES NOT mean what almost everybody thinks that it means. When it says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ….and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”, it ISN’T talking about WHERE the POTUS is born.

The United States Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104, which was written, partly, to clarify Article II says this, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. The Framers were clear that you did not have to be born in the USA, or in a State; you could be born anywhere.

No, the Framers were talking about Allegiance, Loyalty. The POTUS had to have only ONE Allegiance. The old Precedent Case for Article II was United States v. Rhodes and in that Case Justice Swayne said, “All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this Country…since as before the Revolution.”

Swayne was quoting the Precedent of English Common Law and Justice Sir William Blackstone, who said: “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

Blackstone states unequivocally that Dual Nationality is IMPOSSIBLE as a condition, you can only have ONE Allegiance. Chief Justice Jay believed that and so did every one of the Framers. The fact that we don’t see things that way today isn’t the point. They did, and it means that someone with Dual Nationality is Ineligible by definition. That Law has stood as a principle since 1337 and before.

US Law says nothing about Dual Nationality at all, it simply accepts that some people have it, but if Naturalized Citizens cannot be POTUS because they have previously had another Allegiance, and that is exactly why they can’t, then Dual Nationals can’t either, in fact there is less excuse for them.

The US State Department says, ” Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.”

There is no way a person who has Dual Citizenship, or who has had Dual Citizenship, should be eligible under Article II. As you will see in Part Two there is good evidence that Senator Barack Obama is such a person, that Governor Bill Richardson may also be and that Senator John McCain is not. By definition NATURAL BORN = BORN IN THE (SOLE) ALLEGIANCE OF THE USA, not born on US Soil.

The whole First Part of this Article cites Case Law, Sources, Precedent and gives the opinion of Lawyers. The Chief Counsel for the INS has said that this argument is Valid, he doesn’t like it, but he admits it is true. If you feel like arguing about it, read the whole article before you do.

Just want to point out that this piece was written before Obama admitted he had Dual citizenship.

If you page down the article in your link...you'll see the perfect response in the comments section. I've quoted it below.

My opinion is that all the attempts to muddle the two "jus" principles together to come to some pre-determined conclusion notwithstanding, the Framers simply protection from other allegences was a condition on the POTUS that he (or she) be born here in the US under the standard European and, particularly, British principle of the time of "Jus Soli".

Simply, Jay wrote to Washington and said, in essence...let's put in a little protection against the POTUS being conflicted with allegiances to other countries by, at least, requiring that he/she be born here. As Blackstone so certainly stated, "that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born". You see... Blackstone's quote is being totally bastardized. He was simply denying the people could have more than one "natural" allegiance, not that if they had dual citizenships, by law, that their natural allegiance to the land upon which they were born was deniable or even somehow diminished.


Anyway...here is good response from the comments section:




Mr. W

We already KNOW the the SCOTUS has "Gone Outside" the Constitution on several occasions, CITING foreign law as a "reason" to "reinterpret" the Constitution (after all, it is "supposed to be," in some Justice's opinions," a "living document" that they can "reinterpret" as they see fit).

However, I find what is interesting in all of this is Obama's clear statements in Germany that HE thinks we are just "citizens of the world" and that the USA should tailor its policies accordingly, to "world" opinions, rather than to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the NATION of the United States of America. Obama wants to CHANGE all of that.

He has already STATED his belief in AT LEAST "dual citizenship" and "divided loyalties" in wanting to put the USA and its interests BEHIND those of other nations.

Will there be "opposing opinions" on this suit and/or on the merits of the suit? You betcha! For a variety of reason from pure partisanship to the simple fact that our legal system IS "adversarial" in nature and design.

But Mr. W, we already know you are in favor changing the CLEAR INTENT of the Constitution on the issue of "limitations on the Federal Government" and the inherent dangers of too much power concentrated in the Federal Government, so why take a "strict intent line" on THIS issue?


THE guarantees of the Constitution: Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT (not the giving of or attainment of) Happiness.

"Congress shall pass NO LAWS that...."

You are against the "Life" part, with respect to the life of babies.

You are against the "Liberty" part with respect to the freedom of religion in PUBLIC places.

You are FOR nationalizing healthcare in some attempt to "guarantee" happiness and health for everyone, on the backs of every taxpayer and NOT the right of the individual to PURSUE it on their own.

And you don't want to consider the LAWS in effect at the time that gave Obama "dual citizenship" and "divided loyalites?" Have you even looked at Obama's ACTIONS in Kenya, where he injected himself in to their politicas in support of, and allegiance to, HIS tribe against the opposition tribe? Tribalism IS huge in Kenya, and rather than act as an American and NOT "take sides," the chose to align himself with his "parental and historical" tribe within the nation of Kenya.

It would seem that the Founders MEANT exactly what they wrote and were quite clear about it, the "modern day" attempts at "reinterpreting" their meaning and intent notwithstanding.

Precisely. They meant what they said. The "jus soli" principle that "natural born" means (and clearly meant then) born on American soil the "modern day" attempts at "reinterpreting" their meaning and intent notwithstanding.

I guess your beef is with Jay, since his "allegiance" concern wasn't documented the way you'd seemingly prefer.

I'm very glad to see that someone that favors letting people that can't afford or qualify for affordable heath insurance die understands this point. :RollieEyes:

Mr. Wondering

Here you go again, Mr. Wondering, resorting to libel to try to "win your argument."

Please cite the specific reference to where I said "let people die" or retract your libelous statement.

But, for the record, you have stated your support for "abortion on demand" that DOES "let babies die" without "due process." In addition, you have supported Obama, who supports and has said that he will sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" that will prohibit ANY limitations on "abortion on demand" for any reason, and we already KNOW that Obama supports abortion AND letting babies DIE who had the "luck" to survive a botched abortion attempt.

So PLEASE don't try to "lecture" me or accuse me of saying something that I did not say just because YOU like the idea of taking away CHOICE from people in their health insurance options and replacing it with "whatever" the government decides is what we should have.

It's beginning to sound more and more like "typical" 'lawyer-speak' and twisting of the truth to try to make their case.

1. "CHOICE"??? What choice? Your industry denies coverage to hundreds of thousands, errr..millions of individuals and/or prices it so high it is unattaiable. I WISH it were simply matter of choice.

2. You are the one that defined the "big problem" as people are just "living too long".

3. You support the continuation of a health care payment system that systematically and arbitrarily denies millions access to health care. Without health care it is undeniable that some people needlessly die before their time.

4. I really make such outrageous presumptious statements of your beliefs because you do it to me (and others) so often. If you don't like it...maybe you should think twice before making spurious irrelevant statements about me. I don't really suppose you want people to die. I'm guessing your fellow Christian heart would love to see everyone get health care. However, as you see above it's easy for anyone to twist anyone's position on any subject as nefarious. When you use arguments such as my vote for Obama, implying that I'm overly emotional, thus irrational, claiming I'm naive, a "typical" attorney and interjecting the abortion issue when it has nothing substantial to do with this thread or the other single-payer thread, I won't whine about it...I'll just do the same to you. Silly supposition begets silly supposition. As an example of how easy it is to do consider this: I waited to post this until this evening with the hope that by doing so you'd have calmed down by now and be able to respond rationally.


Mr. Wondering

ahhh Mr. W...you ability to rationalize what you are doing is quite amazing. You twist and bend things to suit your purposes, but you still don't deny what you said, nor do you cite your references for your outrageous twisting of what I HAVE said.

I, on the other hand, HAVE cited precisely what you have said. They have been your stated positions and not "made up" by me, as you have been doing as some sort of "answer" to things you don't like.

And that's just another form of what most of us have come to "expect" from the "legal profession," where TRUTH takes a back seat to "winning your argument," in a type of "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" sort of argument. However, in the things I have cited that you have said, it "does fit," despite the protestations when they are pointed out.




That's correct. And I "wish" it was lower in price and that "existing conditions" were not a factor. And WHAT is "denied?" Coverage AFTER the "wreck" has occurred? "High prices" do NOT "deny coverage." Coverage is OFFERED in those situations and the individual has to CHOOSE to bear the potential cost of healthcare services entirely on their own or to SHIFT a substantial portion of that risk TO the insurer "in exchange" for a premium (a smaller portion of the potential huge cost).

But what you call a "Right" I have consistently pointed out is NOT a "Right." You have a right to seek care for "what ails you," but you do not have right to shift the burden of paying for that care to someone else.

What you keep arguing for is similar to the idea that "someone else" should pay for the high cost repairs to my vehicle AFTER I have already gone and wrecked it, either through my own actions or by "accident" where someone else "impacted me."

You DO have choices as to what "repair shop" to take your vehicle, or your body, just like you do under the current healthcare system. But what you DON'T have a "choice" in is who, besides yourself, PAYS for those repairs. Even in Canada, if you want to go to another Province to seek care, you better have it "approved" before you go or YOU will have to pay for it yourself.

You ONLY have a choice in who "pays" for the wanted or needed repairs BEFORE the wreck happens, not AFTER. That is what INSURANCE is, a shifting of the RISK of some future need TO someone else (the insurance company) in exchange for what could be a "lot less money" in the form of premiums. IF you never have a wreck, good for you and you seem to get "little value" from the premiums you have paid.

But if you DO have the "wreck" after you had the insurance, the HIGH COST of needed repairs is shouldered in the majority BY the insurance company and NOT by you.


I even posted "one" idea could be pursued to try to address this problem, but you have not even offered ANY ideas other than "let the government pay for it all," and ignoring the realities of COST and PROVISION of that very healthcare. You haven't even offered any comments on what I posted as "one potential solution" to the current situation.



Here you "go again," pulling a statement out of context to try to twist it into something that "ostensibly proves your argument." Besides being factually incorrect, it is obviously an attempt to distort the facts to bolster your position that is grounded in emotions and not in reality.


What I said about people "just living too long" was in the CONTEXT of the GOVERNMENT RUN systems of Social Security and Medicare, neither of which any of us have any "choice" in as they are the "only game in town," especially with respect to what we MUST pay into those "insurance systems." The government (or the liberals in government anyway) has steadfastly denied or impeded "changes" to the system that WOULD provide greater security to our younger generations who WILL, themselves, at some point in the future, also be at "retirement age."

Neither system, in the "infinite wisdom" of the Government, was set up thinking that because of improvements in medical care and treatment, that we would live MUCH longer than the "life expectancy projections" in effect at the time those systems were set up. They set up "entitlement" systems, just as you argue, as a RIGHT and not as a BENEFIT. And we are STUCK with the system with no choice in the matter as long as the Goverment refuses to actually address the fundamental problems of the system and WHO PAYS FOR YOUR retirement money and healthcare money needs.

But as a result of "living longer" both systems are "bankrupt" and ONLY keep going because of changes in coverages (i.e. shifting more of the burden for PAYING for healthcare TO you and away from the insurer (the government) AND by increasing the premiums (taxes) you are FORCED TO PAY to not only "cover" you when you reach retirement but to pay for everyone else and THEIR costs.

Those are examples of your desired "Single Payor Source" (meaning the Government) types of plans to "Shift the risk" to the insurer (the Government). The are NOT examples of the "private insurance industry" but ARE examples of the "public insurance industry" (the government).




Yes, they do, under BOTH systems. But one thing IS very clear, MILLIONS of people "Needlessly die before their time" because of abortion, which you SUPPORT and DEFEND. But you "weasel" in your support, I suppose to salve your conscience, in saying "I don't believe in abortion for me but it's okay if the "System" allows others (meaning millions of babies) to "die before their time" simply because SOMEONE ELSE decided that they were not "Worthy" of life."




Uh huh. You "justify" making admitted "outrageous presumptious statements" about me that you KNOW are false (as in "bearing false witness) because you don't "like it" when I point out what YOU HAVE SAID. I don't "make up" false statements and attribute them to you. BUT I DO refer to and quote what you HAVE SAID so that it is "from the horse's mouth."

There is a BIG difference in what I cite concerning your statements and what you "make up out of whole cloth" because you don't like someone showing just what you have said and how it applies to the situation you "want to be" (whether it is electing a known abortion extremist like Obama or arguing that the Government is "the" answer to healthcare).

YOU cited the Canadian statistics. I used YOUR references to SHOW that a wait for surgery, say OPEN HEART surgery, IS 2 to 3 months in the goverment run healthcare system in Canada, the same sort of system you "envision" for the USA.

Now, Mr.W. if YOUR heart was so bad that you "needed" surgery to avoid impending death from your condition, would YOU want to WAIT on a "waiting list" that you had NO CHOICE in? Would YOU want to wait and hope for 2 to 3 months that the condition didn't kill you BEFORE "your number came up" and you could have the surgical procedure "graciously provided by the government?"

With some 10 TIMES or more the population in the USA than is in Canada, just how LONG do you think OUR "wait times" might really be, ESPECIALLY if we were to have your proposed "Regional" Centers as the "only places you COULD go" to have THAT type of needed surgery?




That's correct, and there is NO "supposing" about it.




Okay, here you go again using pejorative language, "nefarious."

But I have not "twisted" your position, I have stated it clearly from your previous statements. You, on the other hand, HAVE admittedly "twisted" my statements in order to try to "deflect" the reality of what you HAVE said.

The is, at best, disingenuous.




As a matter of FACT, Mr. Wondering, I have said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you "contend" here.

I have SAID that you ARE a rational, thinking, person, NOT "irrational."

I have also said that you are "arguing from an emotional standpoint," and you ARE. You are arguing on the basis of what you "wish for," and ignoring the realties of a very complicated delivery system of healthcare. You seem to think that the "government" is the answer for everything, or at least the answer to healthcare, and you base that EXCLUSIVELY on the "ability to get covered AFTER the wreck" and the ability for "someone else to pay for it."

As for the "typical attorney," we don't need to go much further than this latest post of yours for an example of that. Twisting, taking out of context, fabricating, putting words in my mouth. Take your pick. They are all "typical attorney" attitudes and actions of "defending my client (or position)" regardless of the TRUTH." The object is to WIN, not to arrive at TRUTH.

And while you may not like the abortion issue being brought up, it IS a "healthcare issue" and IT IS "on the table" for a complete Government takeover by YOUR candidate, Barack Obama and his pledge to immediately sign the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) legislation to STRIP the States of all rights concerning abortion and to IMPOSE abortion on everyone, including hospitals that do NOT believe in abortion and who DO believe in the Hypocratic oath. And it DOES directly "affect" the healthcare delivered to the baby, in a "you get to die so that I can have what I want."





"Calming down" has nothing to do with it. To state or imply that I "need" to "calm down," is merely another attempt to minimalize and marginalize my arguments with a dissmissive allegation that I'm not being 'rational' in my responses.

Mr. Wondering, I do NOT "cede" the "high ground" of rationality to you. I DO expect you to respond with rational arguments and facts, not with attempts to twist what I have said.

I have responded to your posts and your arguments while you resort to "making up things" to try to marginalize or render "irrelevant" any opposition to your desired "Nationalized Healthcare System."

Perhaps you confuse "passion" with "unreasoned, irrational arguments." IF so, then what do you consider to be "unreasoned" or "irrational," and we can discuss those things as they may simply be your "perception" because they oppose what you want?

Suuuuuuure they are. :crosseyedcrazy:






Give it up, Mr. Wondering. Go outside and talk to a tree...it'll make for better conversation.

CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS

LINK

Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. J...ion itself, a natural born citizen.”

Interesting outline about Obama's birth certificate...

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.


A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).


B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.


C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.


D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.


E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.


F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."



2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.


A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."


B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.


C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.


D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.


1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.


2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."


3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."


3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.


4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.


A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:


1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;


2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);


3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.


B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?


C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

LINK

Good Grief Marsh - give it up already.

Well, we certainly aren't hearing from the media about this. When is the Supreme Court going to issue the stay? Or at least make a statement?

Ummm...never.

They may rule on it but they won't be issuing any stay...

merely denying it.



Like Obama's mother falsified his birth certificate so that he could illegally obtain US Citizenship when even if he had been born elsewhere, it wouldn't matter because his mother is and always was a US Citizen. He qualified for US Citizenship whereever he was born.

Unless you think his mother thought "mmmm....I better get a Hawaii birth certificate so little Obama can run for President one day".

But hey...more power to the attorney's undertaking this case. I am NOT the judge so my opinion matters little. I'll be just as shocked as everybody else if something comes of this and until it actually does...it's just background chatter interesting mostly to Constitutional lawyers. There IS no real Constitutional crisis unless this Republican SCOTUS creates one. As FH pointed out...the SCOTUS is the 500lb gorilla and they can do whatever they want when interpreting the US Constitution. I can only imagine the repurcussions. Riots in our cities across the country and a Joe Biden Presidency (but then again...his grandparents were immigrants, which made his parents allegiance suspect...which makes Joe's allegiance suspect..he may be disqualified too. I wonder what Nancy Pelosi's family history is? President Pelosi sounds nice.)

Mr. Wondering

BK, I don't know what it may be like in Australia, but here in the USA we have the 1st Amendment for just this sort of situation, where even an "unpopular" opinion or topic can be discussed. That is the essence of "Free Speech," that censorship of the right of anyone to say anything they want to say is deemed to be "very risky ground" and the right to free speech is defended vigorously.

Besides, Marsh is having this discussion on the "OTHER TOPICS" section of MB, which at the very least, seems to be an appropriate place to have a discussion about issues that may or may not have "polarizing" opinions.

But the right to have such a discussion is in the hands of the Moderators, who do not necessarily agree with free speech from time to time and will lock threads and prohibit ANY discussion of any topic.

The Moderators know my feelings about the "overuse" of that power, so I will not get into such a discussion here, but the point is that "just because YOU don't like a discussion topic" that someone else IS interested in, simply means that you should consider exercising your free speech ability to NOT read and/or respond to any topic you don't feel like engaging, rather than to try to tell the other member to "not post."

"Give it up already" is PRECISELY WHY we have the legal system that we have, so that even the "little guy" can be heard and the case, supposedly, judged on it's merits and not just on "popular opinion."

With respect to Mr. Obama, there are still LOTS of things that we just don't know about him. He has SAID lots of things in public that "sound good," yet he has also said things when he didn't think others could "overhear" him that are very questionable.

His latest appointment announcement to his "National Security Team," includes a man who Obama wants for Attorney General. I can GUARANTEE YOU that there will be a Senate confirmation fight over that man, as he was "neck deep" in some extremely controversial PARDONS that President Bill Clinton issued for some very nefarious folks, like the FALN and Mark Rich.

Suffice it to say that Justice Thomas seems to have thought that the case "had merit enough" to be reviewed. That alone should indicate the "serious" thought given to this issue and how it relates to the Constitution, which IS the document that is supposed to "control" our legal system.

The reason that the MSM is not discussing this issue is simple - it is a looney bin lawsuit.

For those who think that the issue before the SCOTUS is Obama's eligibility, think again. What is on the table is whether or not to even consider whether or not Berg has any standing to bring about this lawsuit. All the lower courts have ruled that he has no standing. I suspect the SCOTUS will agree. If you read any balanced source, they say that the suit has no merit whatsoever.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

But I am also sure that after this issue is put to rest, the looney bin contingent will rapidly develop new paranoid delusional conspiracy theories, insisting perhaps that Michelle Obama is really Osama Bin Ladin in drag, or the first dog is a equipped with an implanted video camera. Mark my word, the next conspiracy theory is just around the corner.

AGG

Wrong.

The case that this thread is about is NOT the Berg case.

Donofrio’s case is against the NJ SOS. And whether or not she should have made certain the Presidential candidates were ELIGIBLE for POTUS before allowing their names on the ballot.

His claim is that along w/ Obama and McCain, there was another Presidential candidate who is not a natural born citizen.

His name is Roger Calero and he was born in Nicaragua...should a SOS have allowed HIS name on the ballot?

As far as I can see, there is no provision of any state or federal law that requires any public official to establish the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for office.

There may be some who think that is AOK or unimportant.

I disagree.

Thanks for your support, FH.

I appreciate everyone who has been kind enough or interested enough to share their thoughts and opinions on this subject.

I too will be very surprised if they issue a stay.

Leo's case is on the docket for this Friday.

Wanta bet on it???

And the issue is the same - do they have any standing to bring the suit forward:


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

AGG

Thanks awefully for the lecture FH. You just keep tilting at them windmills.....

It's actually amazing you can extract such a sermon from a one line suggestion.

Donofrio’s case does not depend on federal standing the way Berg's does.

Donofrio’s case depends on standing in NJ. It will not be decided on the same grounds as Berg's.


This is another thing Pete Williams gets wrong.

Berg's case is NOT up for a private conference w/ the SCOTUS, like Donofrio’s case is.

Berg's case has NOT been treated the same way that Donofrio’s has been.

You are quite welcome.

Keep on telling people what they can and cannot post because you don't like what they might say.

And you keep chasing those kangaroos too....

I don't for one second believe this is being pursued for some righteous reason. All Donofrio cares about is getting the evil messiah Obama unelected and making a name for himself for doing it. This is a game of "I'm taking my ball and going home" being played out for the POTUS. It's ridiculous and a total waste of the courts time. I bet this thing would have been dropped like a hot potato had McCain won.

The election is over and Obama won. Not only did he win, but he won decisively. There is no way the SCOTUS will give this case any merit. I'm sure they will see it for the sour grapes it is.

Want2Stay

This whole thing is stupid.

Get out your tin foil hats!

Donofrio began his case BEFORE the election, and included Obama,Calero, AND McCain in his suit against the NJ SOS.

The whole issue is ridiculous and is a waste of taxpayer money and SCOTUS time. It'll run its course and die the same death as the "issues" of ACORN, coal, and Ayers, that some fringes have latched on to for dear life. It's everyone's right to obsess over and discuss these issues, but as BK said, it may be smarter to give it up and move on. But to each their own, of course.

AGG

I know it was BEFORE, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an agenda behind it. Everyone knew it was a long shot for the GOP to win the presidency again in the current political climate. That's why the GOP sacrificed McCain. So Donofrio went out on a limb and assumed that Obama would win. Just because he put McCain in it too doesn't give it more credibility. Like I said, the only reason it has made it this far is because he pushed for it so vigorously. Had McCain won, he would have dropped it like a hot potato.

Want2Stay

"The whole issue is ridiculous", "is a waste of taxpayer money",
"This whole thing is stupid.","Get out your tin foil hats!"and "give it up" aren't refutations.

Do you know if Obama was properly vetted?

Is there a law that requires ANY public official to establish the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for office?

The Federal Election Commision said they have no responsibilty to do so.

So who does?

I am very conservative in my politics Marsh but this is really absolutely priceless.

Obama will be President. (unfortunately)

But this is just sour grapes. Give it up already.



This really is what made America great - NOT.

I don't believe I've ever told people what to post FH.

I think you are free to post whatever you like here as am I.

But just because you CAN post rubbish like this doesn't mean you SHOULD.

The primary purpose of this site is after all Marriage Building. Doing some might be a more productive way IMO only of course. Or have you been banned from all the endless political sites around and have no other place to express your political opinions?

Exactly what is it you want me to give up?

If you aren't telling me how to post, then what are you saying?

BK, I don't know a less direct way to say this so here goes...your suggesting that an American citizen should give up what she sees as an issue concerning our election is ridiculous.

Recently, you have been less than candid with some of your postings. Of course you are suggesting what should or shouldn't be posted here. And when it comes to matters concerning this election, the opinion of a person from the other side of the world really should be given exceptionally little weight.

If it is important to Marsh to post some thoughts or feelings about her country, what issue does that cause for you? Your reminding Marsh or FH about the purpose of this site is, again, ridiculous. Other topics can and are discussed here. You have the option of not involving yourself in this discussion...since it has NOTHING to do with you.

The real travesty is watching Al Franken get away with blatant fraud.

I hope he loses regardless of his cheating.

Thankyou, MEDC.

I sent you an e-mail, but I'm not sure I had the correct address.

I began this thread b/c I wanted feedback about what everyone thought of the Donofrio case and the whole Natural born citizen vs. citizen debate.

And I also started it hoping that someone would convince me that the fears I have about Obama not having been properly vetted aren't well grounded.

you've got mail.

and, you're welcome.

No MEDC - I speak slowly so even you can understand.

I'm saying:

1. This is a waste of time - there is NO WAY this will happen
2. MB is better served by Marriage building.
3. This is sour grapes


I have been less than candid????

My opinions are equally as valid as yours or any one elses. DUH!


Well thank you for your opinion MEDC. I sure couldn't have slept without knowing it.

Marsh: if you are really interested in this I'm sure there are better places to get the information you seek. More appropriate places too.

Your fears should've been eliminated long before now.

Not even Fox News has picked up on this. It's credibility lies somewhere between the Roswell landing and the Virgin Mary being seen on a piece of toast.

Only 7 more weeks or so to give yourself an ulcer...Obama will be inaugurated on schedule. What a shocker.

Not concerning this country they are not.

As for the "speak slowly" comment BK, I obviously must bow to your greater intellect.

:crosseyedcrazy:

eta.

and yes,..less than candid. You called Aph a liar when he was doing nothing of the sort. When I asked you why you felt entitled to things he chose to keep quiet...you again deflected the question with a flip response that was not representative of your prior comments to him. You throw comments out there that reflect that Marsh should not post on this subject...and then deny it.

Your fears are not well grounded, as indicated by the fact that the non-fringe sources have not picked up on this story. But I doubt that anyone/thing will convince you of that, as your postings indicate that even if you personally got to examine Obama's birth certificate, you'll find some additional piece of evidence that you'd want.

AGG

He never told her not to post. He suggested to her to give up the obsession with this issue, as was done by other posters starting on page 1 of the thread. These are two totally different things.

AGG

Actually Brit Hume talked about it yesterday, and said FOX plans to talk about it more tomorrow.


ABC, MNBC, and Christian Science Monitor have reported on it. Drudge has one of them up right now..... and it looks like Count Down Tonight will be talking about it W/ Jonathan Turley tonight. Although, judging from what Turley's blog says, he won't be reporting this story accurately.

Anyway, Mods you can lock this thread.