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

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.