US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by stander

 

Stander, Donofrio's case did not focus on Obama. It was against the NJ SoS for not verifying the eligibility of the candidates placed on the NJ Ballot. One candidate was born in Nicaragua, Roger Calero.

Please understand, Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawaii nor makes any comment whatsoever on Obama's birth certificate.

Aha. I'm not really familiar with the Donofrio vs. NJ case; I was refering to the title of the thread and the prevalent topic of the posts.

reply to post by danx


actually the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over ANY constitutional question. I have also spent a lot of time looking over the laws that Berg claims and i don't get where you get they contradict his claims. unless you are just looking at what you can find online. since most of those laws have been amended or repealed since 1961. you have to go to an actual library to find the laws that were in place in 1961.

See i have invested the time and energy and went to the local university here were i live and looked up the laws in the actual law books, since they have a pretty extensive law library at that university.

I have also talked to a few attorneys and law professors here for their opinion on the matter just out of curiosity. they all seem to think if Berg has the evidence to back up his claims he has a strong case.

So i guess we'll see what the Supreme Court decides.

Oh yeah those same lawyers and law professors didn't agree with the Judge that ruled Berg didn't have standing to raise the question about Obama citizenship. they all agreed that if Berg (a voter) didn't have standing then no one has standing. They all agreed that the federal Judge was wrong in his decision to demise Bergs case for lack of standing.

please don't take any offense to this part. But you say you have been looking into the laws the last few days. Sorry but that hardly makes you an expert on the matter. I am by no means an expert either but I have been looking into this for a few months now. and had to rely on people that had many years experience to explain things to me.

While i do agree because i haven't seen all the evidence that Berg has to back up his claims that if i had to chose a case that had more merit it would be Leo Donofrio’s case.

But like i said in my other post it is quite possible that the Supreme court could combine both cases into one case. since when you break down both cases to their root claim they both want to know who is responsible to vet a presidential candidate. and they both raise a constitutional questions.



[edit on 12/5/2008 by Mercenary2007]

Originally posted by danx

To be fair to Sen. McCain, he didn’t ask Congress for anything, and it was the Senate.

At any rate, it doesn’t really matter as it’s just a non-binding Resolution with no legal value whatsoever. So, if McCain wasn’t/isn’t a “natural born” citizen (as I’ve argued), that Resolution couldn’t make him one anyway.

So that's what happened? Maybe the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary is required to check on the eligibility of the presidential candidates.

If the Senate resolution have no legal value why bother at all? You could get the Supreme Court busy with John McCain presidential eligibility for the heck of it. I think the Resolution is sort of binding within the Senate itself where all those heavy-duty challenges are expected to come from.

reply to post by danx


Can't believe you only got 2 stars when you ripped Berg's argument apart. I bet one of them responded, "Nah-uh" and got 5 stars.

They travel in packs.







[edit on 5-12-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
actually the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over ANY constitutional question.

Yes it does, but it doesn’t mean the SCOTUS will hear every case that has to do with constitutional matters. The cases do have to have some merit to even be considered to be heard.

See i have invested the time and energy and went to the local university here were i live and looked up the laws in the actual law books, since they have a pretty extensive law library at that university.

I’m sorry to hear that you’ve wasted all that time going out to the local University and reading the “the actual law books” when you could’ve read all of those laws online.

Or are you suggesting that the laws you read at the library aren’t online or differ from what’s online?

I have also talked to a few attorneys and law professors here for their opinion on the matter just out of curiosity. they all seem to think if Berg has the evidence to back up his claims he has a strong case.

Isn’t it obvious that anyone that can “back up his claims” has a strong case?

In regards to Mr. Berg’s case, perhaps you should’ve read it, because from your comments (and those law professors you say you talked to) clearly you didn’t, or didn’t notice that most of the ‘evidence’ Mr. Berg provide is hearsay, like, and I quote (from page 7):

Additionally, there is rumor circulating on the Internet that his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, adopted Obama.

Pretty solid legal arguments and evidence.

But hey, as long as he can “back it up” right? I guess he’s only missing the papers, or any other sort of evidence, that shows that Obama was ever adopted...

I have also spent a lot of time looking over the laws that Berg claims and i don't get where you get they contradict his claims. unless you are just looking at what you can find online.

[edit: Since you apparently have such aversion to laws that are online(?), perhaps you could, if possible, demonstrate to me why I shouldn’t rely on them. Thank you.]

Alright, let me point out one example then. And since most of the laws he uses to ‘support’ his claims are all based on this piece of legislation, it applies to basically all his arguments.

In page 7, Berg argues that:

At this time, if Obama was Registered as a “natural born” citizen, which he did not qualify to be registered as, he would have lost his U.S. Citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro and took up residency in Indonesia. (...) Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b)

According to Section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940:

From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated (...)

The section that Berg cites to argue that Obama lost his citizenship because his mother married an Indonesian man, and moved there, explicitly says that it applies to women who married prior to 1922. Obama’s mother didn’t, so how does this applied to her?

since most of those laws have been amended or repealed since 1961.

Yes, they have and yet, this is what Berg cites to ‘prove’ his argument. So I guess you’re saying Berg’s arguments are without merit, as they are based on outdated legislation?

you have to go to an actual library to find the laws that were in place in 1961.

OK, thank you for the suggestion.

But since you have spent “a few months” looking into this, would you care to tell me what law was that? So, you know, I can more easily find it on the.. ‘library’

please don't take any offense to this part. But you say you have been looking into the laws the last few days. Sorry but that hardly makes you an expert on the matter.

No worries, no offense taken. And you are correct, I’m hardly an expert. That’s why it will be very easy for you to demonstrate how wrong I am on my analysis.

I await your reply and rebuttal. Thank you



[edit on 5-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by danx

In regards to Mr. Berg’s case, perhaps you should’ve read it, because from your comments (and those law professors you say you talked to) clearly you didn’t, or didn’t notice that most of the ‘evidence’ Mr. Berg provide is hearsay, like, and I quote (from page 7):

I knew i should have expanded on that issue more.

They said if he could produce the paperwork to backup his claims. ie the school registry from Indonesia, a Birth certificate or official document from Kenya about Obama's birth there. he would have a strong case. But since Bergs case is not a criminal case he can use circumstantial evidence to back up his claims as long as its convincing enough to a judge there is reasonable doubt to force Obama to produce his proof he is a natural born U.S. citizen. and with the school record has and the "hearsay Evidence" as you put it he does have a strong case.

[edit: Since you apparently have such aversion to laws that are online(?), perhaps you could, if possible, demonstrate to me why I shouldn’t rely on them. Thank you.]

the laws that you will find online are the most current laws on the books. most of those laws have been amended since the 1960's thus the amended Sections of those laws go into effect after they were amended. to see the actual laws that were in effect before they were amended you need to look at the laws before they were amended after Obama's Birth. and yu will mostly find those laws in the actual law books in Libraries and not online.

The section that Berg cites to argue that Obama lost his citizenship because his mother married an Indonesian man, and moved there, explicitly says that it applies to women who married prior to 1922. Obama’s mother didn’t, so how does this applied to her?

The section that Berg cites to argue that Obama lost his citizenship because his mother married an Indonesian man, and moved there, explicitly says that it applies to women who married prior to 1922. Obama’s mother didn’t, so how does this applied to her?

That section was written in 1940 so it was in effect from 1940 on. however. when an act is written and then signed into law it is only in effect from the day it was signed into law until it is amended repealed, or replaced by a new law.

So since that section is part of an act that was signed into law in 1940 its active from 1940 on. What has you confused is this part

"prior to September 22, 1922"

Ok what they did here was grandfather in a group that wouldn't be covered by this law. so they would be covered under the new law.

Yes, they have and yet, this is what Berg cites to ‘prove’ his argument. So I guess you’re saying Berg’s arguments are without merit, as they are based on outdated legislation?

his arguments aren't without merit because they are based on outdated legislation as you put it.

what most people don't understand is yes the laws may be out dated but you have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the case question.not today's laws. In Bergs court case it deals with Obama's 1961 birth. So the federal Courts have to use those laws to determine if he was a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen. or if he's not even a U.S. Citizen.

if you still don't understand why the judges have to use 1961 laws i'll try to explain better.



[edit on 12/6/2008 by Mercenary2007]

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
the laws that you will find online are the most current laws on the books. most of those laws have been amemded since the 1960's thus the amended Sections of those laws go into effect after they were amended.

It might be so, but the laws that I linked (Naturalization Act 1940) were in their original form. It was the Act, without amendments, in it’s original form, scanned from an “actual law book”. I used the Act of 1940, because that’s what Berg was citing, and I showed that it couldn’t be used to take away Obama’s citizenship.

Ok what they did here was grandfather in a group that wouldn't be covered by this law. so they would be covered under the new law.

OK.. and? It still didn’t apply to Obama’s mother.

his arguments aren't without merit because they are based on outdated legislation as you put it.

I’m not saying they were without merit because he was citing outdated legislation. I was deducing it from your statement.

You said: “since most of those laws have been amended or repealed since 1961. you have to go to an actual library to find the laws that were in place in 1961.”

What I pointed out was, Berg doesn’t cite the laws that were in place in 1961, as you said I was required to check. He cites the Naturalization Act of 1940 mostly, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Although, I concede that the INA would apply in 1961, but certainly the Act of 1940 wouldn’t, and it’s what Berg uses as basis for his argument.

Moreover, as far as I’ve been able to find out, since the enactment of the INA, there were minor amendments in 1956 and 1957, that added provisions for citizens who were serving abroad in the Armed Forces, and for native Americans, respectively.

And in May 1961 (3 months before Obama’s birth), there was a SCOTUS case, Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, where the Court ruled that a child born abroad prior to 1934, to an American citizen mother, did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at the time, citizenship at birth was only transmitted by a citizen father.

But again this doesn’t apply to Obama, the INA of 1952 does. And the INA, contrary to the previous legislation, conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad.

I then argue that the INA of 1952, and subsequent amendments up until 1961, apply to Obama.

what most people don't understand is yes the laws may be out dated but you have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the case question.not today's laws. In Bergs court case it deals with Obama's 1961 birth. So the federal Courts have to use those laws to determine if he was a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen. or if he's not even a U.S. Citizen.

if you still don't understand why the judges have to use 1961 laws i'll try to explain better.

Oh, I understand it perfectly, and never claimed otherwise.

It is exactly because of this that I say Berg’s case has no merit, since practically all the laws he cites to argue that Obama lost his US citizenship are from the Naturalization Act of 1940, and you’ve admitted that we can only go by the laws that were in place at the time. And that’s the INA of 52, not the Act of 1940.

So let’s look at the Act of 52. Here is Title 3 Chapter 1 (“Nationality At Birth and by Collective Naturalization”), and here is Title 3 Chapter 3 (“Loss of Nationality”) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, scanned from an “actual law book”, in their original form of 1952. I hope this is to your satisfaction.

I will now quote you from Section 349 of Chapter 3, that deals with loss of nationality:

Sec. 349
(a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as a result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fith birthday

Since none of these things happened, Obama couldn’t have never lost his US nationality and citizenship.

So, Obama couldn’t have lost his citizenship by the Act of 1940 (which Berg uses as his main argument), nor by the Act of 1952, that was the Act in effect at time of Obama’s birth.

I say again: Berg’s legal arguments have no merit.




[edit on 6-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by danx

Nicely put. I only wish I could present an argument so well.

My way of putting it is that Berg is a con-man, presenting rumours and crapulastic factoids in a pretense of having a case to present against Obama.

He most likely figures so many folk hate Democrats or hate Black guys that he'll collect a swag of donations this way from people who won't stop to question his "evidence".

Every time a court dismisses his barfful nonsense, Berg and his gullible donors kid themselves the courts are in on "the great conspiracy" to foist a NWO anti-christ onto the helpless American people.

reply to post by danx


So then the question remains, why didn't he just show his BC

Originally posted by ProFiler.DSS
reply to post by danx

 

So then the question remains, why didn't he just show his BC

As I explained earlier,
Hawaii only provides the certificate you have seen. They call the COLB the birth certificate and it is legal for any use requiring a birth certificate.
All other states are bound by the constitution to accept this as a birth certificate.

So your question is answered. Obama has shown his birth certificate.

It has not been denied yet, as everyone is stating...

Decision on Obama citizenship pending

Washington Times
Saturday, December 6, 2008
washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by stander
Aha. I'm not really familiar with the Donofrio vs. NJ case; I was refering to the title of the thread and the prevalent topic of the posts.

The title and prevalent topic of the thread IS the Donofrio case. Just FYI.

From the OP:

Originally posted by Gools
www.blogtext.org

Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Originally posted by MissysWorld
It has not been denied yet, as everyone is stating...

No one in this thread has stated that it has been denied.

There is about a 99% chance, it will not be reviewed and the lower court ruling will stand.

Then the new congress can start impeachment proceedings against Clarence Thomas, who must be suffering some mental disorder. Accepting a case after Souter denied it does not look good.

[edit on 12/6/08 by mel1962]

Originally posted by ProFiler.DSS
So then the question remains, why didn't he just show his BC

Yes, I also wonder about that, but we have no way of knowing what are the reasons for him to do so. To be assuming one thing or another, it’s.. well, just speculation.

But at any rate, Obama isn’t under any legal obligation (unless a Court requests it of him) to release or show his birth certificate to anyone. And since he probably knows Constitutional law better than any of us here, I suspect he knows what he’s doing.

I have posted some new information regarding birth certificates HERE

He very likely hasn't shown his REAL birth certificate because he doesn't have it! He probably has his "souvenir birth certificate" which is not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship!

And check my signature for a study in Birth Certificates.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by ProFiler.DSS
So then the question remains, why didn't he just show his BC

Yes, I also wonder about that, but we have no way of knowing what are the reasons for him to do so. To be assuming one thing or another, it’s.. well, just speculation.

But at any rate, Obama isn’t under any legal obligation (unless a Court requests it of him) to release or show his birth certificate to anyone. And since he probably knows Constitutional law better than any of us here, I suspect he knows what he’s doing.

Do you realise that Hawaii does not make any birth certificate available other than the one Obama has shown?

Certificate of live birth = birth certificate.

There is no other except for what the mother brings home from hospital, and with all Ann Dunham's moving around, it's quite likely that was lost long ago. As she's been dead for 13 years he can hardly ask her what she did with it. Or she might have got the souvenir version instead, which is not legal to use for identification purposes.

The "Full faith and credit" clause of the constitution applies to the COLB, otherwise known as the birth certificate, which Obama has made available.
It has to be accepted by all states as legal proof of birth for passports, driving licences etc.

Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

I thought this was an interesting article.

Lawsuit Targeting Obama Likely to be Denied

What will the Supreme Court do with these suits?

If these suits had gained traction early this year, it is possible a judge could have ordered a hearing to review the evidence on whether Obama and McCain are "natural born citizens," as required by the Constitution.

But these suits have very little chance of gaining a hearing now. The Supreme Court decides legal issues. It does not resolve factual disputes. In the suits over Obama's birth, the plaintiffs have not persuaded any judge that the president-elect was, in fact, not born in Hawaii. The Supreme Court would have no basis for reconsidering that basic fact.

In these cases, lower courts dismissed the suits without handing down major rulings. The Supreme Court receives about 150 appeals per week, and all but a small fraction are rejected without discussion among the justices. Donofrio's is likely to be denied without comment tomorrow morning. Berg's is likely to meet the same fate.

Considering the information I have found in simple Internet searches, I'm kind if baffled as to why these lawyers think they might have a case. After my recent research on birth certificates, I am completely convinced that neither case is going to go anywhere.

Originally posted by mel1962
There is about a 99% chance, it will not be reviewed and the lower court ruling will stand.

Then the new congress can start impeachment proceedings against Clarence Thomas, who must be suffering some mental disorder. Accepting a case after Souter denied it does not look good.

[edit on 12/6/08 by mel1962]

I watched a CNN piece on this, and the guy said that Thomas's actions were not out-of-the-norm.

The reason is because Donofrio first brought it to Justice Souter, who denied the case. Donofrio then took it to Thomas. Of course, Thomas does not like Obama, and its easy to come to the conclusion that he wants to get back at Obama for remarks Obama made about Thomas. BUT, that isn't the reason. If Clarence too denied it, Donofrio could take it to each and every Justice, wasting valuable court resources. In cases where it appears that is what will happen, the Justice will usually put the issue to conference so that they all can basically deny the case.

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by danx

 

Nicely put. I only wish I could present an argument so well.

My way of putting it is that Berg is a con-man, presenting rumours and crapulastic factoids in a pretense of having a case to present against Obama.

He most likely figures so many folk hate Democrats or hate Black guys that he'll collect a swag of donations this way from people who won't stop to question his "evidence".

Every time a court dismisses his barfful nonsense, Berg and his gullible donors kid themselves the courts are in on "the great conspiracy" to foist a NWO anti-christ onto the helpless American people.

Berg has a history of making stuff up and wasting taxpayer money:

Finding that a Pennsylvania lawyer had committed a "laundry list of unethical actions," a federal judge has imposed more than $10,000 in sanctions and ordered the lawyer to complete six hours of ethics training.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner's 10-page opinion in Holsworth v. Berg is packed with criticism of the conduct of attorney Philip Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa.

"Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.

"This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote.

In a June 2 opinion, Joyner found that Berg had violated Rule 11 by "filing a complaint completely devoid of any basis in fact or law, as would be apparent to any reasonable attorney after the slightest inquiry."

Sound familiar?

SOURCE

[edit on 7-12-2008 by clay2 baraka]

The Court will not hear this case.

True American started a thread.