Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Originally posted by redhatty
It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

Thank you for keeping us informed! I'll be watching for this one.

Originally posted by Gregarious
So even if he was born in Hawaii, which I do not know for a fact, he could not be a citizen because of her. That was the law at his birth date. You don't apparently read the laws, let alone understand what they mean.

It is YOU, Gregarious, that is wrong. If you have read and studied the law, you have a comprehension problem. Most of your posts start with "From what I understand..." Well, you DON'T understand. Most of what you're posting is in direct conflict with the truth and the law. I'm not sure what you're doing in a legal thread except spreading misinformation.

Originally posted by hande
Ok, this is maybe old information but new to me:

That is from 1982, 21 years AFTER Obama was born. Does not apply.

Originally posted by stander
If Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawai and is not concerned about Obama birth certificate, what is the source that makes Donofrio to question Obama's eligibility to become the prez by arguing the identity of Obama's parents?

The Kenyan Constitution. The birth certificate is not needed to know that Obama's father was born in Kenya. The Kenyan Constitution states that a child born to a Kenyan also carried Kenyan citizenship. When Barack Obama was born (regardless WHERE) he carried Kenyan citizenship, simply because his father was a native Kenyan. Being born in Hawaii, he also carried US citizenship. He had dual citizenship at birth and Donofrio's case claims a person with dual citizenship is NOT a natural-born citizen. Even though the immigration laws of the US state than ANYONE born IN THE US is a natural-born citizen, except children of foreign diplomats.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

How about this? All you Republicans that hate Obama so much... PROVE HE WAS BORN IN KENYA! Provide a birth certificate from Kenya. Until you provide us with a Kenyan BC all you have is hate. So, provide the Kenyan BC, *snip*.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by GamerGal]

====
Mod Edit: no racist overtones, please.

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by GamerGal
How about this? All you Republicans that hate Obama so much... PROVE HE WAS BORN IN KENYA! Provide a birth certificate from Kenya. Until you provide us with a Kenyan BC all you have is "I hate darkies!" So, provide the Kenyan BC, or go back to your white bedsheets and pillow cases.

You are a *snip* person.
*snip* using language like that. A sheer violation of T&C. I hope you get more than slap on the wrist.


====
Mod Edit: No sniping. Use the 'Alert' feature, let the Mods handle it. Thanks.

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by jibeho


So, no Kenyan BC? Until you provide a Kenyan BC, or any thing else other then you hate black people, that's all this is. So far we have his grandmother talking about the birth of her son, not grandson. And we have a Ambassador who tells us that his words were edited to make it sound like he was talking about Obama. So, unless you have a Kenyan BC, its just racism.

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

like, what's your guys deal? You racist??? You think Obama is not who he says he is? That's OFFENSIVE.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Oh I wish some people would grow up. Just because someone does not believe in or follow Obama instantly makes that person a racist!

I am glad that this whole issue is now coming to a close so that people can move on and figure out more important questions ....

Did aliens build the pyramids?

Originally posted by jibeho
You've got a lot of nerve using language like that.

That's called "Troll speak". Meant to ignite passion and negative emotion. Don't fall for it.

Best ignored, IMO.

GG, you're not doing your position ANY favors by attacking people like that.

Let's get back on topic , eh?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


He still didn't provide a Kenyan BC. Until any of these guys do they only have hatred as their arguement.

All I am saying is that it is a shame that people cannot speak on topics such as this without being labelled racist. It is a real shame. I am sure that some people may share the views that "he is black" (which he actually is not) and so hate him for that reason (and this is pathetic and ignorant and shame on those people) but surely some just want to see the constitution upheld?
One can also argue that the 95% (or so I heard, I believe others quote it at 85%) of African Americans that voted Obama were also racially motivated.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by george_gaz]

*Attention*
Please refrain from bickering and sniping. Post about the subject not the Member posting it.

This can be a hot topic so we need to exercise our best manners and decorum. An intelligent person can surely argue a topic without using text which will alienate, instead seeking to use example, citation and rational argument. To gain acceptance for one's view, you don't push the opponent away. Instead, you draw them into your argument and make a friend.

Carry on with intelligence, humor and persuasion. Thanks for your attention.

-Badge01
Forum Moderator

Originally posted by stander
I wonder if you can explain the contradiction between two statements:

Yours

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

and the one made by the media.

Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Here is the lead for you: If Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawai and is not concerned about Obama birth certificate, what is the source that makes Donofrio to question Obama's eligibility to become the prez by arguing the identity of Obama's parents? The only admissible evidence regarding the identity of his parents is Obama's birth certificate, which, accorging to your statement, is of no concern to Donofrio.

Now you are asking me to explain why the media source you provide spins their report the way they do? Wow, thank you for bestowing upon me the power to read minds

Donofrio claimed that dual-citizenship AT-BIRTH, precluded Obama from being a "Natural-Born Citizen." Never once does Donofrio claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and Obama's own websites have admitted that yes, he did have dual-citizenship at birth.

But since SCOTUS chose not to hear the case, we will not - at this time - know if Donofrio's arguments are correct in their conclusions.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by stander
If Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawai and is not concerned about Obama birth certificate, what is the source that makes Donofrio to question Obama's eligibility to become the prez by arguing the identity of Obama's parents?

The Kenyan Constitution. The birth certificate is not needed to know that Obama's father was born in Kenya. The Kenyan Constitution states that a child born to a Kenyan also carried Kenyan citizenship. When Barack Obama was born (regardless WHERE) he carried Kenyan citizenship, simply because his father was a native Kenyan. Being born in Hawaii, he also carried US citizenship. He had dual citizenship at birth and Donofrio's case claims a person with dual citizenship is NOT a natural-born citizen. Even though the immigration laws of the US state than ANYONE born IN THE US is a natural-born citizen, except children of foreign diplomats.

Aha. Thanks for the explanation.

You know, this is Donofrio's way to interpret the particular Constitutional Law that governs over the issue. I wouldn't personally bother, because of a precedence that the court would use to decide -- Perkins vs. Elg.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

But I think that Donofrio did the right thing: the term "natural born" should be constitutionally re-defined to the point where there is little or no dispute at all about its meaning. Under a general agreement that interprets the particular law, being "natural born" requires both parents to be US citizens. If Obama's dad was indeed the citizen of Kenya upon Obama's birth, then Obama should move his sofa from the White House garage back to Illinois.

Originally posted by stander
Perkins vs. Elg.

Edit:

The Elg case is not, strictly speaking, a dual citizenship case, since the court's assumption was that once Elg had reached adulthood, she had the right to choose US citizenship instead of (not in addition to) Swedish citizenship -- i.e., that this right had not been taken away from her by actions her parents had taken when she was a child.

So, this isn't really precedent after all. She didn't have Swedish citizenship at birth.


I didn't know about this... redhatty? did you?

Perkins vs Elg

But I think that Donofrio did the right thing: the term "natural born" should be constitutionally re-defined to the point where there is little or no dispute at all about its meaning.

I totally agree!

Under a general agreement that interprets the particular law, being "natural born" requires both parents to be US citizens.

But current law states that even the child of 2 illegal immigrants is a natural-born US citizen. We'd have to overturn a lot of laws to do what you propose.

But still, good work!


[edit on 9-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

So we've got seven judges out of nine that were appointed by Republican presidents and apparently this was shut down by all nine of them.

Also of note, apparently Jeff Schreiber, one of the few unbiased people covering this (about the only thing he writes that is unbiased on his blog) went to the most recent press conference featuring Berg and others; much to my amusement and Jeff's horror he was apparently surrounded by nutjobs:

With that, the room opened up for questions. They came from reporters with Slate.com and Salon.com, from the Atlantic Television News and from the Hispanic Outlook. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post sat silent. At one point, a woman who identified herself as “Shelli Baker of Morning Song Radio” raised her hand for a question but instead took command of the microphone herself and proceeded to embark on a 15-minute diatribe exploring everything from NAFTA to the World Bank to the Amero to John Ashcroft to Hitler to Saudi Arabian oil to Mitt Romney and to NAFTA all over again. Dana Milbank got up and left. Finally, another reporter raised the possibility of a civil racketeering suit, and Salon’s Mike Madden asked Schulz about his plans should the courts refuse to take any of these cases and Obama continue, unfettered, into the White House just a stone’s throw away.

I guess Jeff thought that he was really surrounded by American patriots that only care about the Constitution, when if he just spent about five minutes on websites like Berg's ObamaCrimes he'd get a better picture of what he's really surrounded by.

Also from the blog and press conference:

“This has been a historical election, and January 20th will be a historical day,” Manning said. “However, the road to the office of president of the United States still runs exclusively through the womb of a white woman. There has never been a black womb which has produced a black president. As of today, unless you have a white womb, you cannot produce a son who will be president of the United States.”

“We don’t know who this man is,” he said, cautioning his fellow African-Americans not to accept this fruit of a white woman as their redeemer. “He’s no Booker T. Washington, I’ll tell you that. He’s no Martin Luther King. But he does possess the potential to be the most prolific con-man in the history of this country. It is my prayer that January 20th will not happen, that Barack Hussein Obama will not be inaugurated. This man has come from the womb of a white woman.”

Good luck getting any of these cases heard when you've got these guys at the helm of the ship.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by davion]

reply to post by davion


That reminds me of the piece David Horowitz wrote. He's not too thrilled with this either.

What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I remember it being mentioned in one of Donofrio's discussions, but had not looked into it deeply. Public Law 95-432 may actually be a stronger point in the Obama situation.

(Reported to House from the Committee on the Judiciary with amendment, H. Rept. 95-1493)

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal specified provisions depriving persons of their United States nationality and citizenship in the following circumstances (1) a person, born outside the United States to parents one of whom was not a United States citizen, who failed to come to and reside in the United States; (2) a person who having dual nationality sought the benefits of his non-United States nationality; (3) a person who voted or participated in a foreign election; (4) a person who was convicted of desertion from the United States military; (5) a naturalized citizen who resided outside the United States for a specified period of time; and (6) a minor's parents' expatriation.

Emphasis mine.

Question 1: Would using a passport from another country you have the ability to get one from (i.e. the questionable Indonesian Passport) be considered "seeking the benefits of non-US nationality?"

Question 2: Would Obama's campaigning for his cousin Odinga, be considered participating in a foreign election?

I reference this law since it is one that is referenced in the Elg case link you provided, BH

reply to post by davion


He was surprised that the only people involved in this are a bunch of nutjobs? That the people were all doing the Hitler Salute while screaming "Vote Republican!" Not that surprising. That's all they have, is hatred. No Kenyan BC, which has been asked for by me and others. They only have hate because reality and facts are against them.

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

Thank you. I'm glad you pointed these things out. I did not realize that his grandmothers statement was not court admissible,

I can't tell if you're just being insulting here or being sincere, but it's not court admissable.

and I did not realize that the fact Indonesia will not accept non-Muslim or non-Indonesian students is not court admissible.

It's not about that - it's the plausibility of Obama renouncing citizenship to the US in favor of Indonesia. There is no evidence he renounced his citizenship. A box checked that he was an Indonesian citizen on a form that says he is from Hawaii is not evidence because it is more than likely that his step father simply lied on the form.

I also did not realize that Hawaii state officials are the exception to the rule, and some of them are actually honest. That amazes me. So we definitely should take their word for it, and not have to see the original, like the highest and best evidence rule states.

Another statement on the conspiracy stretching to the farthest and most minor of state officials, with nothing but accusations to back up assertions. Every one of these threads at some point in time clearly explains the validity and the reason why Hawaii issued a COLB. But I do digress, that will never be enough for you. I would suggest you check out Benevolent Heretic's BC Thread, but for some reason I doubt the truth is appealling to you.

We can make an exception in this case, because we like him. He may even be a better speaker than the Jewish Adolph Hitler, who, by the way, claimed at first to be a Christian, before he began his own religion.

Riiight. So, you believe Obama is better than Hitler, and so I assume anyone who supports him a new kind of Nazi? Glad to see you have the intellectual fortitude and understanding to levy a claim that Democrats and Obama are synonymous with a movement that slaughtered millions of innocents in ethnic genocide and even more millions of soldiers who died defending their lands and others. Hyperbole much?

I am glad you pointed these things out, because Barry is a man who would best be able to reform the constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He has lots of experience, what was it I read, six months in Congress, usually voting neither yeah or neigh, but 'present'. I think we should all petition him to annoint you as his new Attorney General. You have even more reguard for law than he does! Again, thank you.

Oddly enough, you have provided neither sources nor logical claims to back up your arguments in any post you have made on this thread. However, it is clear you are very well practiced in ad hominem attacks, you hate Obama and will hate every action he takes in Government. All I can say, is sorry. /shrug

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Avenginggecko]

Oh, man... that is really, really pushing the envelope, IMO.

Originally posted by redhatty
Question 1: Would using a passport from another country you have the ability to get one from (i.e. the questionable Indonesian Passport) be considered "seeking the benefits of non-US nationality?"

I doubt it, but I don't know.
We also have no proof of Indonesian citizenship.
We have no proof of an Indonesian passport.

Question 2: Would Obama's campaigning for his cousin Odinga, be considered participating in a foreign election?

I know that's all over the blogs, but I haven't seen any real proof of this, have you?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


On Odinga, which I believe started with Corsi's book and was further spread by this picture:

A frequent Corsi tactic is to point to some link between Obama and various unsavory persons and to imply that Obama somehow shares in their unsavoriness. He devotes an entire chapter to violent uprisings in Kenya following a disputed presidential election in 2007. The link to Obama? During a visit to Kenya in 2006, Obama and his wife, Michelle, arranged to take an AIDS test to publicly demonstrate the test's safety. While there, Obama spoke to the assembled crowd. Raila Odinga, one of the two candidates running for president, was on the stage when Obama spoke. Corsi concludes that the event constituted an endorsement of Odinga. He goes on to attribute all the violence in Kenya to an elaborate Odinga plot.

Source

Doesn't sound like he was endorsing anything but encouraging people to get tested.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Question 2: Would Obama's campaigning for his cousin Odinga, be considered participating in a foreign election?

I know that's all over the blogs, but I haven't seen any real proof of this, have you?

Strange, many of the links that come up in a web search are no longer on the web at all. I did find this which briefly states

Obama appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga -- a Luo running for president -- at stops on Saturday in his father's native district.

Almost like an afterthought at the end of the article.

Then this:

Prominent visitors have criticized Kenyan corruption before. But hearing the message from Obama was different. For he was seen not only as a fellow Kenyan standing up to power, but also as a Luo standing up to a Kikuyo--the dominant ethnic group to which President Mwai Kibaki belongs and against which Luo resentment runs deep. And worse, in the government's eyes, at least, he was seen as siding with the opposition--in particular with Raila Odinga, a powerful kingmaker and Luo whose Orange Democratic Movement has been a painful thorn in Kibaki's side. "It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics," sniffed Kibaki spokesperson Alfred Mutua.

source (you may have to do a free registration to view this link)

And for what it's worth

Although Odinga is an Anglican, he referred to Islam as the "one true religion" and scorned Christians as "worshipers of the cross." Obama strongly supports Odinga who claims to be his cousin. As Daniel Johnson reported recently in the New York Sun, during his 2006 visit to Kenya, Obama was so outspoken in his support for Odinga that the Kenyan government complained to the State Department that Obama was interfering with the internal politics of the country. After the Dec. 27 elections Obama interrupted a campaign appearance in New Hampshire to take a call from Odinga.

source

There are a few more, some of obviously bias sources, and many on AllAfrica.com that require a subscription to view the archives