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

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
You can call it what you want to, but you have no reason to believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii other than he hasn't given sufficient evidence in your opinion, and in my opinion, that's a lame reason.

Where have you been, I argue that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii. The nbc clause is a much stronger argument. You are good at projecting arguments onto me that I am not fighting. Keep building those strawmen.

reply to post by redhatty


You mean the clause that references a group of words that are never defined elsewhere?

Yeah... that's a great reason to impeach.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


impeach is the wrong term to use, he has not taken office yet, therefor he cannot be impeached.

Isn't it amazing that a 5 yr old child must have his BC provided to play little league ball, but a Presidential Candidate doesn't have to produce anything to prove eligibility.

And even more amazing is that there are people, like yourself, M1ck, that think this is okay

reply to post by redhatty


A child's parents could provide a COLB, just as Obama has, and be fine. You don't know what Obama has provided to prove his eligibility. You are only speculating.

I am, however, sure he was born in Hawaii, and sure that by my standards that makes him a natural born citizen. And since "natural born citizen" is never defined in the Constitution, I suppose I am able to form my own opinion about it.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


you absolutely are allowed to have your own opinion about it and any other subject

at least while we still don't have thought police.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Yes, saw that quote, and read it closely:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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," Fukino said

The direct quote simply says they saw and verified that the Department HAS the original BC on record, it does NOT provide any verification that it is a State of HI BC (HI allows recording of foreign and other state BC). As another poster says, look at the wording, what was not said is that the Registrar and Director are verifying that it is a legal and verifiable State of Hawaii (born in HI) birth certificate....much different words......

reply to post by habu71


Not that I am aware. BH was quick to point out that the law quoted wasn't enacted until 1982, and since is not under 27, I don't think he was born after that.

More importantly, you left out the part where she called the claims ridiculous. So, again, I'll state it:

She viewed the BC, verified it is legit, and called claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii "ridiculous". Quit leaving stuff out to make your argument work.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by habu71

 

Not that I am aware. BH was quick to point out that the law quoted wasn't enacted until 1982, and since is not under 27, I don't think he was born after that.

More importantly, you left out the part where she called the claims ridiculous. So, again, I'll state it:

She viewed the BC, verified it is legit, and called claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii "ridiculous". Quit leaving stuff out to make your argument work.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by Irish M1ck]

To date some 20 law suits have been filed across our nation and MOST, are Democrats.

Former Presidential Candidate Allen Keys a Republican has filed a laws suit against the Attorney General of California demanding that Obama present his birth certificate before she could send in the States 55 delegates votes. I can hear Barrack Obama's supporters even here in Pennsylvania saying its political attacks. If it were not law mandated by our Constitution that all Presidential candidates be natural born citizens as qualifications, one may have a argument. Barrack Obama was born in Kenya, Africa to his Mother and Father Barrack Obama Sr who under law of Kenya you must denounce your citizenship to any other country to become married. Barry Sorrento Obama was later adopted by his new step father and became a citizen of Indonesia when his Mother then remarried and certified that Barrack was not a citizen of any other country to attend School there. To date Barrack Obama travels the world on a Indonesian passport. Finally The state of Hawaii does not have a certified birth certificate on file showing Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, however they do have a notice of live birth which shows that Obama was born, which Barrack Obama's Mother later filed some 12 year later to allow Barrack Obama to attend school in America while he stayed at his Grandparents home. The Supreme Court refuses to hear these lawsuits as it is not their responsibility, yet if not, then who then must uphold the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Yeah what is so funny is when she was asked by reporters (and again this is fifth time this has been said) what the BC says about where he was born, she never answerd that question but rather brushed off the reporters saying she had work to do.

Obama WENT there to ask that she give a statement that is all she never saids squat Mick OPEN YOUR EYES! if yu are going to say words to the effect of what she was responding to as ridiculous then please show the video or quote of what the person she is responding to said! I would love to see this!

It is incumbent on anyone running for president they prove they are a Natural Born Citizen and Just that crap you are using to say it is vague is not a SCOTUS Opinion, it is YOURS . The bill hillary and Obama made for McCain is nothing but a damn sticky note .

reply to post by Aermacchi


SHE CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW.

"Hmm, I'm not allowed to show the Birth Certificate, but I can read it word for word...." No, I don't think so.

Why don't you try reading?

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Irish M1ck]

always shine a light on the elite and the establishment, such as Obama and his cronies, shame on those who doff their caps and whine when clarity is rightly demanded

Originally posted by redhatty
Where have you been, I argue that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii.

Okay, how does it "not matter if he was born in Hawaii"? Hawaii became a State August 21, 1959. Obama was born August 4, 1961. If he was born in Hawaii (and all the actual evidence points in that direction) that would automatically make him a natural-born United States citizen.

Why do you keep up this argument?

What will satisfy you?

reply to post by The Nighthawk


search the forum for the Donofrio or Wrotnowski filings. They explain the nbc clause much better than I can.

remember, regardless of what the laws are today, the applicable laws would have been those in effect in 1961 when Obama was born.

Nutshell, his mom was not old enough to convey her citizenship to her child and his father was a British/Kenyan citizen.

Founders and framers version of nbc = child born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

words words words

What is your actual source for this? It helps to bolster your case if you provide an actual link to the website where you found this text. For all I know you may have written this yourself.

Former Presidential Candidate Allen Keys a Republican has filed a laws suit against the Attorney General of California demanding that Obama present his birth certificate before she could send in the States 55 delegates votes. I can hear Barrack Obama's supporters even here in Pennsylvania saying its political attacks.

First off, whoever wrote this obviously isn't a communcations professional. Any pro would at least have done a cursory search to ensure they could correctly spell the names of the people they mention.

It's not "Allen Keys", it's Alan Keyes. And yes, Keyes has an axe to grind after Obama handed his carpet-bagging rear end to him in the single largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history (70%-27%) during the 2004 US Senate race.

If it were not law mandated by our Constitution that all Presidential candidates be natural born citizens as qualifications, one may have a argument.

Nobody is arguing whether someone has to be a natural-born citizen. The question seems to be what evidence would be enough to satisfy people like you that Obama is exactly who he says he is. I doubt there could ever be enough, and it is my opinion that your attacks on Obama are motivated by race, paranoia or partisanship.

Barrack Obama was born in Kenya, Africa to his Mother and Father Barrack Obama Sr who under law of Kenya you must denounce your citizenship to any other country to become married.

Again, what's your original source for this information? Those of us who support Obama have provided our sources. Where's yours?

Barry Sorrento Obama was later adopted by his new step father and became a citizen of Indonesia when his Mother then remarried and certified that Barrack was not a citizen of any other country to attend School there.

Where do you get this information that his US citizenship was revoked or renounced for a move to Indonesia? What credible source backs up the claim that he would have to?

To date Barrack Obama travels the world on a Indonesian passport.

Source? Please?

Finally The state of Hawaii does not have a certified birth certificate on file showing Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, however they do have a notice of live birth which shows that Obama was born, which Barrack Obama's Mother later filed some 12 year later to allow Barrack Obama to attend school in America while he stayed at his Grandparents home.

Source? Anything?

The Supreme Court refuses to hear these lawsuits as it is not their responsibility, yet if not, then who then must uphold the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Emphasis mine.

It could also be that they found the accusations completely without merit. We just have to see if they ever make a direct comment on this.

Yeah what is so funny is when she was asked by reporters (and again this is fifth time this has been said) what the BC says about where he was born, she never answerd that question but rather brushed off the reporters saying she had work to do.

Ugh. Problem with trying to "read between the lines" is that some people just aren't smart enough to do so without losing track of the context of a statement. She said his BC was valid. What else do you really need?

Obama WENT there to ask that she give a statement that is all she never saids squat

Proof? Please? Source?

if yu are going to say words to the effect of what she was responding to as ridiculous then please show the video or quote of what the person she is responding to said! I would love to see this!

She's responding to YOU. You, and all the crazies like you.

It is incumbent on anyone running for president they prove they are a Natural Born Citizen and Just that crap you are using to say it is vague is not a SCOTUS Opinion, it is YOURS . The bill hillary and Obama made for McCain is nothing but a damn sticky note .

Can you prove Obama was not born in Hawaii? Yes or no?

Because if he was he's a Natural-Born Citizen. End of story.



[edit on 12/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

The Supreme Court refuses to hear these lawsuits as it is not their responsibility, yet if not, then who then must uphold the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Emphasis mine.

It could also be that they found the accusations completely without merit. We just have to see if they ever make a direct comment on this.

See page 5 of the original judge's Opinion on the Wrotnowski case to find the following quote.

Therefore, the plaintiff lacked statutory standing
to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter.

So there you go. A judge wrote out an opinion on one of the cases and they do not have subject matter jurisdiction and couldn't rule on it whether they wanted to or not. I've posted that a few times, but I figured you probably missed it. Easy to do on threads with as many pages as this one.

Originally posted by redhatty
search the forum for the Donofrio or Wrotnowski filings. They explain the nbc clause much better than I can.

Their filings mean nothing. A plaintiff can put whatever they want in a filing; it doesn't mean the contents of that filing are absolutely the objective truth.

remember, regardless of what the laws are today, the applicable laws would have been those in effect in 1961 when Obama was born.

Can you provide a direct link to the specific law stating Obama's mother could not pass on her citizenship? Because I haven't been able to find it except in the context of blogs about this issue, and none of them provide the direct source for this information.

Nutshell, his mom was not old enough to convey her citizenship to her child and his father was a British/Kenyan citizen.

I was able to find this.

Founders and framers version of nbc = child born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.

Half of the Founders and Framers themselves didn't meet this "version" of nbc. Frankly I think this is your personal interpretation of what might have been in someone's head over 200 years ago. I'd like to see a direct link to any official, legally-binding documentation from any of the Founders proving this assertion. The Constitution certainly doesn't say anything about this. In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

Source

I don't see anything in there that excludes people for either one or both parents not being US citizens themselves. In fact, it actually renders the Hawaiian clause you keep quoting (the five years after age 16 thing) effectively moot and un-Constitutional. Here's the relevant part on that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since Hawaii's law would directly abridge the rights of Obama's mother to pass citizenship on to her son because of her age, it is essentially un-Constitutional. Note that Obama's parents were under Hawaii's jurisdiction at the time; both were students at University of Hawaii in Manoa.

As far as this assertion goes that the Hawaii law (which I have yet to see in its entirety and context) prevented Ms. Dunham from passing on citizenship, I have seen some examples noting this law only applies to children born outside Hawaiian jurisdiction. Again, I'd like to see the complete law, as it is (or was) on the books, and in complete context as to whom it applies. Thus far my searches have turned up nothing except third-party references to it.

Originally posted by Jenna
See page 5 of the original judge's Opinion on the Wrotnowski case to find the following quote.

Therefore, the plaintiff lacked statutory standing
to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter.

So there you go. A judge wrote out an opinion on one of the cases and they do not have subject matter jurisdiction and couldn't rule on it whether they wanted to or not. I've posted that a few times, but I figured you probably missed it. Easy to do on threads with as many pages as this one.

Understood. Basically, the filing failed because the plaintiff was unable to show how he was directly harmed by Bysiewicz (in her capacity of Connecticut Sec. of State) not verifying Obama's birth certificate to his satisfaction. However, the ruling also states an opinion will be forthcoming to explain the reasons for the dismissal. Unless there's an addendum to that briefing I haven't seen yet there's still more to learn when that opinion is released.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Wrotnowski's was dismissed partly because of what you mentioned, his failure to show harm, and partly because of lack of standing on his part and lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the part of the court as shown in the part I quoted before. From the research redhatty and I did on the thread about Wrotnowski's case, all signs point to SCOTUS being the only court with subject matter jurisdiction. The only people who have standing, if I remember correctly, are members of Congress and they have to wait until the votes from the Electoral College are being counted before they can do anything. And even then it has to be a member of the Senate and a member of the House who jointly call for the matter to be looked into.

I have looked for opinion's on Berg's and Donofrio's cases and have not been able to find them. It was actually a stroke of pure luck that I found the one from Wrotnowski's case, really. And again, that opinion is from the original judge for his case, not from SCOTUS. I haven't seen anything from SCOTUS opinion wise for any of the three cases.

Originally posted by redhatty . . . .
Where have you been, I argue that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii. The nbc clause is a much stronger argument. You are good at projecting arguments onto me that I am not fighting. Keep building those strawmen.

Originally posted by redhatty . . . .
Nutshell, his mom was not old enough to convey her citizenship to her child and his father was a British/Kenyan citizen.

Redhatty you seem to be getting a little confused here, alluding to a section of citizenship law which applies only to those born outside America as though it applies to those born inside America.

§ 1401. — Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.
(law.justia.com...)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
.....
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

You appear to be confusing law relating to jus sanguinis with law relating to jus soli.

There are, at the moment, no laws pertaining to age or length of residence for any parent to pass on American citizenship if the child is birthed in the United States.

Founders and framers version of nbc = child born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.

It is only your opinion that this is what the founders intended. There are many people who would disagree with you. Your version has never been written into law, never written into the constitution, and has not, to date, been the finding of any American court.

Also, the intention of the founders, even if we could wake them up and ask them, may not be something we could go by these days.
It could be argued that they never intended any non-white, or any woman, to become president, and much as that might please many whites, it would obviously be a frightfully discriminatory ruling.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Their filings mean nothing. A plaintiff can put whatever they want in a filing; it doesn't mean the contents of that filing are absolutely the objective truth.

Oh, so precedent law, and other case citing, as well as legal definitions, etc found in the filings are nothing to you? If you won't even look at what has already been offered, repeatedly throughout 4-5 threads in this forum, why would having it presented to you one more time make any difference to you?

Can you provide a direct link to the specific law stating Obama's mother could not pass on her citizenship? Because I haven't been able to find it except in the context of blogs about this issue, and none of them provide the direct source for this information.

Nope, sure can't - previous law is not easily found on the internet - it is found in law libraries though. Berg researched the pertinent law in his filing - while many other parts of Berg filing are ridiculous and Berg did not follow proper procedure, this one piece of information has not been disputed by anyone who has looked over his case

I was able to find this.

EXCELLENT!!!! Did you read the answer to the question on the link YOU provided?

Thank you for your question. I am happy to assist you.

You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:

1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.

Dunham was only 18 - you do the math :-)

Half of the Founders and Framers themselves didn't meet this "version" of nbc.

Which explains the grandfather clause :-)

Frankly I think this is your personal interpretation of what might have been in someone's head over 200 years ago. I'd like to see a direct link to any official, legally-binding documentation from any of the Founders proving this assertion.

Legally binding - isn't that the rub of this whole controversy? Both sides would like a legally binding decision on this - if for no other reason than to put it to rest already

I can give you quotes and "legal definitions"

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:

As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.

“The Law of Nations,”

in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.

www.fed-soc.org...

BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution

Should I go on???

In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:

not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.

You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?

As far as this assertion goes that the Hawaii law (which I have yet to see in its entirety and context) prevented Ms. Dunham from passing on citizenship, I have seen some examples noting this law only applies to children born outside Hawaiian jurisdiction. Again, I'd like to see the complete law, as it is (or was) on the books, and in complete context as to whom it applies. Thus far my searches have turned up nothing except third-party references to it.

May I recommend a trip to a law library (college/ university) near you and look it up for yourself? I know, that requires work and effort, but as you've said, the web is only providing second and third party references to it.

Edit to fix tags

[edit on 12/16/08 by redhatty]

All I can say to all of the haters on both sides...


Just because you believe something to be true.. does not make it true.


Oh the Arrogance of Conviction.