Another Supreme Court Case Docketed Obama Birth Certificate

David,

Dallas is a true believer. It doesn't matter that the State of Hawaii has said they have the original BC. It doesn't matter that many reputable papers and other sites have examined the CoLB and declared it genuine. It doesn't matter to him.

He is a true believer that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President.

*sigh*

I empathize.

If the States did not do THEIR jobs in this election processs and have not vetted Mr. Obama,  received proof beyond any doubt that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen....the State officials have NOT done their duty/jobs/oaths of office.   Therefore, ballots were fradulent if Mr. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.  And if that's the true case, the entire election was a fraud.

That's how I understand it.  LET these lawsuits keep coming, let it get in front of the Supreme Court, and let this make the main stream news.

Look up the information.  On Mr. Obama's website....he admits that he was a British Citizen at birth. 

Sigh, shrug, or whatever.   The Constitution should be upheld....and yes, Mr. Obama's eligibility needs verified.   Here's the question everyone should be asking themselves. 

With all this in the wind....why isn't the MSM involved?  And most importantly...why all the $$$$$ being spent by Obamacamp to fight against these lawsuits?  WHY NOT just provide the verified, certified proof and move on.

As someone else has stated....Mr. Obama has resigned his Senate seat.  The electoral college hasn't official 'crowned him President Elect' as yet.  He's still  Mr. Obama.

i don't want to be negative but these bigots are not going to stop until they disrupt this country, we are on the brink of collapse,when that dose not work they will try something else,they may even say that he is not black are that he came from mars, my god give it a rest.

On Mr. Obama's website....he admits that he was a British Citizen at birth. 

If that's true, it should be easy enough for you to link to prove it.  It's one thing to just assert something as fact, but I've never seen any such admission.  I've been looking into this issue for a couple months now. 

Please provide support for your accusation.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

From the site:

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

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

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".    So, go look up what the Constitution directs regarding eligibility of the POTUS.

And Jerry?   I'd like to know why you toss out the 'bigot' label?  The issue is straight forward......is or is not Mr. Obama eligible to be POTUS?

By tossing out inappropriate labels and innuendo on fellow posters, it seems you bring nothing of value to the discussion.

This country has a multitude of problems that need addressed.  Spare me your labels.   As a voter, I didn't like EITHER McCain nor Obama.  Race/color/age/sex has nothing to do with the issues. 

Thanks!

Unfortunately, that doesn't directly speak to his eligibility.  The Constitution is completely silent on citizens holding dual citizenship.  Obama was still born in Hawaii and still obtained his US citizenship "naturally"; hence, he is still a "natural born" US citizen, and eligible to hold the office of the presidency.

Nice try, though!

Spiffie

You forgot to mention that his mother is American and gave birth on American soil. He can claim dual if he wants but he was not raised by anyone on his fathers side.

Moved Cross Country....forgetting a few facts aren't you??  Barack Obama was

A) Born in Hawaii so is a natural born citizen.

B) Was Born to an American mother in Hawaii

C) The USA does not recognize dual citizenship.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu...

Moved Cross Country could have really stopped there.

Wow!

Dallas and MAC and some of the other Anti-Obama viners in here, you are certainly passionate about this citizenship thing.

However, you are putting the cart at a tremendous distance in front of the horse making all your arguments ridiculously flawed.   Ironically, it is emblematical of the state of conservatism and the conservative moment in this country that passionately focuses on the tree and woefully fails to consider the forest.

Berg and similar lawsuits failed in the trial court because in all cases the petitioners lacked “standing” to bring the suit.  In all cases the trial court found that the suits are frivolous and unfounded on their face because in the record, the State of Hawaii declared officially that Obama is a natural born citizen of Hawaii therefore it is a legal fact as far as the court is concerned.  Unless Hawaii retracts this declaration (which will never happen) there is no point in perusing this discussion let alone, bringing pointless lawsuits on the matter because the conclusion is obvious.

However, if  those of you out there who continue funding lawyers like Berg, who is happy to take your money, then the courts will continue to be subjected to a bunch of high paid wall flowers milling around in the marble halls of the Supreme Court greeting countless numbers of school children on the hourly tour throughout the building. 

You're right, Dallas, but anyone with common sense would have known that to put your name in the hat to run for that office, you have to pass the requirments. Even I know that. So brining up all this after the fact is basically calling everyone who passed his requirements a liar. In the end, the Supreme Court will look at Obama's birth certificate and drop the case.

Dude-

you lost get over it. 

This is the 3rd suit successfully filed, appealed case that sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Do you know what "successfully filed" means? (1) They paid a fee (2) they got their documents printed up correctly (and the Supreme Court is extremely picky about this and there are special printers that handle this work, not cheaply) and handed to a clerk.

This crazy @!$%# is not going anywhere. No cert will be granted. Obama will be sworn in. 

Poor David, I know you hope you are right. Obam had ans still has the Perfect opportunity to put this matter to rest by submitting the Long Form of the Birth Certificate to the Supreme Court in the Berg case.

It is the stated policy of the State of Hawaii to issue a short-form birth certificate.  Obama can not submit what he does not have.  He has posted what he has on the internet for the world's review. 

It's pretty simple, really.

that is very funny, i wish i had though of that, we got one nut on the supreme court, and he fit right in with those right wing family values hypocrite, back door homosexual and pedophiles, Limbaugh and  hannity are trying their best to get those ditto heads and fools to bring down the country, and if they new what a ditto head is they would kick Mr Rush fat ass, dam, inept, trichina, trash, oxymoron.

i don't want to be negative but these bigots are not going to stop until they disrupt this country, we are on the brink of collapse,when that dose not work they will try something else,they may even say that he is not black are that he came from mars, my god give it a rest.

Countries been disrupted, Its just coming to a head

2 true

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah I love you rational Tony.  I look for your posts because you my friend are no fool!

:) Thank you so much.

This is the 3rd suit successfully appealed case that sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

When I read this, I understood it to mean that the Supremes had granted cert on the issue from three different sources. If that's the case, there IS an issue to be decided.

But, from Mr. Wisner's comments above, it appears that this is not the case.

So, which is it?  Has the court granted cert or not?  I guessing "not".

cert has not been granted in any of the cases.

In the Berg case, the final briefs for the Writ of Certorari are due on December 1, but cert hasn't been granted.

In the Donofrio case, an application for a stay pending the filing of the writ of certorari. The application included a stay to stop the electoral college count. The application for stay is being distributed for conference on the 5th. That means the justices will discuss whether or not to hear the motion for the stay (four of them have to agree).

Wrotnowski has also submitted for a stay / injuction to Ginsburg. It has been given a case number (08A469), but that is about it.

So, even thought it sounds all thrilling and exciting, it really isn't.

You are going to be *so* very disappointed.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong. What do you want to wager?

"Thrilling exciting, and there is more Legal Action to come."

"Brian, I bet the tears that are welling in your eyes right now that Obam will lose this Supreme Court Case."

Not a chance.  Do a little legal research on the success of writs of certiorari from District Court orders of dismissal on lack of standing.  You'll find that they are between slim and none, and none has a huge lead.  Add to that the fact the the Roberts court has been especially fastidious about standing rules and then consider the fact that SCOTUS has never been willing to take up political issues, with the unique example of 200 excepted.  However, these cases are in no way unique in the way that Bush v Gore was, nor, and this is key, is there a single shred of admissible evidence contained either in the underlying lawsuits or in the appellate briefs. 

There is no chance, zero, nada, that SCOTUS will accept a case in which the plaintiff provides zero admissible evidence.  SCOTUS is not a trial court; it only hears appeals and, without a record containing admissible evidence, there can be no appeal.

You can believe the stories you hear, but I would like to know of a single legal precedent, i.e. an appeal based on a dismissal for lack of standing and containing no admissible evidence.  Please provide this forum with as many as you can find.  We all would love to read these cases.  I know that I would.  BTW, newspaper articles and references to what other people have said (hearsay) are not admissible evidence.

moved cross country, his white mother was and is a citizen of American, you want to denounce his mother because she married a black man,all of you Klansman and bigot's are going to get just what you are asking for, we all ready have two wars do you want another civil war, the American people will not stand for this bull @!$%#, don't think that you are the only one who own guns and white sheets, enough is enough.

"Father transfers Citizenship"  Then why have pregnant women from Mexico, married to Mexican men, done everything they could to get into the US to have their babies so the children would be American citizens at birth? 

Jerry, your 3.7 reply?  There's where your narrow point of view is wrong.  Doesn't matter what color/race......to me.  I don't have any white sheets and your assumption only highlights YOUR racist/bigotted/attitudes and presumptions.

What's the problem?  You can't accept legitimate concerns and criticisms of Mr. Obama on the basis of his exampled actions and subterfuges that have been present since the git go?

But, I get your perspective.  It's kinda like the brother that is hell bent on marrying the town pump and gold digger......and regardless of what any logical person is telling him, he goes ahead and marries her....and ends up with a pot full of misery.   Too late, he wises up ...and says, "WHY didn't anyone try to tell me what she was??!!"

To further the analogy, the 'courtship was flawed', the 'honeymoon is proving interesting', and the logical end is inevitable.  It ends up in the courts.

Keep your mind closed, think that everyone who points to and acknowledges the Emperor has no clothes is a racist/bigot and go down your list of off based insults.  Be happy with your mindset.  

Stash this little nugget way back in that narrow mind, because maybe you'll finally get it.   You're wrong.

Klansman, white sheets, racist, bigot.....you're very wrong.   Lose the crapola, it simply shows how sadly mistaken your POV truly is.  The racist/bigot card seems your only argument and it's a loser.

Enough with the wasting of the court's time. Obama is as American as John McCain. End it and quit with wasting our goverments time and money as is the Republican way.

The horse has been dead a long time now and the carcass is stinking something fierce. The smell is rubbing on on ya dude.

The Father transfers Citizenship 

What, women don't count?

Did we all jump into a Magic Time Machine and go back a couple of centuries? 

If this is the kind of 'legal thinking' that Berg and these other clowns are actually presenting to the Court, I would give a lot to be a little mousey in the corner and hear the Justices laugh and laugh.  Might be a bit much on Justice Stevens. 

Where's LadySaidy???  Lady has done some excellent research on this very issue and, if I remember correctly, you are wrong, Dallas, and citizenship is passed through the mother...  Lady can verify...

Alec -- GREAT posts!!!  Keep them coming!!!

their was a birth certificate on line if you have not seen it look it up, the certificate was a u.s. document.

Curious about something. Due you have a short and long form of your BC?

Then you where born overseas most likely at a military base correct?

Didn't answer the question. Where you born overseas?

The reason I asked is you have stated you have the long and short form of your BC. This is only required for natural born overseas. I have one form of my BC as due my wife and children. With that said anyone born on U.S. soil most likely only has one form. My son's where born in Guam which is a U.S. territory and the only difference between there BC and mine is birth place, Location, time, and Parents name.

 Knowing this I would have to assume that this is the standard for natural born on U.S. soil. So I have to ask if Obama was born in an American Hospital by an American mother why would he need 2 forms?

 Silly of me I know to use common sense with something like this but you go with what you know. If the 98% of natural born in the U.S. only have 1 official version of there BC and 2% born overseas has 2 forms why should he have to come up with a second form that has nothing to due with his birth?

Please answer in the next 20 minutes if you want a response because this is the second time you took over an hour to answer a simple question. No offense but some of us have things to do. If not I'll check back in a few hours and you can wait on my response.

Well I posted the question at 5:36 and it is now 6:10. Guess you needed more time to figure out a way to answer. It's funny to me but I guess if you had an answer that didn't have to be looked up in order to get out of the hole I set you would have responded already. See you later. I promise when I come back it won't take 20 minutes at a time for me to answer unless I'm really busy.

I am a Natural Born Citizen.

I've heard otherwise. Maybe you should prove it. No one hear has seen any evidence.

Unless you happen to be a child born to American parents in an overseas location it isn't required. Like I said before my whole family has 1 form not 2. I was born in VA and my wife in CA. I served in the Air Force and took my family with me to Guam and Turkey. My son's where born in Guam. All of us have passports and all of them where renewed 2 years ago with the 1 form.

 Now the only reason I can see for this continued nonsense about his BC doesn't even pertain to Obama but the other 2 Candidates while trying to muddy the water and bring him in. He has already cleared this mess up but those that can't except the loss refuse to except the truth.

 You know when this gets settled I'd love to see just how much money was wasted on this (from the Court cost to the Lawyer fees). Then I want that exact amount to be donated to a homeless shelter by the GOP for wasting our time with this. Then I can look at that figure for doing something Good and just in case your wondering why a homeless shelter? We have far to many Vets in this Country that are homeless and the money and time wasted with this case should have been used to help them.

Like I said a form not required. I don't waste money buying things I don't need no matter how pushy the salesman. In 2 weeks when this matter is dead and on Jan 20 I'll make my last 2 posts to this. They will be the same both times: look below

:)

Because the subject is dead it took a while to look you back up.

:)

Have a nice day and we have a new Pres.

Same difference, what's Donofrio's standing to bring the case?

The problem with McCain's birth certificate is that, as I understand and quoted from the WaPo, there is no record of it.

But, like my getting details right about the latest incarnation of birth certificate technicality conspiracy theory lawsuits, matters.

I don't think getting the details right matters to the failed opposition either, it just seems like frantic attempts to stay on the radar.

What matters, is that it's not likely that the Supreme Court will throw out November's elections while the country is such turmoil --->for trivia.

i have gone to the sit you suggest and their is no such sit, are you trying to give us some bull @!$%#,johnmmcaindominates.com and .org

Right now c takes precedence. That is why many illegal immigrants come to the US to have their children.

The Father passes his name, citizenship and property to the Child

It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it doesn't make it true. 

The Father passes his name, citizenship and property to the Child. That means by Obam's own admission, he is not a Natural Born Citizen

The problem with that argument, especially as lain out at the Federalist Blog, is that 1) it's deeply misogynistic--it assumes the father's citizenship is better by nature than the mother's, when there's absolutely no reason warranted to assume such an a priori assumption about nature--and 2) under the standard given three previous presidents were likewise ineligible, so clearly that standard is either wrong or not recognized by federal law (Andrew Jackson's father and mother were foreign-born, and James Buchanan and Chester Arthur had foreign-born fathers).

Since the father is never held responsible for the cost incurred by the birth of a child, I will assume this would be one time where the mother's citizenship will take precedence.

The reason the mother is held accountable for the cost is because there is no dispute over who the baby came out of and it is easily proved with eye witness.

While we now have paternity tests available for proof of fatherhood, it still legally aways defaults to the mother being held accountable. The only reason the male would override this would be to guarantee control. It would harken back to the 1920's when women were considered property.

 In case you forgot the Electoral College votes on Dec.15 and of course thousands of people are asking that their respective State Electorates

Whoop-de-flipping-do.

Thouands vs. the millions who voted for him? Try and have some persepctive, here.

I'm asking again: What do you want to wager about this?

Also keep the perspective of our Constitution in view.  

Why would this country need, want or accept someone who is usurping the position of POTUS?   Bad for the nation, bad for every citizen.

Isn't this hair splitting and sour grapes?

Have you thought through the damage that would occur in this country is over 60% of the population vote were to be tossed out on a technicallity that the RNC Smear kings cabbaged on to?

Does the harmony of the country, who have clearly stated it's preference, have no meaning when it doesn't support the RNC view of the world?

This attitude is a huge part of what got them tossed out. Try listening to an old motto.....Don't tread on me.

"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."

If the situation is as murky as you propose, and registering babies is so vague in Hawaii, and you suggest a scenario where Obama was really born in Kenya, why do you have faith that the birth certificate in this mythical vault will settle the question?

You can then just as easily say that Mrs Obama smuggled the baby into the states and lied on the form.

In the instance of the Hawaiian Homelands, they require proof of the parents Hawaiian ancestry. We only require proof that the child was born in America. Which this certificate shows.  http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

The certificate Obama has issued, is legal proof, inspect the legal disclaimer in teensy letters:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13)b). 338-19]

The numbers correspond to Hawaiian law code.

Dallas,  The Govenor of Hawaii said he is was born there, officially.  There is no greater proof than that.  She is the Govenor, she officially porclaimed that the record is authentic and a fact.  There is nothing left for the court to examine.

Dallas,  The Govenor of Hawaii said he is was born there, officially.  There is no greater proof than that.  She is the Govenor, she officially porclaimed that the record is authentic and a fact.  There is nothing left for the court to examine.

So if GWB said that Iran was going to bomb us and we must nuke the region immediately, we need no greater proof than that? I'm just trying to understand why so much faith in a politician. I mean the woman says "I can totally vouch for Obama" and everyone is supposed to be like "oh yeah cool"? It's highly hypocritical considering the intense requirements Obama's staff must meet. They probably have to submit their mothers' sonograms!

Americans are 100% in their rights to question a presidential candidate/elect/current president. Seeing as how no one is shy about slinging accusations about GWB, I cannot imagine this type of this should be offensive. If Obama is free and clear, why do his supporters care? They should sit back and have a truffle and watch the circus. After all, BHO has nothing to hide - it will be another day in court and over with, right? The constant refusal to just cooperate and get it over with is why these lawsuits won't go away.

So if GWB said that Iran was going to bomb us and we must nuke the region immediately, we need no greater proof than that?

Ummm.... GWB said that Iraq had "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... and I believed him, because 1) he was the President, and 2) he has a lot more intel on stuff like that than me.

Oh, hey, and they even did "Powerpoint" presentations showing satellite photos and trucks moving on roads... all the "proof" they needed.

So, yes, we take others word for stuff every day.

David,

The UN said Iraq had WMD's and they sent their inspectors.

If you will recall, Saddam Insane wouldn't allow them to inspect.

Also, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Congress said they had WMD's. Most thought they did. But I guess everyone needs a scapegoat.

Glass houses, my friend. Pakistan could be invaded under an Obama administration. What if nothing comes out of that? What if that turned out to be a war of 'nothing'.

* You still shouldn't believe politicians without evidence no matter who they are.

Did the UN tell the US to go into Iraq? No. Sure, the UN, the US and some others thought that Saddam had WMDs. But us attacking was on the Bush Administration. They decided to put together a coalition and go into Iraq. The UN wasn't going to do it. And I don't need a scapegoat for someone who makes the decision. It wasn't like we tripped and accidentally dropped our military on Iraq. It was a conscious decision. Powell, Rumsfeld, and the rest were convinced there were WMDs based on crappy intelligence.

But, I still believe that using military force was the right thing to do, because I was convinced by the Bush Administration that it had to be done. And I trusted them because they should know good intelligence from bad. But, the conscious decision to go into Iraq was still theirs. Hard to be a scapegoat when you actually are making decisions.

* You still shouldn't believe politicians without evidence no matter who they are.

They GAVE the evidence, or so they claimed.

Regardless of what comes out of Pakistan or the Obama Administration, we're fighting a different type of war. Waging conventional war and toppling and occupying countries is the way to fight terrorism. No matter how much evidence you give.

The UN saw Iraq as a threat. They don't tell any country to go to war. Obviously sanctions were not working. GWB thought it would be good to invade before Iraq had a chance to become a greater threat. Our congress, Colin Powell, and many Americans supported him. The MSM warped the story until people (not unlike yourself) were saying we went into Iraq because of 9/11. You repeat something long enough, it gains credibility. I was behind the invasion. Along with my military husband, military cousins, uncles, and friends. We felt in a post-9/11 world, it was important to address threats before they can blindside the innocent. Was it knee-jerk? Perhaps. But if Iraq was left alone and years later Saddam found a way to terrorize us or an ally, you'd be crying foul on Bush's part. Iraq happened, now we need to leave it properly with minimal impact.

GWB isn't the end all be all in everything bad that's happened in the last 8 years. The world isn't a good place. There are more than a few hateful and violent countries. We did nothing to earn the attack that was 9/11 and India did nothing to earn their recent attack. There will always be wars.

When commanders make decisions based on accurate intelligence, they are heralded for being smart. When commanders make decisions based on inaccurate intelligence, they are punished for making bad decisions based on bad intel. When commanders make bad decisions, they are punished for making bad decisions.

We were walking a fine line whether to go to attack Iraq first. So, Bush changed his words to convince everyone that we needed to go to war. Then, once the war was on, and there were no WMDs, he changed his story again to cover his ass. I've seen the video clips where Bush has said that Iraq sponsored terrorism, that we needed to go to war because of 9/11, and that Saddam was going to attack us, and then watched interviews where he claimed he never said those things. I don't have to repeat those things, because the video supports it. I've even watched some of that info on the Daily Show, of all places.

Regardless, Bush has basically started a war based on faulty intel. Whether he knew there were no WMDs or not, that's up in the air. The truth of the matter is that he convinced the US to go to war claiming they were a threat, either through terrorism or because they were going to attack us, and that turned out to not be true. He's responsible for making the decision, because he's "the Decider".

Why weren't sanctions working? Iraq didn't have WMD, they just had a secular loud mouth dictator who lost a game of chicken-- and not even fried chicken; where is all the oil I dimly recall some neocon suggesting would pay for the war..... 

Excuses for why we went to war seem to add up to the idea that, while Republicans say they don't want a 'nanny state' at home, they sure do think it's dandy foreign policy.

Anyway, about that birth certificate......

Anyway, about that birth certificate......

Not much to do about it... just wait to see what the Supreme Court has to say. We can sit here an butt heads, we're not going to make it go faster...

IndependentVoter -

I think that your post above is perhaps the most rational argument I've read from someone who, while appearing to me to be skeptical - at least is open-minded.

Perhaps revealing the vault copy will shut some of them up - but I've turned quite cynical on this topic and believe that even revealing the vault copy will not satisfy many (if not most) of the true disbelievers. It wouldn't surprise me in the least for folks to claim that the vault copy is a forgery. After all - if the Hawaiian officials have been bribed, or for whatever reason, to issue false certifications of Obama's birth - what would stop them from producing a fake vault copy?

Just as with the "Where was Obama born?" question, there's no lack of discussion on the Internet about the forgery question. It also has just as many colorful characters (e.g., AJStata, Techdude, etc.). For every site that confirms the COLB is a forgery (see, for instance http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html) there's a site that professes to have debunked the forgery evidence (see, for instance http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5681).

No - I believe that instead of shutting up, the true disbelievers will breathe new life into the 'forged document' controversy - and the attacks will continue. There are folks posting to the Internet blogs the rumor that Obama was really born in Kenya or Canada(!), that his Kenyan grandmother - who can confirm his actual birthplace - is 'mysteriously missing', and that shortly before the election Obama actually went to Hawaii to 'seal' his birth records and while he was there he poisioned his grandmother to a) bolster the fiction that she was sick, and b) get 'sympathy' votes. No - those folks will not let something so flimsy as an actual birth certificate dissuade them.

Nope - their minds are made up, no sense confusing them with facts. My old boss gave me some good advice that comes to mind - I'm ashamed that I haven't practiced it lately. It goes: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig."

Dallas -

I hadn't notice that either, but now that you point it out I see that you're right! Whew! I can sleep better now that it's settled in my mind. Forget my other posts on this thread that were written before your post to me. Obama sure stepped in it when he wrote that passage for his web site - and then left it there for those of us who could recognize what it meant to his candidacy to see! And who could overlook the prima facie evidence of the Kenyans celebrating? - Lord! it was right in front of us!  I'm ashamed to admit that it escaped my notice until you pointed it out.

I just hope that the Supreme Court Justices know as much about the law as we do - and that they will see the clear steps that must be taken to give the election to McCain.

End of discussion. Period!!! All other information about this issue is less than useless. Hopefully, we don't have to engage in this pointless back-and-forth with those that may think otherwise now that the case law is finally settled.

Thanks.

PS: Do you think one of us should contact McCain and let him know to start putting together his Cabinet and transition team? I'm sure he must be following these suits - but he hasn't mentioned anything. Don't you find that curious? I think one of us should contact him - just to make sure. Why don't you take the lead on that?

That is actually not how it works.  Evidence is what someone says it is.  The piece of paper, the candlestick in the living room,  in all cases, someone has to get on the stand and testify that the physical material is in fact what it is. 

In this case, the birth certificate was officially verified by the Director of Health, and the Governor proclaimed in a memo that it is a fact.  Therefore, it is a fact as for as the court is concerned.

That is actually not how it works.  Evidence is what someone says it is.  The piece of paper, the candlestick in the living room,  in all cases, someone has to get on the stand and testify that the physical material is in fact what it is. 

Not really. People do testify about evidence, but the evidence is usually in the courtroom. OR if it's a crime scene, detailed pictures and videos are taken. Since a birth certificate is a little piece of paper, that BHO should have had anyway to get a license... It would be an easy item to bring to court and hand to a judge.

Politicians repeatedly prove they are crooked liars. Why should any of them get the say?

YHS, there is so far no evidence that the official birth certificate given, which lists Obama's place of birth as Hawaii, is a problem under the law-- besides shrill accusations on the internet.

The birth certificate presented is an official document, vouched for by the State of Hawaii. According to factcheck, the Hawaiian 'short form' birth certificate is what you get when you request your birth certificate, they don't give out a 'long form.'

From the Honolulu Advertiser, Nov 1, 2008

In Hawai'i, birth, death, marriage and certain divorce documents can only be released to people with a "tangible interest," such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives.

As a result, Fukino said she does not believe Health Department officials could release Obama's birth certificate to the public even with his permission, although she would need to get a legal ruling to be certain.

No one has presented any verifiable evidence that the birth certificate is wrong, or that Obama was born any where else but Hawaii.

I'm not saying that Obama is a fake. I don't know that anymore than any civilian would. What I am saying is, if there is questions within the masses, just get the darn thing and settle this. We certainly aren't going to 'unify', not even remotely, if it isn't laid to rest to the skeptics.

I think he IS a hypocrite. After all the extensive backround checking going on in his hiring of a staff, the least he could do is step up to that level of scrutiny and just lay these types of things to rest by opening up on everything. Honestly, he should anyway because otherwise anything that could be a backlash will be.

People have created frivolous law suits before. Where do you draw the line, early on, or just let everyone with doubts bring up something in front of the SC. Just because some people have doubts about something doesn't make the situation true. There are probably still people that believe that the government knows about UFOs. Building a lawsuit about it isn't going to make the government comply. It would answer a lot of questions, but they probably won't offer that information.

David,

And YET when our Texas justices who are republican cracked down on frivolous lawsuits, the democrats campaigned against that this year. They said it doesn't give people justice. So which is it?

Oh, the "only when it's convenient for ME" stand?

You can't have a political party say they support people's rights to file lawsuits then turn around and say those lawsuits shouldn't be allowed to continue when it's your guy they are against.

Unlike many people, I don't follow any party's actions/policies/beliefs without question. So, if the Dems are all for lawsuits, more power to them. I, personally go on a case by case basis.

Agreed.

The USSC will decide.

Right, they'll decide that this won't move past this conference level stage.

Dallas is sure that something else will be true, but why won't anyone make a wager on that, then?

I'm not betting, but can you tell me if the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to order some lower court to hold a trial of some sort on any of these 3 plaintiffs' charges? It seems to me at the very least they could order some lesser court to hold a trial or some sort of proceedings to see if there is merit, right? Can the SCOTUS just tell a lower court to find out about Obama's BC?

The Supreme Court can be remanded to the lower court for a decision.

For example, assume that a trial court refuses to allow a party to introduce certain evidence (believing it to be inadmissible under the hearsay rule). If the appellate court decides that the evidence should have been admitted and that the exclusion of the evidence was prejudicial to the party offering it, the appellate court would likely remand the case for new trial and order the evidence introduced.

At that point it goes back to the originating court with the appellate ruling. Using the example above, it doesn't mean that the USSC has decided that the evidence will make a difference, just that it should not have been excluded and must now be considered.

Or, they can just decline it.

Yes, they could remand it to the lower court and instruct them to at least make a finding of fact, which is what this case is currently missing.  Since no discovery was ever done and no trial was ever held, no evidence of any kind ever developed or was challenged (and/or upheld) in a court of law.  That's why it's very unlikely, in my opinion, that the SCOTUS will unilaterally find in favor of the plaintiff: the court literally has no findings of fact to rely upon to make such a ruling.

The very worst (realistic) case for Obama is that they (the Supreme Court) remand it to the lower court for trial.  I personally find this pretty unlikely, too, since no lower court at all has found any of the several cases brought in various jurisdictions credible enough to warrant a trial.   When there's that kind of unanimity among the lower courts, it's usually a sign of general legal consensus.  

That's not to say it's impossible; the Supreme Court has made surprising decisions before.  But it's definitely the longest of long shots.

Thank you both, Lady Saidy and Spiffie. I'm no lawyer, and generally have little interest in how the arcane procedures work here, so you two have helped me.

Dallas- Based on what I've read and understand from the Dockett, SCOTUS hasn't denied the second Emergency Stay, which means they can very-well accept the case for review and put a grinding halt to the electoral process just like they did in 2000. I believe this will happen should the justices all agree more time is needed for hearings and to make a decision/clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

And that's what most people have been confused with. The first application reviewed by Justice Souter was denied; the second application to Justice Thomas has not...yet.

But now we know that "O" from his own admission," British Subject" at birth, can not ever prove, plead or persuade that he was a Natural Born Citizen at birth.

Is there any chance at all that I could call you up and let you hear how loudly I am laughing at you? 

Because honestly, you're the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. 

I agree with you Dallas. If he has nothing to hide, then why continue to set the people against each other by not showing the required BC. This is a time when the President and the President-Elect should be pulling the people back together in an effort to get things set right again. Instead, it has me wondering about everything he has said and everything that has been said about and against him.

I have a theory on why Obama's refusing to show his certificate of birth. Because of the blatent indian-giver attitude by Hawaii's Health officials, we can not depend on the accuracy of any Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii. Obama knows this. He will reveal some sort of "legal" document and grant certain access to this file when the time is right.

Why? Because Obama knows most people in this country assume a Certificate of Live Birth = Natural Born Citizen Certificate. This is farthest from the truth, and will make any correct interpretation of its meaning by SCOTUS all the more difficult to digest by the American public. If anything we all should demand the document be sealed until after SCOTUS reviews the case as it will cloud the issue even more.

Well his father was not an American Citizen but an Kenyan under British rule, therefore "O" at birth was a British Subject, not a Natural Born Citizen of the US.

It doesn't matter, because as has been pointed out to you four previous presidents also had British-born fathers.  

That gets you Andrew Jackson (good job!); but neither James Buchanan, born 1791, three years after adoption, father from Ireland; nor Chester Arthur, born 1829, far too late, father from Ireland.

I believe that "O" can find the words to inject into the minds of those whom he has deceived, and help them get through what may be a difficult time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dallas/spiffie - This thread has strayed into history - and has piqued my interest again.

 It appears that Chester A. Arthur has more in common with Obama than any of us had suspected (at least, than I had suspected). We have disputed names, dates of birth, locations of birth, and claims by political rivals that he was ineligible to be President of the U.S. because of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See: http://www.genealogue.com/2005/06/our-canadian-president.html.

His father, William (MacArthur) Arthur was born in Ireland in 1796 - immigrated to Canada in (or about) 1814 - married Malvina Stone in 1821 while still in Canada and moved to Vermont in 1822 (see "page 107 of "Homes of the American Presidents" - available on-line through Google Books for the date of his moving to Vermont). Don't know what William did there at first - but he became pastor of the South Fairfield Baptist Church around 1828 and pastor of the North Fairfield Red Brick Baptist Church in May of 1830 (see "History of the Baptists in Vermont" copyright 1913 - available on the Internet and page 10 of http://www.vermonthistory.org/journal/74/04_Feeney.pdf).

Buchanan's father was born in Ireland and immigrated to the U.S. in 1783. Dallas, you mention him "becoming a US Citizen after the Revolutionary War". Now - he didn't fight in the war, which ended for all intents and purposes in 1781, but he was here before the Constitution was ratified. I'm not sure who was included in the 'first round' of U.S. citizens, and I can't seem to find that information. Do you know?

Dallas - you seem to believe that Buchanan's and Arthur's fathers had become U.S. citizens. I've looked everywhere I can think of to look - and have done several Internet searches - but I cannot find anything to support that. I don't doubt that you have some information that supports your belief - but I can't find it. I give up - and will have to use my 'lifeline'. OK - where is it hidden - or by what logical process did you come to the conclusion that there is no way that they cannot have been U.S. citizens?

Also - don't forget mothers of foreign birth - or don't they count? I've lost track of the thread of the argument. Woodrow Wilson's mother was British and Herbert Hoover's mother was Canadian.

Well, I just went through an online copy of the Pennsylvania Archives. It is a book that lists those that took the oath of allegiance in the state of Pennsylvania between 1776 and 1794.

I was unable to find any mention of a James Buchanan taking the oath in that time frame. It is possible that the oath was taken later.

BTW - The oath is how immigrants were given citizenship. It's how my father's ancestors did it in late 1794.

Unlikely, but possible.

I have asked many times but gotten absolutely no answer - what series of events even lead to the speculation that Obama was not born in Hawaii?

Because nobody has brought me a scintilla of proof that there was any reason for this inquiry to have begun in the first place.

Brian spews out ever-more-fantastic stories about Ann Dunham being in Kenya late in her pregnancy.  Yes, I know the Kenyan step-grandmother, a woman of advanced years and not such good health, made a comment, through an interpreter, unverified, about Obama's birth. I read that. The child or grandchild with her when she was questioned kept correcting her.

It's all too absurd for words.

And I can't unbold this. Weird!

Kim -

It's hard to put one's finger on exactly when the birth controversy was conceived.

One of the earliest mentions is from something called the Wayne Madsen Report. A June 5, 2008 article is titled "GOP dirty tricks machine readies a charge that Obama is not eligible to be President" I don't subscribe to the Wayne Madsen Report - so I can't read what the article has to say.

Apparently the Wayne Madsen Report also mentioned in February that a three-person team was in Kenya and that:

"It now appears that this same team traveled to Mombasa and dug up a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and mother, an American citizen."

Jerome Corsi (of Swiftboating fame) wrote a book ("The Obama Nation") that raised the question of Obama's birth. Andy Martin was also in the process of writing a book - and requested a copy of Obama's birth certificate. He was denied, and subsequently filed suit - which was dismissed. Interesting to read the pissing match between Corsi and Martin as to which one requested the birth certificate first.

Later, Philip Berg mentioned in an October 9th filing that "through extensive investigation" he has learned that Obama was born in Coast Hospital, Mombassa, Kenya (see item #18 at: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/). However, while maintaining that he has a copy of the birth certificate - Berg has yet to produce it - even in support of his Supreme Court appeal.

Philip Berg also apparently hooked up with a Rev. Ron McRae (self-proclaimed Continental Bishop of Anabaptist Churches in North America and Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery). Rev. McRae conducted the telephone interview with Obama's grandmother (which you can hear it on YouTube - for instance, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo&feature=related). Rev. McRae filed an affidavit with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (See, for instance: http://devvy.net/pdf/nov08/exhibit1.pdf) in which he states, among other things, that Barack Obama's grandmother was adamant that her grandson was born in Kenya (affidavit at paged 6 and 7). If you are an attorney, you will want to read this affidavit as it is a textbook example of invoking the 'common knowledge' rule of evidence [FRE 803(19)?]. He also deftly applies the 'coming photo' rule [FRE 1002?] when he offers to produce a photo of Obama's grandmother talking on a telephone as proof the conversation occurred as he testified.

A law student, Jeff Schreiber, posts on a blog called AmericasRight. He has a review of Rev. McRae, Obama's grandmother's tape, and the affidavit that is iteresting. See: http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/sarah-obama-tapes.html. He sums it up nicely by saying:

"So there you have it. A tinny, hard-to-discern audio recording. Affidavits from people with changed names and a history of questionable conduct. E-mails which likely show what looks to be at least one fabricated detail. Here's the evidence we've all been clamoring for."

He also has written on other aspects of Berg's filings and you can find his articles by searching around on AmericasRight. I think he actually does a pretty neutral and well-thought-out job.

Dallas -

I think I understand. I am aware of the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. I'm under the impression that some folks (perhaps you are among them) believe that at least the father of a child has to be a U.S. citizen (not necessarily a natural born citizen) for the child to be considered a natural born citizen. See, for instance, your text at messages #14.2 and #21.4 (especially the last sentence). Otherwise, the child would have 'split-allegiances' which would disqualify him/her from being President. Right now, the accuracy of this position is not my concern.

Now - spiffie raised the question of Presidents Chester Arthur and James Buchanan - whose fathers were born in Ireland and immigrated to the U.S. You responded to spiffie in message #21.8, declaring that both fathers had obtained U.S. citizenship - and therefore the Presidents were natural born citizens.

Your declaration piqued my interest with regard to how early immigrants achieved U.S. citizenship. In addition - I tried to figure out which persons would be considered to be citizens 'at the time the Constitution' was ratified. I searched the Internet - and the only real informaiton I could find was provided by geneological societies. Curiously, I found reference to the document that LadySaidy mentions in message #21.11, but I didn't find it on-line.

I'm not a lawyer or a historian - but this subject drew my interest. I am now just curious to know where you got your information. I'd like to assure you that it no longer really pertains to Obama's situation - it now bothers me like a tune you can 'hear in your head' but can't recall the name of, or the name of a friend that you can't remember. Where do we find such information? Apparently, you know - and I'm asking you to please tell me so I can quit thinking about it. Thanks.

rls8r -

I can actually tell you where he got that singular interpretation of Natural Born citizen: the Federalist Blog.

It wrote a piece on where it defined Natural Born status, using it's own brand of unique logic. It asserts that a child can only be natural born if at least the father is a US citizen. Or it is both parents?

Either way, it doesn't take the concept of jus soli at it's face value, but adds caveats. You can read it yourself by clicking the link above.

LadySaidy -

Thanks. I'll take a look. I like your posts - well-researched and considered - and you often give your sources of information.  That's something that I think is important to a good discussion - but is so seldom done.

Also - unless I miss my guess - I'd bet "Dallas" is a "she". Just something in the word choice in some of the posts. I could be wrong - though. (No offense meant, Dallas, if I'm wrong)

Also, to reference the book I found online: it was a full view google book. Here is one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d7_akH9VO_cC

The book was written by William Henry Egle.

Sorry if I had your gender incorrect Dallas. My bad.

And rls8r - I do genealogy research on my family as a hobby. The books I've shown have given me some very good info on my father's family, who settled in Western PA in 1793. My mother's family is just as interesting, but involves actual immigration paperwork since they got here at the turn of the 20th Century.

This piece of law history may explain why unearthing Buchanan Sr's naturalization may be so difficult:

Certain doubts had arisen as to whether State and local courts were included within the description of U.S. district or circuit courts. The act of 1802 reaffirmed that every State and Territorial court was considered a district court within the meaning of the laws pertaining to naturalization, and that any persons naturalized in such courts were accorded the same rights and privileges as if they had been naturalized in a district or circuit court of the United States.

source: http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/natinfo.htm

In Pennsylvania each county was charged with taking the Oaths of Allegiance from the time Pennsylvania came into existance as a colony. The earliest records and references that I can find begin in 1725. Up until the mid-1800s (I can't recall exactly when; I think 1856?) the records started becoming a Penn Supreme Court responsibility.

But up until that time, the oaths were issued within each county, sometimes down to the township level. For example, I found my G7Grandfather's Oath from 1794 under Morris Township, Washington County.

I have looked through several online sources and cannot find anything about Buchanan taking the Oath of Allegience up to 1789, which is when the records I can access for free end.

So, it is entirely possible that James Buchanan's father never took the Oath of Allegience, if at all, until later. He wouldn't have been considered illegal, but the only reason some would need to take the oath is to vote. You could still buy land and all that stuff without officially becoming a naturalized citizen.

I found something-- don't know if it's the right something-- which is around the correct time and place, if we're talking about James Buchanan Sr, born in Ireland and immigrated to the U.S. in 1783, and James Jr being born in 1791. (don't know if this is info is on that record) But, this naturalization record is dated two years after James Jr was born....

Here from the site, www.footnote.com a fee based resource for original documents, I didn't pay to see the info, and I wouldn't know how to verify if it was the right Buchanan.

anyway,

http://www.footnote.com/search.php?f_ancestor_id=3332122&df_ancestor_id=Within%3ANaturalizations+-+PA+Eastern&query=buchanan&submit=Search

It's naturalization records, Eastern Pa,… US Circuit Court » 1893 » 1893-09-13 » James Buchanan » Petition

• Title/Collection: Petition
• Publication Number: M1522
• Publisher: NARA
• State: Pennsylvania
• Court: US Circuit Court
• Year: 1893
• Date: 13 Sep 1893
• Immigrant Full Name: James Buchanan
• Document Type: Petition
• Home Country: Ireland
• Witness 1 Full Name: Thos. A. Mc Cart

dang, too bad I can't read!! 

Still, I'm still unclear about the citizenship thing and James Buchanan Sr. arriving in 1783. For someone as exacting as yourself regarding Obama's birth certificate, your outline is very generous to the Buchanan family.

While the Constitution was adopted in 1788, would someone born overseas be automatically converted into a citizen just because they were here? The Articles of Confederation, completed in 1781 (before James Sr's arrival) say that,

"the question of citizenship and the naturalization of immigrants remained with the individual states. Pennsylvania allowed any foreigner of “good character” who took an oath of allegiance to the state to acquire property and, after one year’s residency, become a citizen entitled to “all the rights of a natural born subject of this state.” 

From the biography of James Buchanan, by Jean Baker, 

"four years after his arrival[ James Sr], in 1787, the year in which Americans wrote a Constitution and founded a new nation, James Buchanan bought the trading post in Cove Gap, where earlier he had served as an apprentice to the owner."

So, the father didn't seem to own land prior to the writing of the Constitution. The book does not speicify whether he took the oath, or any steps to citizenship, which is not to say that he didn't, but it doesn't appear to be automatic. And of course, this whole discussion we're having is about what constitutes proof.

If the father wasn't a citizen by the official process prior to the 1790 Naturalization act, there still was a process. It still wasn't automatic. Once residency requirements were met, which probably would have been, from your Wikipedia link,

an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of court was to make a record of these proceedings, and "thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States."

So there ought to be some document somewhere. Of course, James Buchanan's mother was born here, and so was James. This is only germane if you believe that the term 'natural born' requires a citizen father. (which I don't)

Excellent information!

The topic hints to them knowing about this in 2006. I'm going to say they knew it was coming as early as 2003 (most likely earlier) based on U.S. Senate Bill 108 2128.