Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington Times – Court to weigh question about Obama citizenship

My Obama Watch Central – Jschulmansr

Late Breaking News From The Washington Times

I’ve Included some of the comments from the article as well-jschulmansr

Unlikely decision could deny him presidency

Tom Ramstack (Contact)

The Supreme Court plans to meet Friday to decide whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s president.

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio‘s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.

The decision to put the case on Friday’s docket resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship at birth. The issue preoccupied many conservative bloggers in the weeks before the Nov. 4 election.

ASSOCIATED PRESS President-elect Barack Obama was born under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, Britain, and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States, according to a lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court.

Some legal analysts say the lawsuits have little chance of success. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders – or stays – sought by Mr. Donofrio.

“Nothing in what we’ve seen from the court so far suggests any likelihood the court is actually going to take the cases,” said Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

Nevertheless, for the lawsuit even to make it to the docket raises the possibility of an unprecedented case going before the Supreme Court . At least four of the court’s nine judges must approve before the case is heard.

Mr. Donofrio originally sued New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, seeking a court order to stop the Nov. 4 presidential election. When that was denied, he amended his complaint to stop the Electoral College from certifying Mr. Obama as the winning candidate when it meets Dec. 15.

Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship – which claim he was born on foreign soil – Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims. Mr. Donofrio contends, however, that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution requires.

“Don´t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues,” Mr. Donofrio said in a statement on the Citizen Wells Web site. “They are irrelevant to Senator Obama´s ineligibility to be president.

“Since Barack Obama´s father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama´s birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth,’ just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn´t be eligible to be president.”

Comments 1 – 20 of 36

  • By: wth

    Cobra:

    A few corrections on what would happen if by some miracle Obama were to be found constitutionally ineligible to be president.

    If the declaration were to be made prior to the electoral college vote, then the field would be wide open. In theory the electors could vote for anyone. Some, but not all, states have laws requiring electors to vote for whom they are pledged. The constitutionality of those laws has never been before a court, but if the pledged candidate is found to be ineligible then I doubt said laws would be invoked.

    You do make a good argument that they probably _should_ elect McCain in that situation, but I doubt that that would happen. Most likely, the Democrat electors will coordinate among themselves to vote for a substitute candidate. Now, if there’s no coordination among the electors and there’s a smattering of votes for Hillary, a few for Biden, a few for other Democrats, etc., then the election would go the the House with them choosing from McCain and whatever 2 Democrats got the most electoral votes.

    If Obama were to be declared ineligible after he is formally elected, then Amendment XX would control:
    “Section. 3. . . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified . . .”
    Meaning that in that case Biden would be Acting President for the entirety of Obama’s term. (I’ve always assumed that the clause “until a President shall have qualified” alluded to the unlikely possibility of someone under 35 being elected president. The VP would act as president until the president-elect’s 35th birthday.

  • By: ronwest

    For all concerned, the case also challenged McCain’s claim to be a “natural born citizen” and as for the communist manifesto it has already been slyly implemented. Read the 12 points and think about things as they are. The liberal news spews the proof. as does the unconstitutional acts of the government:

    December 5, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.  | 

  • By: dynodick

  • If this country would only adopt the Communist Manifesto in favor of the Constitution this whole issue wouldn’t be a problem!!

    December 5, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.  

  • By: wth

  • First of all, let me say that I do not want Obama to be president. However, most of these challenges to his citizenship seem irrelevant to me. As others have said previously, if he were born in the US he is a citizen. Period. The caveat of “subject to the jurisdiction of” in the 14th ammendment and the corresponding part of the US code refers to diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. A non diplomat alien, even if here illegally, is still subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Regarding whether or not Obama was born in the US, I haven’t seen _any_ report on what’s actually needed determine whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. If he was indeed born outside of the US to a non US citizen father and a US citizen mother, the key fact is how long his mother lived in the US prior to his birth.

    8 USC 1401 is as follows:
    “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 . . ..
    [the remainder of the paragraph deals with an exception for persons serving abroad for military or government employment].

    So, as long as Obama’s mother grew up in the US, Obama almost certainly meets the criteria for natural born citizenship under 8 USC 1401g. (Unfortunately from my POV).

    Of course, I’m assuming that Obama’s mother did grow up here. If anyone has evidence that she did not meet the ‘5 year total including 2 years after age 14’ requirement, then I’ll REALLY be interested in where Obama was actually born. The other potential flaw in my reasoning is that what I quoted above is the current law. I don’t have access to historical US code — I’d be grateful if someone could verify whether or not the law was different at the time Obama was born.

    December 5, 2008 at 12:27 p.m.

  • By: ptown3

  • Now, this is the problem with the Two party system, Both sides believe its only a crime or bad for the Constitution if the other guys are doing it, and the people on the side lines(all of us guys)got all the answers.

    Stop the talking and get involved, Hindsight is 20/20…run for office then talk.

    December 5, 2008 at 12:17 p.m.

  • By: Cobra

  • BTW, snopes.com can not determine the legitimacy of alegal document, like Obama’s birth certificate, any more than factcheck.org can. Once again, only a COURT can determine the legitimacy of any legal document.

    December 5, 2008 at 12:08 p.m.

  • By: Cobra

  • “The GOP lost, folks…get over it.”

    Tell that to the democrat who instigated this lawsuit. I’m sure he doesn’t care.

    December 5, 2008 at 12:04 p.m.

  • by: hipshot

  • With only four non-activists on the court, it might not make any difference what the Consitution says.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:59 a.m.  

  • by: Safyre

  • snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp includes a link to his actual birth certificate. The GOP lost, folks…get over it.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.  

  • By: Cobra

  • “Even if it were within the court’s power to enjoin this presidential election as requested, that remedy would irreparably harm the public interest”

    How would ignoring the Constitution and/or federal law, as the FEC suggests, be BENEFICIAL to the public interest? I think the members of the FEC needs to go back to school and learn just what the term “public interest” actually means.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:27 a.m.  

  • By: HCY727

  • The Constitution is to protect the people from the government. NOT the Government from the people.

    Presidential oath of office. TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!

    The trouble is that the Liberals are always trying to change the Constitution!

    Dear Lord! Please protect us from the Liberals and help us to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:16 a.m.  

  • By: wvobiwan

  • If Barry isn’t a natural born US citizen, then he can’t sit as President.

    What’s absolutely infuriating is that the lefist media, and even so-called conservative blog sites like Little Green Footballs’ Charles Johnson ignored and repressed this issue until it was too late. Johnson’s a meglomaniacal tool these days, just like the leftist media.

    I’m sick of media’s lies and scams, we need some legislation re-establishing media’s financial culpability for negligence and untruthful reporting.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:14 a.m.

  • By: Atlanta, GA

  • FactCheck.org…some interesting facts…

    That factcheck.org site is from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of
    the University of Pennsylvania…

    ANY CONNECTION WITH THE CHICAGO ANNENBERG CHALLENGE?

    The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg
    Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was
    established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in
    1994….

    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge is another foundation established by philanthropist Walter Annenburg in 1995…

    The Chicago Annenberg Challenge is the foundation that Bill Ayers and Barack Obama sat on the board….

    Convenient to cite references from a site that’s related to Obama’s former foundation.

    December 5, 2008 at 11:05 a.m.  

  • By: HCY727

  • We are going thru a sad period in our history of which many books will be written.
    An election based on fraud to scam the American people by the Liberals to get their power back by electing a historical first black President.

    Why did the liberal drive by media decide not to report on all of the discrepancies of fact that were brought up during this campaign?
    Why is ACORN allowed to get away with voter registration fraud and possible actual voter fraud?
    Why is Acorn getting funding with our tax paid dollars from hidden funding lost in the federal budgets?
    How can Congress get away with slipping additional funding for Acorn in the Bailout money?
    How can Sub-Prime loans thru Fannie & Freddie guaranteed by the Federal Gov’t bring down the world economy?
    How can a presidential candidate have all of his records sealed so that they can’t be looked at?
    How can campaign funds from foreign sources be accepted?
    How can the same people who caused this mess stay in power without going to jail?
    Why are the people that brought us Sub-Prime are now grilling the Big 3?

    So our president to be can’t take the oath of office because Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution requires! Not a problem because this is an Historical Election> First Black President. We shed our White Guilt and the rest of the whole wide world will come to love us again! The Liberal Media is so proud to have made this happen. A new day has dawned on America. All will be well! Gas prices have fallen ant the seas will part and peace and love will flow causing much happiness thru out the lands.

    Forget about all of the above. Obama will take the oath because to deny him after all of the fraud heaped on the American people to get him elected and to keep the Democrats in power, will cause an upheavel so great with riots in the streets that we have never seen before.

    The truth will set you free ! Not in this case ! The truth can only tear us apart! How did we ever get into this mess!

    Court to weigh question about Obama citizenship! Not very likley. Will cause Civil unrest if the truth ever comes out !

    December 5, 2008 at 11 a.m.

  • By: Lonnie

    We are a country ruled by a document and not a man, on purpose. Our Founders knew all to well how power could intoxicate and lead to tyranny which deprives people of their rights. Our Founders chose to safeguard our rights through our Constitution making us accountable to a written document and not to a man, thereby making every citizen, president or not, accountable to the law. OBAMA’S STRIKE AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION, THROUGH THE WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE OF REFUSING TO RELEASE ANY PERSONAL DOCUMENTS WHICH WOULD CONFIRM HIS NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP, IS A BLOW TO THE DOCUMENT THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR SOCIETY! He is bascially saying I’m above the Law and don’t need to comply with it! Why else would he be spending millions to prevent any release of his documents? The whole government derives it’s legitimacy from the Constitution and Obama has the audacity to trample it!! I’m sorry Obama supporters but majority support doesn’t OVERRULE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. The popularity of a candidate does not supersede our fundamental law. Remember, the CONSTITUTION IS THE RULE OF THE LAND NOT A POPULAR PERSON. Mobs can be wrong! Look at the French Revolution.

    December 5, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.  

  • By: Cobra

  • “John McCain wasn’t even born in a US state and the court disallowed that lawsuit.”

    This is because there is a specific federal law which grants McCain the status of Natural Born Citizen, so there is no legitimacy issues involved in his candidacy. It’s vary hard to ignore the law in this matter. The same can not be said of Obama.

    “Obama did release his birth certificate. It was examined and found to be legit.”

    The legitimacy that birth certificate itself is in question, and an examination by a private party does NOT resolve that legitimacy question.

    You may not realize this, but FactCheck.org staffers are not recognized by the court (nor by me, or most other people by the way) as legitimate experts who are able to verify anything, so their OPINION about the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate is worthless. Only a Court can verify the legitimacy of his birth certificate, or any other legal document for that matter. No other “conclusions” by private parties like Factcheck.org are legally acceptable.

    December 5, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.  

  • By: doublehook

  • The BHO camp and its Harvard lawyers will do anything and whatever it takes to keep their Harvard grad in the executive seat. What are the scores on Yale vs Harvard grads in the executive seat?

    December 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m.

  • By: Old-Norm

  • Talk about grasping at straws! John McCain wasn’t even born in a US state and the court disallowed that lawsuit. And for the LAST TIME, Obama did release his birth certificate. It was examined and found to be legit. Check out this report: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    And for those who think FactCheck.org is a Democrat friendly site, read their reports on debunking Dem and GOP claims.

    December 5, 2008 at 10:23 a.m.  

  • By: Cobra

  • “I think, and may be totally wrong, that the Dems would have to nominate someone else and the election reheld.”

    I believe it would depend on if the Electoral College had completed it’s vote before the court makes a ruling. You, and everyone else for that matter, needs to remember that the Electoral Vote has yet to occur.

    If the ruling comes before the vote (doubtful as there’s only ten days left before the various States assemble their Electors and vote) and Obama is ruled ineligible to hold office, the Electoral College has no choice but to elect McCain as President, since he would “win” the “popular” general votes in each district as Obama’s candidacy, and any votes cast for him, would be null and void.

    If the Ruling comes AFTER the vote, then it is up to the House to elect the next President as per the 12th Amendment. In this case, McCain would, once again, be chosen as he he is the only remaining candidate with the highest “popular” vote.

    Granted, the House could choose someone other than McCain, but they can only choose from a list of EXISTING, certified Presidential candidates (they can’t add or subtract from the list of actual candidates) and I doubt that any other candidate would get the support of the House.

    December 5, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.  

  • By: leiphasw

  • It is always interesting to watch how Democrats in general and the Obama worshippers in particular, twist, ignore, or deny the truth to fit their agenda. For example, in this Obama Citizenship issue, the people that are against exploring his qualifications seem to never actually attempt to justify their or Obama’s position or explain how what he is going is correct. They typically follow this path:

    1: They start saying it is a partisan issue, but since the originator of the suite is a Democrat and the original suite named both the Democrat and Repuplican candidates, that doesn’t fly.

    2: Then they say it is a race oriented issue. But supposedly (we won’t know for sure till we see is BC) Obama is as white as he is black. Also, the Supreme Court justice which accepted the case for review is black.

    3: Then, if those two tactics don’t work, and they never do because they are without merit, the only thing left for them is to start cursing and calling all their opponents names.

    I find it very sad for our great country that someone can be so completely unknown, have no significant experience or qualification, lock his past in ironclad secrecy, and have a big political party, an enormous horde of mindless minions, and the huge, powerful, myopic mass media propel him to the pinnacle of world’s most powerful nation.

    “A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy.” — Alexander Tytler 1790, (unverified)

  • By: hipshot

    If he was born a British citizen, then perhaps he could also become Prime Minister, thereby reuniting the colonies and the mother country. Let me check the Constitution….

    December 5, 2008 at 7:32 a.m.  

  • By: UnbamboozleUs

  • Thank you, Mr. Ramstack, for properly researching this article. I have read many stories about the various cases challenging the eligibility of the individuals who ran for president, particularly the Donofrio case, and this is the first one that actually reported the story accurately. What a breath of fresh air.

    This matter involving constitutional law (our highest and most revered last I checked) absolutely must be resolved before this country can move forward in a productive and honorable direction.

    December 5, 2008 at 7:04 a.m.  

  • By: CommissionerGordon

  • The real gamble here is, and always was, Obama’s. And, the DNC’s. Perhaps you don’t think they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Recall for a moment that Obama’s focus at Harvard was Constitutional Law. His friend, Sarah Herlihy, wrote all about the Constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural born citizen. Opening the introduction to her Law Review article in 2005 she said, “The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,….” Get the picture? They knew exactly what they were doing. The stonewalling response to the lawsuits confirms that. So does the huge sum of money paid to his legal teams to keep the matter out of court. And, so does the classification of his vault birth certificate and his school transcripts as Top Secret. There is definitely something to hide.

    So, is it really any wonder that Obama now holds the record as having the most pre-inaugural press conferences? He held multiple press conferences, allowed greater “access” for interviews, established the Office of the President-Elect, entered negotiations with heads of state, why? All the public appointments, the constant visibility of his developing administration, all this attention-seeking behavior is a desperate attempt to make his status appear legitimate, and to make it harder for authorities to evict the One with squatter’s rights.

    But, was it really that big a gamble, anyway? Maybe not, if the plan included this worst-case scenario. President Pelosi issues a blanket pardon to cover the entire conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, and illegal immigration status of both Barack and Auntie Zeituni in order to “heal the nation’s wounds” and to stop the rioting. In fact, she confers upon both of these illegal immigrants the honor of United States citizenship. So now Obama’s out of office, but he’s not in jail. And, he is certainly not financially ruined. In fact, he now becomes the most sought after guest on every liberal talk show. The additional book or books he may or may not write, the endless and exorbitant public speaking fees, the hero’s glory for going against the man; heck, he may spin his own television/radio program, African-American studies in law and government institute, high-end cosmetics, and designer line of clothing! One thing I liked about Obama, the man; he dressed well. If only that were his legacy. Even as the Democrats in Congress ensure that Obama’s and the DNC’s treachery goes unpunished, a very large breach of trust has been created and will endure for ages. Whether the election crimes will be un-investigated, just like the unexamined Democrat-driven origins of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, that brought on world-wide financial collapse, remains to be seen.

    December 5, 2008 at 6:59 a.m.  

  • By: mason

  • Ruggercop, Your offensive speech matches your ignorance. The Framers grandfathered themselves in. See the next part of Article II where it says,roughly, “or citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution”. They included themselves, but wanted no one else with possible foriegn allegiance to become President.

    If Obama is disqualified before the electors vote, the parties would get to decide who their respctive candidates are. And the DNC did such a bang-up job last time. Don’t you think they would put up Hillary?

    December 5, 2008 at 6:52 a.m.  

  • By: Desperado

  • I like Paul Madison’s (Federalist Blog) explanation of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” means. I like it because it is the only definition that would accomplish the sought goal of requiring the President to be natural born: attachment to this country. Any other definition just returns us back to ANYONE can be president if they were lucky to been born on one inch of claimed US territory.

    I also think the reason Obama won’t release his original BC is because he doesn’t want the recorded hospital he was born revealed.

    December 5, 2008 at 3:55 a.m.  

  • By: Rachel Questions

  • When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I began to believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is unbelievably suspicious, as well as unbelievably insolent of Obama.

    I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution. I took that oath very seriously at that time and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama is applying for the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though Obama admits in his book that he has a copy of his birth certificate.

    I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term “Parish” would be the equivalent of “County”) where I was born, as well as who delivered me.
    I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well.

    This is a link to an excellent article describing what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means as defined by the author of the 14th Amendment (towards the bottom of the article).
    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
    “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.”

    Personally, after following this issue for the last couple of months, I have now come to the realization that I will never accept Obama as POTUS because Obama has failed to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for that office. The duty of SCOTUS is to protect the US Constitution and to ensure that the tenets therein are followed. I have no doubt that SCOTUS will do the right thing by hearing arguments for this case.

    December 5, 2008 at 3:19 a.m.  

  • By: road warrior

  • Everybody is talking about this and blogging about this but it doesn’t matter even a little. Of course the courts are going to want to hear this out just to say that they did but nothing, absolutely nothing will be done. Not only is Obama the soon to be president of the United states but thanks to the liberal illuminati he is also probably the most popular figure in the world. He is a rock star and there is no way this scandal will ever hit the streets if there is even any merit to it.

    December 5, 2008 at 1:39 a.m.  

  • By: AceTomato

  • Very interesting, NJGuy. I thought this was crackpot hooey for a long time, but as the suits began to crop up and I read the legal arguments and looked at the evidence, the question of law became very more serious.
    I found myself digging up old constitutional law cases and works on the various methods/theories for interpreting the constitution to examine how this question might be worked out.
    No wonder Clarence Thomas is interested.
    I think Berg thinks removing Obama will result in Hillary nomination (and probably a Hillary win). He may actually be right. Depending on what happens, anyway.
    If I was on SCOTUS I’d love to chew this one over. It’s the stuff of dreams for judges who love the law.

    December 5, 2008 at 12:07 a.m.  

  • By: NJguy

  • The Donofrio case being conferenced tomorrow challenges three candidates as ineligible:
    McCAIN (born in Panama and able to get American citizenship from his two parents but not natural born citizenship)
    OBAMA (born into a situation of dual citizenship due to his father being Kenyan and transferring British citizenship, creating a Constitutionally impermissible “divided allegiance” at birth which found the U.K. in a position to exercise “jurisdiction” over Obama)
    CALERO (Socialist Workers Party candidate who was born in Nicaragua, is still a citizen of Nicaragua, but who is in the U.S. on a Green Card)

    Amazingly, Calero was on the ballot for president in NJ and in other states, showing that there is no gatekeeper process in place. The political parties apparently are not “vetting” their candidates, the “certifications” coming from the nominating conventions don’t certify basic eligibility but only the fact of winning the “nomination” of the parties, and most of the state Secretary of State offices are not discharging state-statutory obligations of screening for eligibility, either. A handful of states had SoS challenges to Calero to keep him off the ballot, which those Secretaries of State could have researched by looking up a Wikipedia on him and learning he lacked even basic citizenship.

    If Donofrio v. Wells were to be favorably resolved by adopting the legal “originalist” argument advanced by the plaintiff, McCain would be “out” just as much as Obama, on eligibility grounds.

    Because the case originated in NJ, a local town Forums in a small NJ municipality has been tracking it with some interesting research along the way. It would be a fascinating case of first impression for a phrase which has never been defined by the highest court. It took over 200 years for SCOTUS to issue a ruling about the Second Amendment; there’s a lot of unplowed ground in the Constitution. The Courts only deal with the need to interpret the Constitution when real cases with real facts present themselves.

    People interested in some of the laws, statutes and “legislative history” can read and learn at the link below.

    http://www.ventnorevoice.com/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=1124

    December 5, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.  

  • By: AceTomato

  • Pssst to Mediawatch: Berg (lawsuit #1) is a Democrat. Keyes/Donfrio (California electorate suit) is the American Independent Party.

    If all this is Republican meanness, why doesn’t Obama just release his birth certificate and prove everyone wrong? Why spend over $500,000 in legal fees to AVOID producing it?

    You don’t have to belong to any particular political party to find that a little weird. It’s a $12.00 document he claims will prove he is eligible, yet he is doing everything he can to not produce it. Makes ya go “Hmmmmm . . “

    December 5, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.  

  • By: MediaWatch

  • It’s easy to see the almost hysterical level of excitement in the the Republican posts, almost like a lynch mob. These people are taking a huge gamble, the reputation and future of their party is at stake. If this turns out to be a groundless charge against Obama, these people and their party will be discredited even further than they are now. The nastiness of this citizenship pursuit, the presidential campaign and the conservative posters online will stick in the minds of the rest of us Americans, and the citizens of many other countries, forever. All of these things, added to the disgusting recent Republican sex scandals and corruption charges, have destroyed the image and reputation of the Republican party. It’s fine by me, because the Democrats will certainly benefit from it for decades to come.

    December 4, 2008 at 11:38 p.m.  

  • By: AceTomato

  • If some of you can let go of thinking this is desperate measures by Republicans to remove Obama, you might notice that it is a fascinating question of Constitutional Law. The Constitution requires the President be a natural born citizen – so what does that mean exactly and how is it tested? Who determines it?

    If Obama were to be disqualified as POTUS, it would not automatically go to McCain (and frankly, most Republicans are not enamored of McCain). I think, and may be totally wrong, that the Dems would have to nominate someone else and the election reheld. If so, the Speaker of the House would step in. That’s Pelosi. Pelosi is probably the one person Republicans would want to see LESS than Obama in the white house (okay, Dodd, Reid and Frank are runners up, too).
    It’s not an attempt to give McCain the win. It’s a question of whether Obama belongs in the process to begin with.

    December 4, 2008 at 11:32 p.m.  

  • By: JJ

  • I’m not sure Ruggercop can calm down enough to get the point of this: the question is whether he really was born in Hawaii or whether he was born somewhere else such as Kenya.

    A reasonable enough question. And surprising that Obama wouldn’t have produced a more legitimate birth certificate by now.

    December 4, 2008 at 11:11 p.m.  

  • By: DrJim77

  • Constitutional vs Common law pertaining to the definition of natural born citizen must be clarified by SCOTUS..

    If a POTUS is elected by the electoral college and then in a year from now is shown to be ineligible.. Every law, appointment to office would be illegal and or null and void..

    Or worse.. If USA was attacked, POTUS would be powerless to command the military..

    The supreme court must NOT allow this to occur… whoever is president

    SCOTUS must protect us

    December 4, 2008 at 10:50 p.m.  

  • By: steveb777

  • Obama has been dishonest and secretive about his past. Anybody with a bit of common sense knows that online documents can be altered (as the factcheck docs appear to have been). Okay he has unknown docs on file in Hawaii, but he also has unknown sealed docs on file in Kenya. Why does he have sealed docs in KENYA??? I could go on an on. If he has nothing to hide, release the documents!

    I WANT TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!

    December 4, 2008 at 10:22 p.m.  

  • By: doublehook

  • So if the court finds that he is not a citizen by birth, voiding his candidacy and election…do we get McC by default or is there another election, or will Harry Reid continue to violate the Constitution? Maybe it will be Joe Biden by default! ! ! !

Advertisements