Supreme Court To Review Barack's "Citizenship"

This doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.  First off, ordinary citizens lack the legal standing to bring suit against someone's citizenship. That, in and of itself, is what had the case tossed the first time.  Secondly, the State of Hawaii has vouched for the authenticity of his birth.  Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, that must be accepted, otherwise our entire system is meaningless, and not a single one of us are citizens.  Thirdly, and most laughable about the entire matter, is that Philip Berg's sources for his original suit was Wikipedia.  For these reasons, he should be disbarred, ordered to pay the full amount of court costs, and charged with filing frivolous lawsuits. 

Why?  What does it matter to you?  Do you think Barack Obama holds an allegiance to another country?

This is a stupid pointless waste of time and money!!

And when the Supreme Court throws this out, they should charge this moron with ALL costs to the court and the tax paying citizens

The argument falls on its face because the Plaintiff in the case lacks standing.  That is why the motion was denied both in the state and federal trial courts and the appeals court. 

The US Supreme Court may look at how the trial court determined its finding of no standing, but it is not going to look at the question of Citizenship requirement in the Constitution.

So here again, we have another wing nut article loosely based on false conjecture and innuendo.  

BAJunkie -- Not just wikipedia, he also cited Entertainment Tonight.  I mean, that's gotta count for something, right? </sacasm> 

This article's title is flat out wrong.  They're simply deciding whether to review the case.  There will be no decision on the merits after this conference.  Even if they do take the case, they still won't be looking at his citizenship, but rather, Berg's standing.  The most they could do would be to send it back down for trial.   

try to stop calling each other names.  We have the right in this country to air our greivances and to seek a fair hearing for same in the courts.  If we only seek repair of those things which a "group" find have merit, what are we?

Await the findings of the court. 

But stop calling each other names, it has been my mistake too.  But, I have learned in the last four days that we are not gaining any ground towards saving our nation in fighting like this.  We are in this together.  Decide to at the very least, respect each americans right to believe in what they understand.  Then we may actually hear one another.  And find we can survive together.

If we only seek repair of those things which a "group" find have merit, what are we?

Californians who pass Prop 8.

Exactly RachaelMM,

It's nothing more than an appeal, where, if you know how appelate courts function, the merits of the case will not be considered, only the decision of the lower court.  But, of course, the majority of the population has no idea how our legal system works.

Let's hope we haven't been deceived.

Let's hope we still have a Supreme Cout.

And let's hope he was born in the US instead of Kenya.

Let's hope that the Democrats didn't know and seeded him anyway.

What does all this says about our country leaders?

What does it say about the voters?

Help us!

What does it say about the voters?

That they aren't as easily convinced by bull@!$%# as was previously thought.

Yeap!

You are right about that the educated voter came out in force.

We should all be proud of our vote.

BAJunkie - (Re:#2.1)  You hit the bottom line perfectly. Why the hell was I ignoring your posts ?

Everyone must look at the website from which this bitter dreck came. As there are SO many of these bitter right-wing sites out there, why do you bitter trolls try to infect others' thinking with such blatant, blind dishonesty ?  Is this where those of you get your "all you liberals are hateful and mean and intolerant and waah..." victimized entitlement ? Many of the like want fenced borders, one language, one belief, on ruling gender, one sexuality,  one (your) side to win, and an illusion of 19th century 'frontier' society (but really the version of it as performed by John Wayne).  

Not that it matters, but I am not a liberal, a punk, a hippie,  beatnik, bohemian, Wobblie, or whatever others like-minded have been, and are attracted to: people who would just like to live their lives, just as some of your kind say they want. You know that's a lie: you can't so much as keep your noses out of others' beds!

So now, despite the first uncontested election in twelve years, you'll go as far as to use a testament to ridicule and self-promoting deceit (Alan Keyes) to re-establish the righteousness of the right wing ? You know as well as I this won't work.

Some of us want to make the world better for children we really love. If you don't want to help, just leave us be.  

The fact is, the main instigator in this case is Philip Berg who is a Democrat. So stop assuming and proclaiming it's some sort of right wing conspiracy. It's getting tiresome.

The fact is, the main instigator in this case is Philip Berg who is a Democrat.

Sure, Berg is a Democrat. He's also a dumbass.

With that said, the vast majority of the people who think this case has merit -- and certainly the vast majority of people on Newsvine who keep supporting the idea that Obama may not be an American citizen -- are rightwingers.

It's a shame they found a Democrat dumb enough to be their standard bearer, but that doesn't mean it's an idea that is supported by Democrats more than Conservatives.

It's called wishful thinking and I try not to engage in it (at least not publicly and not about blatantly lost causes). Even Limbaugh says "if" is for children...

"I am glad someone has taken this seriuously."

Not anybody with even a modicum of knowledge of legal procedure.

Berg is one of those idiots who never got over Hillary losing the nomination.  He's so damn obsessed he still seems to think that getting Obama disqualified will somehow allow his chosen candidate to become President.  

I have no doubt about how this will end.  SCOTUS will either refuse to hear the case (as they've already done once), or they will take it on just to put the issue to rest, and then declare that Obama IS a "natural born" citizen and qualified to hold the office of President.  

Either way, Berg will have made a complete fool of himself and will never be taken seriously again. 

I can live with that.

Either way, Berg will have made a complete fool of himself and will never be taken seriously again.

I've thought all along that Berg is just in it for the money.  His website solicits donations and I'll bet the right wingnuts are funding him big time... hoping against odds that they can get Obama ousted.  It ain't gonna happen... but Berg is going to walk away with a pile of cash!

"Either way, Berg will have made a complete fool of himself and will never be taken seriously again."

Who has taken him seriously since his 9/11 conspiracy lawsuits?

If you were born before 85 or 86,  outside of the US, you were required to have TWO parents who were citizens to have automatic citizenship.

When you file to run for president, no state requires proof that you are a citizen. It takes the word of the party....that they checked. UNLESS....

you are challenged. You might expect a challenge if you had ONE parent who was a citizen, and your other parent was a Kenyan, and your parents traveled a lot.

The challenge then requires that you prove citizenship. You might feel it is unworthy of you to have to prove you are a citizen, but you have to prove you are a citizen. You can whine that it is a republican plot, call it "stupid," but it happens to be a constitutional requirement that turns out is only required upon a challenge. So the challenge is constitutionally justified, and should be welcomed. There are no separate rules, even for very special Democrats.

The challenge is not satisfied by publishing a picture of a document.  Nor is the challege satisfied by issuing documents to a website.

Judge,

You are absolutely correct. Good work. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Regards,

Thomas

I actually heard many Obama supporters parroting that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. It never occurred  to any of the erudites to regard the law regarding Federal or Military jurisdiction. A child born by two American parents on foreign soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Military is automatically a U.S. citizen. My older brother was born in Weisbaden, Germany and my Sister was born in Brussels, Belgium. Both of my parents were American citizens and my Dad was Airforce with top secret clearance. All 5 of us kids were born legal American citizens.

I've thought all along that Berg is just in it for the money.  His website solicits donations and I'll bet the right wingnuts are funding him big time.

Which I intend to see fully disclosed and audited, as part of the disbarment proceedings against Berg. 

"It never occurred  to any of the erudites to regard the law regarding Federal or Military jurisdiction."

Tom, did it ever occur to you that you should check your facts before you make a judgmental and snide remark?

McCain was born 2 years before that law went in to effect....it didn't cover him and a special ruling was made so the law could be rolled back to include him....spearheaded by the democrats no less...and specifically it was Hillary Clinton that led the charge to help McCain.....

Brian Ford,

Sure, Berg is a Democrat. He's also a dumbass

He's a dumbass because...? How about he a responsible American with enough passion for the foundation of this country, the U.S. Constitution, to take his time, energy, and money to make sure that this election is done right.

A dumbass would sit by the sideline and say, Yup, Uh-huh, O.K. A dumbass would make a judgement based solely on what he was told about an issue, instead of taking the time investigate the facts. A dumbass would minimize the importance of our Constitution, as if it were some irrelevant antique. A dumbass would ignore the Constitution if it conflicted with his partisan belief system.

Intelligent people ALWAYS question what they See and Hear. Dumbass's Don't.

Thanks Judge...you da man...

Just curious was he one of the dumbasses in the Zogby poll? ;}

Intelligent people ALWAYS question what they See and Hear. Dumbass's Don't.

I don't agree. Sometimes, dumbasses ask dumbassed questions, because they're unreasonable dumbasses.

At least one judge has already agreed with me, though he was kinder in his terminology and just said that his argument was "without merit" and I'm *still* willing to bet just about anything that this doesn't go any farther than the conference.

And, to drive home how big a dumbass he is, he'll probably *continue* to claim that Obama cheated his way into office, even after the highest court tells him to take a hike.

It's amusing to see so many Bush supporters suddenly concerned about upholding the U.S. Constitution.... where have you been for the last 7 years?

The "Judge" you speak of said MR. Berg lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, didn't even consider the merit of the suit. 

The lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his citizenship eligibility to serve as President of the United States has been dismissed with the ruling that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit.  Dismissal on these grounds means the judge as decided that the MERITS of the suit don't have to be weighed or decided (so he won't be on the hook for such a decision either way!)  The FACTS of the case never get presented in open court, and the documents don't have to be produced.  A very clean getaway for Obama. - Doug Edelman Post Chronicle 10/27/08

Be a better argument if you had the facts straight. The question then, is who exactly has standing to bring the lawsuit. Seems any citizen should be able to.

Ken Pac NW,

   Why do you ASSume I'm a Bush supporter because I support the Constitution? I'm against ANYONE trashing the Constitution. How about you? Is someone YOU voted for trashing the Constitution O.K.? Without the Constitution, we are nothing, we have nothing. Shall I assume you are a Commie? Fair is fair, right!

Why do you ASSume I'm a Bush supporter

I never referenced you.  I simply referenced "Bush supporters", of which there are many on this thread.

You can assume whatever you want.  Fairness doesn't come into play.

Ok rareety,

Since you seem to value the Constitution so much, here's a little something for you.  The state of Hawaii has officially vouched for the authenticity Obama's birth certificate as well as his Hawaiin birth.  Now, with that in mind, how bout you look up the Full Faith and Credit clause of our constitution, and then you get back to us.

BAjunkie,

If the reports are true, I can't find a credible source, a Short Form Birth Certificate could be obtained by any resident of Hawaii without documentation until 1972. So, if that is the case, he could have an "authentic" birth certificate and still have no proof of where he was actually born. In that case, the state's guarantee that the birth certificate is authentic and the full faith and credit clause doesn't mean squat. I'd feel a lot better if they said there is a Long Form birth certificate on record. Again, why doesn't he just release the long form and be done with it? Why all the legal wrangling? I hate lawyers! They twist and pervert the law. Answer the damn question!

There is still the question of whether or not he renounced his citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen.

Both are part of the Berg lawsuit. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I hope that Obama is a "natural-born citizen" and the issue goes away. Until this is dealt with, however, it will never go away.

It will be another Conspiracy story that will go on forever.

Also, I don't understand how this is even an issue.  Obama's mother was American.  Thus, he is a natural-born American citizen.  Are they trying to dispute that his mother was an American?

Also, I don't understand how this is even an issue. Obama's mother was American. Thus, he is a natural-born American citizen. Are they trying to dispute that his mother was an American?

Yep - I can testify to this. My oldest son was born in Germany in a German hospital, but is automatically a US citizen by virtue of the fact that I am a US citizen. He is 28 now, has a pssport, SSN, everything. There has never been any question of his citizenship

My little sister was as well I do remember that there was some extra paperwork to fill out for her though.

Yeah, it wasn't a big deal as I remember. I had to submit an application, his German Birth Certificate, a translated copy (I think) and a copy of my own birth certificate, marriage license, etc

Simba1chief, The issue isn't citizenship (by the way I support Obama) it is "Natural Born Citizenship" Your son will have a difficult if not impossible time being President because it states that a President must be "Born" on American Soil.

Since Hawaii has the vault certificate I am laughing at the Berg's and Bergette's who keep pushing this....everyone is yelling "why doesn't he just show the birth certificate and get it over with?" 

Because it's strategy....make your opponent come out in to the light and show themselves, secondly, as any good lawyer will tell you #1 tactic to every suit....exhaust your opponents resources, make them expose their findings and sources and when you are ready strike them down with what you have and crush their sources as well.

Berg has already shown he is using Wikipedia, Hearsay and nothing factual from the relatives of Obama...so far we have not seen the Sister or Grandmother or even the cleric magically appear and say "Here I am , go ahead and question me" .....

Actually, my understanding is that you do "not" have to be born on American soil in order to run for POTUS.  The issue is that if you're born on foreign soil, then both parents must be U.S. citizens, for one to claim their "natural born" citizenship.

If you're born on American soil, you're obviously an American citizen without question.

I did look up the pre-requisites for running for Presidency, and this was my interpretation.  I could be wrong .... but, that's the way I understood it.

It was thrown out by the District Court in Pennsylvania.

Various other suits all over the country have been filed and all have failed.

Berg should be disbarred.

Read the article and then decide if it has merit.Obama is not President elected until December 15th.

You do NOT need to be born in the US to be POTUS...

From: http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States"

ok, so what's a natural born citizen:

From the link: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

There are 5 conditions that will quality you to be president even if born outside the US.  It's a shame in the age of information that people throw beliefs up with such haste without even doing a simple look-up to see if what they're spouting is complete crap or if it bears merit.

That said...get the man in office and let's see if R&D can work together to pull this great nation out of the slump that each party put us into.  If we're going to simply piss and moan for the sake of doing it, we might as well throw in the towel and write the country off.

Let's not let it get to that point - please.

Shawn-great points!  I agree 100%

Shawn -

No - you're overlooking the point that both Maureen and Studiusbagus made above.  There's a legal difference between a 'citizen of the U.S.' - which is covered, as you correctly point out, by 8 USC 1401 (and 1403) - and a 'natural-born citizen of the U.S.' - which is what the Constitution requires.  That's the crux of these suits.

rls8r;

No - you're overlooking the point that both Maureen and Studiusbagus made above.  There's a legal difference between a 'citizen of the U.S.' - which is covered, as you correctly point out, by 8 USC 1401 (and 1403) - and a 'natural-born citizen of the U.S.' - which is what the Constitution requires.  That's the crux of these suits.

You're all three wrong. Trouble is not one of you can see it.

I have children that were born while I was in the Air Force stationed in Germany. They were born at the base hospital, they are ALL considered "Natural Born US Citizens", because both parents were also Natural Born US Citizens. They all have Birth Certificates from the US Consulate Office in Frankfurt.

If you don't believe me, call a &%*$%#  lawyer or go to a Law library and educate yourselves. Sheesh, use your heads for something besides a hat rack.

"If you don't believe me, call a &%*$%#  lawyer or go to a Law library and educate yourselves. Sheesh, use your heads for something besides a hat rack."

First of all was that necessary? Do you feel intellectually superior now???

Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

W-Y-S-I-W-Y-G -

The issue is not as clear-cut to most people as it seems to be to you and to your &%*$%# lawyer.

See, for instance: www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf

The abstract for the scholarly version of that paper states:

"What was the original public meaning of the enigmatic phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a 'natural born citizen.' Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of 'naturalization' is not a 'natural born citizen.' John McCain's citizenship was conferred by statute - perhaps before, but perhaps after his birth. That leaves John McCain in a twilight zone - neither clearly naturalized nor natural born."

I can cite you other articles if you want to look into the matter farther than you already have.

If it is as clear cut an issue as you believe, I have to wonder why the Senate would pass a resolution recognizing that John McCain is a 'natural-born citizen'. (See: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show).

If it is as clear cut an issue as you believe, I have to wonder why Senator Nickles wanted Congress to clarify the meaning of 'natural-born citizen'. (See: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php)

So - it seems that understanding that there is a distinction between simply being a 'citizen' and being a 'natual-born citizen' continues to elude you.

Now - if you and your &%*$%# lawyer would write a note to the Supreme Court justices and explain to them what they've failed to understand - and use the same pleasant tone that you've used here to make sure they don't miss the point - I'm sure you two could save us all a lot of problems.

Oh - and while you're at it - it would be a friendly jesture to send the justices hats with your letter.

Studiusbagus -

Tell me if I'm wrong - but it seems to me that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by and replaced in its entirety by the Naturalization Act of 1795 - and that the new language changed from 'natural born citizens' to simply 'citizens'.

Perhaps if the issue ever does come to court - the 1790 language will be used to interpret the original intent whether or not to consider those born abroad as 'natural born' - but it seems to me that the question is, at present, pretty muddy.

Your thoughts?

Various other suits all over the country have been filed and all have failed.

Proof?

J

Joyce -

Here are some to start you out -

Berg's initial suit in Pennsylvania:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0

David Neal in Ohio:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

Steven Marquis in Seattle:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/364665.html

That's all the proof I'm inclined to provide for you.  You can do the follow-up leg work if you're really interested for the others that have been filed in Hawaii, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut.  There may be others - I've lost track.  Oh - there was also someone who petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the Elections Board here in Virginia - but I've lost track of that too when nothing came of it.

These were just the ones against Obama.  There were also several filed against McCain (at least two in California) that argued the same issues.

and all have failed.

rls8r,

Thank you for the info.  However, Kim's statement was emphatic and she used the words "all have failed", which I know to be false.  The difference, however, in myself and Kim is that I would never stoop so low as to call her a "liar" (one of the words she likes to use).  I assume that most people are here to learn the truth and not just to challenge everything that is being said (maybe I'm wrong).

I have been researching this.  I cannot supply links here (don't know why), but as an example I can tell you of a few cases that I know that have not been dismissed.  Specifically one that was just filed last week involving Alan Keyes and one that was filed in Hawaii where there was a hearing on Tuesday (not sure of the outcome on that one). 

J.

J -

Yes, I'm dimly aware that there have been some new suits that are wending their way forward, and haven't been decided yet - but I don't know much about them.  I did a lot of research on this a while back - but I lost interest (or perhaps, just steam) - so I haven't been following it much lately.

About the links - I couldn't post links for a while when I initially signed up to Newsvine - but I contacted the 'staff' about an article I wrote - my first one - that promptly evaporated after 'publishing'.  They then made me a 'trusted user' - and ever since I've been able to post links.  Maybe you should contact the 'staff' - they may be able to throw some switch or push some button that will allow you to post links.

Regards.

J -

You got me curious - so I found this:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081121/NEWS20/811210355/1001/localnewsfront

The Hawaii suit was dismissed on Tuesday. From what I read, it seems like Andy Martin was suing for release of Obama's birth certificate based on: a) he was writing a book, and 2) 'freedom of the press'.  Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

Now - I have to get back to that memo I have to finish - or I'm going to hang myself.

rls8r

Thank you.  You've been very helpful.

J.

W-Y-S-I-W-Y-G -

That's you, isn't it AF_Veteran!?  Why didn't you say so?  Why'd you change your screen name?  Piss too many people off?

Studius -

That's only ol' AF_Veteran.  He reminds me of my grandfather (a salty old Chesapeake Bay waterman) and my dad (ex-82nd Airborn in WWII).  Sometimes you find old ex-military guys like him - used to ordering folks around and having their way simply because "they say so" (see "PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION!!!" comment in #1.32) - usually non-coms.  Folks who question their knowledge or authority confuse them - and make them unsettled and angry - largely because it makes them doubt their own infallabilty. Typically - their response is to close their eyes, knot their fists, and shout intimidating remarks in the hope that when they're done - and they open their eyes again - things will be back to 'normal', that is, the way they want things to be.

He doesn't mean anything by the way he expresses himself - it's just natural for him - it's all he knows - it's like breathing.  You can see that because he starts his very first post of a thread with that attitude. He loves to piss off 'liberals'. Now that we know that it's just ol' AF_Veteran we can shrug, smile, generally ignore what he has to say, and get on with things. 

Good to see you AF, er, WYSIWYG!

WYSIWYG,to make your point more valid of what your saying here's a little more:

In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:

1. Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
2. At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.

INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and one of whom has had a residence." The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.

Now in the case of Mitt Romney,McCain, and even Barry Goldwater:

In fact, the phrase "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Thus, some argue that even those born abroad to U.S. citizens are not eligible to ascend to the Presidency, since an act of the United States Congress such as the Naturalization Act may not overrule the Constitution (see "Natural born citizen" as presidential qualification). Thus far, presidential candidates George W. Romney (born in Mexico), Barry Goldwater and John McCain (born in U.S. territories), were never seriously challenged on the basis of their "natural born" citizenship, but no candidate falling under this classification has ever actually become President, and therefore the question must be regarded as not having been finally decided.

It is disputed whether the foreign-born children of US citizens are natural born citizens.^[5] While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, or else born in the United States, there have been some presidential candidates who were born outside the United States.^[10]

George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.

Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.^[11]

John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born outside of the Panama Canal Zone in Colon, Panama, to U.S. parents.^[12] In April 2008 the US Senate approved a resolution affirming McCain's status as a natural born citizen.^[13] And in September of that year a Federal District judge said obiter that it was "highly probable" that McCain was a natural-born citizen of the United States owing to the citizenship legislation existing at the time.^[14]

Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause

Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)^[8]. In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. This law suit has been sent to the supreme court after dismissal, next ruling December 2008. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method^[9] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.

I don't think Congress will challenge they wanted too they would have done it long ago.There isn't a clear meaning of being a Natural Born Citizen.It goes back to 1790 and today,there's different laws made thru history but this is ridiculous what this Ice Berg  is doing.

Thank you. Nice to read a post with facts, instead of slime and innuendo.

Thank you for the info.  However, Kim's statement was emphatic and she used the words "all have failed", which I know to be false. 

I'm sorry, I'm not instanteously advised of the filing of every specious frivolous lawsuit in every jurisdiction in every state of this country.  Maybe you and your network of crazed kook attorneys could start sending me a text message? 

All these lawsuits have failed so far, Joyce.  All that have been filed long enough to reach the point where they can be dismissed have failed. Some may be filed by not served yet. Some may be filed and served but the defendants have not yet responded with a an answer and motion to dismiss.  

It's like a game of whack-a-mole. One pops up, and gets whacked, and another pops up, and will get whacked in its turn.

Here's some more emphasis for you. All suits, no matter if you filed a dozen a day, will fail. Berg will fail. Martin will fail. They'll all fail. The suits do not sound in law and they are not based on fact.

studiusbagus,

First of all was that necessary? Do you feel intellectually superior now???

Absolutely. I wrote that especially for you. Knowing how sensitive you are. Superior? For sure, judging by most of the comments here.

rls8r,

That's only ol' AF_Veteran.  He reminds me of my grandfather (a salty old Chesapeake Bay waterman) and my dad (ex-82nd Airborn in WWII).

I'm nowhere near as old as you'd like to think. I bet your Dad has at least 40 years on me. Btw, tell him I really appreciate his WWII service. You likely could learn better manners from him. Bet you wouldn't say to him what you said to/about me in your #3.22 post. If you did, I bet he'd kick your ass for disrespecting him. You should get down on your knees and thank GOD for people like your Dad for the freedom you presently enjoy.

See ya 'round !

Yeah,

He just a little bomb of that Hillary!

She doesn't deserve to be Sec. Of State!

Yes,

Americans are currently dying all over the would for our freedoms. Our sons and daughters are protecting this nation as they always have to allow the educated people of America to protect their rights.

I hope we will welcome them home with honor. There families have earned our support.

The fact of whether or not he is a citizen is only an issue if he "naturalized" in Indonesia and renonced he U.S. Citizenship in order to do so. The primary issue being examined is whether or not he can prove he is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States, as required by the Constitution.

I certainly hope that he is, but the issue needs to be put to rest in any case.

Souter did not want to take the case.

I remember that the PE Obama said that Justice Thomas was not qualified for the position in the SCOTUS. 

Justice Thomas accepted.

Justice Thomas isn't qualified for the SCOTUS, and good luck with that case. Has there been any success with Mr. Berg's legal campaign which would lead you to believe he would pull-off this miracle?

It’s called claiming yourself by playing on the emotions of passionate Republicans.  These lawyers know there is no case and they have no standing to bring a case.  But as long as someone is willing to pay them, they will continue to bring suits, regardless of how frivolous they are. 

At some point, and we may be at that point, the Supreme Court is going to say enough is enough and stop with the silliness, which is basically what they do. 

Yeah,

There's a whole lot of paying on both sides.

What do we need stupid lawyers for anyway!

The same bright lawyers that said that Sarah Palin does not meet the requirements for President.

that said that Sarah Palin does not meet the requirements for President.

Sara Palin isn't qualified to be President of the United States.... but it has nothing to do with her citizenship!  LOL

Determined and MoreThanHappy -

At least Berg is an 'equal-opportunity' political gadfly. In December '01 Berg wrote to Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas requesting that they agree to "Voluntary Disbarment" for failing to "recuse" themselves in Bush v. Gore and other violations. Berg said: "It is the appearance of impartiality not the reality of bias or prejudice that dictates and in this case, there was not only appearance but also actual conflict of interest. They violated the rules of conduct and must accept the consequences of their partisan action."

So - neither Obama nor Berg should look for pats on the back from the Justices.

Further - he has filed Federal Racketeering actions against President Bush and others suggesting prior knowledge and a coverup of the September 11 attacks.

Finally - in 2005, he was subject to sanctions and fines for reported ethics violations.

Colorful fellow.

Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden both called Obama a hizzle nizzle. What a riot!!!

Bin Laden both called Obama a hizzle nizzle. What a riot!!!

Fo shizzle!

This is so funny!

He has been thoroughly vetted what a waste of time, but if it will be the final nail into the coffin of this 'is he an American citizen or not" nonsense so much the better.

Then we can move on to whether he is a Muslim, a radical Christan, a terrorist, a commie or maybe he is just a socialist this week (I didn't get the news letter on which rant we are ranting about).

Next they'll be proclaiming that Barak Obama is NOT half white, that he's actually gay, a hemaphrodite, and one of the aliens they found in Area 51.

You know GGM, they did not belive Jesus the son of God. He was killed for that.

The fact that we are ALL God's children did not cross their minds

3 Sheets.....meeting next thursday....fist bumps at the door gets you in...Subject: How to hide Obama's space ship.

Shhhh! Studius don't say that so loud.

We only want 'certain' people around.

;)

But, But, But Golden Gate Mami.....I have to keep reminding 3 sheets....so far has missed the "label of the week" scheduled meeting, the "we are all socialist,muslim, gay, communist, crack head" meeting.....I just don't know what to do with 3 sheets....

Golden Gate... ixnay on Area 51.  That secret was supposed to be safe after they attached the ears.  ;-)

snot.......kidding aside, that was a distraction, see.........bill cooper seed and you may begin to understand the depth of our nations problem.

Studius......don't forget baby killers.  I think 3 sheets needs to be water boarded ;).

SnotRag.....Oh yeah! Then what am I supposed to do with the ears they told me to hold on to?

ya'll too damn funny!!!

=}

Can I bring my tree huggin self along????

.....I have to keep reminding 3 sheets....so far has missed the "label of the week" scheduled meeting, the "we are all socialist,muslim, gay, communist, crack head" meeting.....I just don't know what to do with 3 sheets....

I can't make it to the meeting as I'm usually passed out by the time the meeting start.

I didn't know that it was important to show up in person.

I have to wash my hair on the day of the meetings.

I forgot the pass word to get by the armed guard.

I had a flat tire.

My grandfather died.

My dog escaped from my yard and I had to track him down.

My cat got stuck up a tree and I had to find a way to get her down.

My hamster had babies that day.

I'm running out of excuses.

I subscribed to the news letter you know the one "What is Obama this week" rant to be discussed on Newsvine. My check was cashed. :-) 

...cuz my momma said no. I'm 42 but she still said no. I gotta listen to momma.

Yeah DragonWoman you can bring your hugs and your trees

:)

Hey man! You guys are totally stealing my schtick!! LMAO, it's okay, you guys do it better than me anyway. Made my day just a little brighter :-D

3 Sheets...the password hasn't changed since Nov. 4th...when you get to the gate...the guard will ask you the secret question...it really doesn't matter the question because we let 'em make up their own...the answer is always "It's Obama's fault" they let you right in.

Why is the sky blue? "It's Obama's fault" see? real simple!

After the 20th of Jan. we will change the Password...."It's Barack Hussein Obama's fault"

and it's Susi's birfday! :)

and it's Obama's fault!

YES WE CAN!

It's Obama's Fault

IT SHO' IS AN' WE LIKE IT!

:)

Today? or jan. 20th? And if your bifday is Obama's fault, Obama's got some 'splainin' to do...

Jan. 20th.

LOL considering he's 3 years older than me........no kidding!

;)

Too funny,

I think he is 47.... that makes him 6 years my senior.

Good luck with that. Anyone with a brain has long removed their money from the markets.

Would it really matter if he was born in Kenya?

To most people they don't give a crap.

WTF does the market have to do with this?

This is actually one of the things that really fries me about frivolous lawsuits and rampant stupidity:

Would it really matter if he was born in Kenya?

To most people they don't give a crap.

 YES, it would matter.  That pesky little matter of the LAW.  That which we are supposed to be a nation of.  Which frivolous lawsuits are a perversion of, and a perversion that convinces people who are easily swayed, or simply don't know any better that the law just doesn't matter.

Like the current Administration has been spitting on the Constitution for 8 years--that doesn't mean the Constitution is actually meaningless or irrelevant, it means that they....oh, hell.  Never mind.

(But it is too bad that the one who seeded this crap wasn't content with the crap-level in the article, and had to include a headline that is misleading to the point of being false.)

He was born on a Naval Base in Coco Solo, Panama, which was the Panama Canal Zone....which like a US territory is United States 'property'.....and he was born on a base which is US Fed. property so technically  he was born in the US even though it was in Panama.

Barak was born in Hawaii....literally 2 years after it became a state.  It was a US territory which means, just like being born in Puerto Rico or the USVI.....you are an American citizen.

they just dont get it

They act like his birth certificate is a forgery.

What gets me really angry and more than a little nervous is how stupidity has hit a dangerous critical mass in this country. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrinch are falling over themselves to get the trailer park vote and there are just enough of them goosestepping together to actually be dangerous.

I don't know if there are enough of them left to actually win elections anymore, but they are way too interested in stealing them. And there are enough of them to do that.

And his mother wa American, so it doesn't matter where he was born anyway...

I'm not 100% sure about that. If you are born overseas and raised overseas I am not sure if that counts as natural born. They passed special legislation to clarify McCain's case which guarantees that that all children born to citizens on naval bases are natural born citizens. They wouldn't have had to do that if having an American mother was enough.

Actually, and though it can get a little fuzzy, as long as one of your parents are U.S. citizens, you would qualify for citizenship based on jus sanguinis, no matter where you were raised.

Yes, citizenship, but not "Natural born citizenship" enough for Potus

Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959.  Anyone born there from that date forward is a 'natural born' US citizen.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  He is a 'natural born' citizen.

Why are we wasting our time on this crap?  Every Justice on the Supreme Court should lean forward and rap Philip Berg on the head with their gavels.

Because apparently the Brethren have agreed this is all worthy of a conference.

Yawn

Golden Gate:

I ain't positive, but I do believe ALL petitions for cert go to "conference" as that is where it is decided if cert will be granted or not.

So going to conference does not give any validity, none at all, to the petition.

Of course they won't

I guess none here were Army brats.  Your father is stationed overseas and you are born there.  You are a US citizen.

Obama's mother was not. If he was born in Kenya then he is not an American citizen based on the law in the US and Kenya.  If he is registered in Hawai then goes to Indoneasia then he is adopted by his mothers new husband and she give up her citizenship then he is again not a citizen of the US. If he comes back to the US and doesn't file the propper forms then he holds dual citizenship. 

It's up to the Supreme Court to decided if the paperwork is in order.  They are doing that now.  What's the big deal?

Are there any law students here?

What's the uproar about?

 What's the uproar about?

No uproar. I'm just willing to bet that they won't agree to hear the case. Those who are certain he's not a citizen, thus far, haven't been willing to take that bet.

I wonder why that is?

Connie,

I'm guessing you're not a law student yourself.  The Supreme Court is NOT deciding this case based on the merits of the suit.  They are an appelate court.  Berg appealed his suit to them, therefor they will only be discussing the decision of the lower court.  If they find that Berg has standing to bring suit (the decision by the lower court found that he did not), then they will refer the case back to said court in order for it to be brought to trial.

If he is registered in Hawai then goes to Indoneasia then he is adopted by his mothers new husband and she give up her citizenship then he is again not a citizen of the US.

Completely untrue.  If you are born inside the U.S., then you are verifiably a natural born citizen under jus soli.  The only way he could have changed his citizenship was if he renounced it.  Which never happened.

No not a lawyer. But perhaps you should read the laws where he was adopted and went to school.  His mother did renounce her and her childs citizenship.

If she didn't again it's not a big deal. The whole thing is over with one small certificate. It would help all the non-believers to drop in step with him.

Why would he want to have this issue on the table.  He could do so much better to relieve the stress of the people. He needs the nations support to succeed. Do it for the people.

But perhaps you should read the laws where he was adopted and went to school.  His mother did renounce her and her childs citizenship.

I have, actually. Maybe you should read the laws of the country in which you live.

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

And that 'small certificate', well, it's already been produced and authenticated ad nauseum.  As I discussed in #2.1 above, the State of Hawaii has officially vouched for said document.  Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, this must be accepted.  Your argument holds very little merit.

His mother did renounce her and her childs citizenship.

I realize that even *if* this is true, BAjunkie has already shown why it doesn't mean anything with regard to Obama -- but *is* that true?

How about offering some supporting evidence, for a change?

Ha.. good luck trying to squeeze evidence out.  I've repeatedly debunked Connie's arguments, then 5 minutes later I see the exact same thing farther down the thread.  It's like I'm talking to a wall....

A better analogy, BA, would probably be like playing whack-a-mole.  You crush one myth, only to have three more come up somewhere else.

Three more? More like: The same one you just crushed, three more times.

What do you guys expect? They learned this at the hands of the GOP: tell the same untruths over and over and eventually some will stick. Good thing I activated my zero b*llsh*t deflector shield today.

By the way BA, I'm glad you're my friend. You make me laugh :P Keep up the awesome posts!

Where was Obama's birth "authenticated?"

It is not required that it be authenticated until it is challenged.  Where was it challenged and then authenticated? "Ad Nauseum" should mean that you have plenty of answers.

Obama didn't ask for documents from Hawaii until Dec 07, indicating that the party had never asked for proof prior to that.  THey took his word for it. The states took the party's word for it. Hence the challenges.

The Pennsylvania case, for example. What BS, that the man had "no standing" to question?  Simple, really. Pennsylvania simply dispatches a person to verify, and returns with authentic documents. Or, Pennsylvania might take the word of the document checkers in Hawaii, and then, again simply, state they they have verified the documentation.

Instead, NO STANDING TO QUESTION IT?

It smells of stonewalling.

But I can tell you that they cannot take the word of Factcheck, or base their authentication on a picture on Obama's website.

But perhaps you should read the laws where he was adopted and went to school.  His mother did renounce her and her childs citizenship.

Nope, sorry. Bull@!$%#. 

Judge:

If you really can't wrap your mind around a decision based on well-settled law, perhaps you need to change your screen name.  I don't know whether to suggest:

"I'm Not Smart Enough to Comprehend Even the Most Basic Law So Please Watch Me Get All Indignant About It" or

"We Don't Need No Stinkin' Laws!!!!!!!!"

But, oddly enough, I don't believe either one is taken.

Well, Dharma, stop BSing and answer the questions. If challenged, the candiate is required to prove. Where was he challenged and then proved?

The law is simple. Proving is simple. It doesn't take the Supreme Court to figure out, UNLESS some nifty constitutional sounding language is required to make it come out right.

I asked the question of the person who said it had been proven "ad nauseum," since it should be easy to show where it was proven ad nauseum.  But not just proven to a website. And certainly not Obama's website. That ain't proof. You cannot "prove" by a picture on a website.

Since the states are required to certify, the states are required to obtain proof when a challenge is made.  WHY posture, and kick it up and down between courts, as to who gets to challenge? 

One thinks that the proof is in doubt, or there would be no need for a court hearing.

Aside from providing a legal birth certificate -- which Barack Obama has done -- how else is one to authenticate citizenship?

I guess we'll all have to have our births televised -- Smile, honey!-- with the videotape properly archived... plus obtain a DNA sample as the infant emerges from the birth canal, along with the mother's DNA... then use those samples to compare to another DNA sample every time someone questions the validity of citizenship.

Oops!  I forgot to include the father's DNA!!  So, back up a bit.  We'll have to take DNA samples from the prospective parents prior to coitus... televise and archive the act... maintain strict 24/7 observation of the gestating mother until she comes to term... THEN retrieve the infant's DNA.

There... will THAT satisfy the Philip Berg's of the world?!?! 

Same question. Same frivolous answer. Obama provided that information to WHOM?

To a website? On his website?

Don't you get that that satisfies none of the questions, if not provided to an election board, or state authority? You are satisfied, and that should stop the questions?

Why would a presidential candidate answer the question by saying he put it up on his website?

It matters. We don't need a controversy. I don't want a controversy about it. Does he think it is unimportant?  Do you?

Judge,

Have you ever applied for your passport?  Well, you need your birth certificate to do that, and Obama's got his passport, so it looks like the US State Dept. isn't concerned.  He needed it to sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well.

BAJunkie,

Completely untrue.  If you are born inside the U.S., then you are verifiably a natural born citizen under jus soli.  The only way he could have changed his citizenship was if he renounced it.  Which never happened.

How do you know that? Source?

Berg's lawsuit has no merit.  Even as crappy a Justice as Thomas is, he can't get around that fact.

Kim,

I am a supporter of Justice Thomas for all the discriminating attacks from the Dems and because his trial was so out of control. The Ms Hill could do her noises before and not to damage the first African American nominated for the SCOTUS.

It would be interesting for me to read if the PE owes his future to the Justice Thomas

determined:

Somehow I'm not surprised to read that you are supporter of Justice Thomas, or that your support is based on something that didn't happen. 

Clarence Thomas was forced to undergo the unprecedented torture of Supreme Court Nomination hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Oops, I guess it wasn't unprecedented--that Committee actually does hold hearings on nominations to the Supreme Court.  Oh, darn.  Senate Committe hearings, NOT a trial.

His hearings were appreciably longer than most because there was actually a witness stating that he had (rather egregiously) broken the law, and others testifying to what a great guy he is, but there was no trial.

Justice Thomas is an undistinguished Supreme Court justice, but suggesting that he would improperly (because it would be improper) try to make a frivolous lawsuit into some kind of showdown between himself and P-E Obama does him a disservice--I would hope.  I also hope you never decide to support someone who actually matters to me.

determined0a1...

damage the first African American nominated for the SCOTUS.

Um... does the name Thurgood Marshall not sound familiar to you?

Probably I was in Cuba.

Yes, I am a support of Justice Thomas.

Dharma,

a) Most of my life I worked with men.

b) When and if they started a joke, I excused myself.

c) If Anita shut her mouth before she did not have to humilliate a man from her own race.

d) I was living overseas at the time and it was uncalled.

determined:

It doesn't matter what  YOU say you would do or have done.  What she described was against the law.  It wasn't her job to keep someone who wanted to be a Supreme Court justice from breaking the law--that was HIS job. 

And someone who wanted to be on the Supreme Court should have been able to figure that out, even if you can't.

I believe the standard of review is "genuine issue of material fact."  There are no such issues here.  In this vein, didn't he have to provide proof of eligibility before even getting his name on the ballot?

Louie, they will still complain, just won't mean a thing. Just like we will never know the truth @ JFK and 9-11

JFK, huh..............http://khlawake.newsvine.com/

Thank-you Louie Lou.  My thoughts exactly. 

All he has to do is present the documents from the hospital and state and case is closed.  He has until December 1st.

So do it and stop all this crap.

Connie, Obama's attorneys have until December 1 to file a responsive pleading to Berg's blatherings.  That is significantly different from being compelled to produce documents by a certain date.  SCOTUS will decide if there are any genuine issues of material fact, and if so, will reverse the lower court's ruling and remand it to the lower court.  If SCOTUS determines that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the lower court's ruling was correct, then the ruling stands and the case is dismissed. 

The birth certificate has been produced and inspected.  Go to factcheck.org and see for yourself.  They examined it, photographed it, and the raised seal is even visible.  The fact of the matter is that Obama is not and should not be required to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate for every nutcase out there who wants one.  It has been produced and inspected ad nauseum.   The fact that it shows that Obama is an American citizen born on American soil to an American citizen pisses off a lot of right wing nut jobs, but that's just too bad.  Filing frivilous lawsuits won't change the facts.  Deal with it.

And further, the FEC et al. has waived its right to respond unless specifically requested by the court to do so.  This says that they pretty much don't give a damn, and aren't going to waste their time on stupid @!$%# such as this.

All he has to do is present the documents from the hospital and state and case is closed. He has until December 1st.

And that happened months ago but some people don't care about the truth. They only care about what they've made up.

They AREN'T reviewing it, pablito, did you read the article?  I admit it was hard to read, because the source isn't a very good one, but even WorldNetDaily was clear enough that it WASN'T reporting what the headline says.

The Supreme Court will DECIDE whether to review the case.  If they decide to review it, they will be looking at how the lower court handled the case, and issue a decision on whether the case should be remanded to the lower court (that kicked it to the curb because it was stupid--not a legal term, but easy to comprehend.) 

Even if they decide to review the case, that is not the same as reviewing P-E Obama's citizenship.  What they review is the lower court's handling of the matter.  And at the time of the article, they hadn't even done that.

It has been cleared up.  That's why the lower court summarily dismissed it.  It's in the appeals process now because Berg is a nut case.  Regardless of how nutty or frivioulous a case is, the litigant has the option of filing an appeal.  Fortunately, the appellate court has the option of upholding the lower court's ruling without much fanfare.

Tracey, why do you think the Supreme Court has relented, and is moving the case forward?  Just to finally put this issue to rest once and for all?  I find this so frivolous, and I don't understand how this can even be allowed through the appeals process.  I'm no legal expert, that's for sure, but this is to the point of being ridiculous.

Again, if the state of Hawaii authenticated the birth certificate (which my understanding is) it did --  then how on Earth can this be moved forward to the Supreme Court through the appeals process.  This is crazy!

Let's hope that it will clear this issue off the board. Then maybe we might again begin to move forward.

Tracey, why do you think the Supreme Court has relented, and is moving the case forward?  

The Court is NOT moving this forward.  A conference is normal procedure for acceptance or disposition of all matters before it. The petitions for cert are reviewed by clerks and researched. They make recommendations to their respective Justices as to the legal issues presented in each case. The Court gets 7500+ petitions for cert a year, and grants cert to about 100 cases of legal significance. Every ONE of them goes to conference. About 7400 do not go 'forward' after that.

The legal profession is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

The Clintons thought it had merit. Berg was her supporter. Perhaps she should reign in her bulldog.

Watch what happens next. I'm sure it will surprise us all.

The Clintons thought it had merit. Berg was her supporter. 

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Clintons either (1) know about this or (2) support it.

Please stop LYING. 

The_Atheist...

I wonder if this issue would still exist if Obama were a middle-aged white guy. 

Only if he were a Republican middle-aged white guy.

Somehow, I doubt it.

I completely doubt it.  Though if he were a middle-aged black guy, with a different name... that's a toss up for me. ;)

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

Um...McCain's citizenship is also part of this conference.

Ellie -

I can't imagine why McCain is in there - I'll have to read the NJ suit. There were at least two suits brought against him to bar his being able to be President of the U.S. because of the 'being born in Panama' issue. 

Issues and arguments whorling around the 14th Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 8 U.S.C. 1403, the distinction between "citizen of the U.S." and "natural-born citizen of the U.S.", and others led Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to sponsor a Congressional resolution declaring that McCain is a natural-born citizen.  The resolution was passed on April 30th (See S.R. 511).  Guess who co-sponsored the resolution - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That put an end to all that foolishness.

rls8r:  Unfortunately, there is never an end to foolishness--nobody cares about the rest of this suit, except, perhaps, the Plaintiff Donofrio (who bills himself as having "Escaped from the Party of Obama"--yeah, I'm sure they did their Democratic best to hold on to him against his will) but there it is--application submitted to Justice Thomas, and the Court will decide whether to review it or not, but the lawsuit was filed to include Ms. Wells duty to investigate Senator McCain's "natural-born" status as well P-E Obama's.

But the conference is NOT about anybody's status.  The Court will decide whether to review the case or not--the lower Court's handling of it, NOT anyone's citizenship status.

You're right. Probably because *if* she runs, she won't make it past the primaries.

Not quite. You know the rightwing outcry about PE Obama? Ditto the leftwing outcry if Sarah Palin actually becomes president.

Her road to federal politics and a viable run for presidency in 2012 looks harder now that Begich unseated Stevens.

Her road to federal politics and a viable run for presidency in 2012 looks harder now that Begich unseated Stevens.

There's a letter too many in that statement. In fact two many is more correct.

Her road to feral politics and a viable run for presidency in 2012 looks harder now that Begich unseated Stevens.

Does that sound better?

Why not?

I could file a lawsuit that Sarah Palin was actually born in Canada, not Idaho.  Or that she surrendered her citizenship by alliance with the Alaskan Independence Party.

It wouldn't be true, but hey that's my point.  What Berg alleged about Obama is equally untrue.

Anyone can file a lawsuit alleging anything.  With no facts. Just like Berg did. 

ha ha ha, good job Brian Ford. I almost fell off my chair.

Are you people disagreeing with the requirements of the constitution, or just disagreeing that it should be proven? Is the challenge an insult, and therefore should be ignored, the insult more important than the constitution?

If you say it has been proven,  who was it proven to?  Please don't give me a website that is not an official government site, without the authority to verify.

I don't trust websites for critical information. I have seen a report that says a Hawaii official stated that his birth and date, location was verified...but it didn't say who the verication was done for.  It would have to be done for a state authority that asked for the verication. Then THAT documented and signed...probably by a state board of elections commissioner, at least.

Why in hell is this so hard to find, or get answered, with all the people who seem certain that it has been done?

I'll answer, since the BSing seems to stop once the questions are asked about showing where an official verication was done for a state board.

Betting that it was done...nowhere.

The issue of "natural born" as to that requirement for eligibility, and whether the defining requiements for citizenship...on parent, two parents, time in states, etc, make you "natural born" have never been clear. They are open to debate. Which no one wants to have AFTER an election, and which Obama and company were smart enough to avoid BEFORE the election...Apparently.

The refusal to hear cases in lower courts seems to be routine, as rarely as these cases have come up, with the pronouncment in the three or four recent attempts to challenge resulting in rulings that said that that ordinary citizens had no standing to challenge eligibility.

So, try to find just who it is that has standing to challenge, I couldn't.

References were made in one case to the statutes...USC something something...that have to do with the procedures for dealing with the electoral college, the validity of electors, etc, but nothing that I could find...blind, by then...about challenging the eligibility of the president elect's qualifications. Generally, it appears that Congress could, but not clear how, and in any case  they certainly will not.

It appears that Arnold Swartzenager can run if he wants to. Or Queen Elizebeth, as it appears that the constitution has a requirement that doesn't require being met, only the assumption that the standards are met, with a challenge nearly impossible to submit, meeting the mysterious requirements for standing so secret that one must be killed if he knows what they are.

Anyway, originally the requirements were set down, and it wasn't anticipated that there would ever be a person running whwre there would be questions. The people who ran then, were well known citizens. It also wasn't apparent that anyone might treat the whole process as a game. Little did they know.

On a high note, one can look at the efforts of subsequent congresses to straighten it all out, and make it easy, failing, and draw comfort from the fact that present congresses are probably no more incompetant than many of the previous versions.

Because he was running for the highest office in the nation and should meet the requirements set forth ? If we didn't ask, anyone could run just on their word they are eligible. He presented a "Certificate of Live Birth" not a birth certificate. A birth certificate would list the doctor, hospital, the time of birth, birth weight ... etc. The certificate of live birth only showed that he was born, and not necessarily in Hawaii since in that state you do not need to be born there to receive one. That's where there is a dilemma. With his grandmother stating he was born in Kenya this of course poses a rift in the story. There has been no evidence supplied by any hospital in Hawaii that he was actually born there and 3 different hospitals have been named as his place of birth but no doctors name was put forth to question.

I think it's silly too, but if you look at the reasoning behind it and the lack of evidence provided by Obama and his crew we have every right to ask the Supreme Court to finally put this to rest and establish his citizenship.

Actually EJ, not only has his short form certificate been examined, but the state has affirmed that they have his vault certificate on file.  Case closed.

He's going to be our President. I believe you can see the record of all the previous Presidents. They are on file and public record. So he can't do that one little thing. It's not out of order.

Are his rights somehow infringed?

Fact.org doesn't provide proof.

The document provided to the court and published as true and correct is the only proof required. It wouldn't have been required had he published it in the newpapers.

Then all of this would have been gone and NO ONE would say anything against this man who is to be our next President.

We all want him to succeed.

We all want to move forward.

It has nothing to do with color of skin.

It has nothing to do with his education.

It only has to do with our Constitution.......

If the part that requires that you be born in this country to American citizens is so unimportant then erase it, strike it from the document and again let's move on.

Connie,

Please refer to all my previous posts on this seed and quit posting your ridiculous comments.  I've already answered every one of your assertions.

Just one more thing - the actual certificate is on factcheck.org.  Not only the scanned copies, but photographed copies of the raised seal, date stamps, certificate numbers, etc.  

The whole argument is crap, you know it, and you are grasping at straws.

*eyeroll*

BAjunkie,

I appreciate your fact-filled posts, but you are being entirely too reasonable addressing "Connie".  I had assumed s/he was simply...well, simple, until I saw #21.3. 

Then all of this would have been gone and NO ONE would say anything against this man who is to be our next President.

We all want him to succeed.

We all want to move forward.

I guess whoever posted it above had it right after all--just lying.  Facts aren't going to mean anything to her/him.

BAjunkie,

Please refer to all my previous posts on this seed and quit posting your ridiculous comments.  I've already answered every one of your assertions.

You must be the most well informed person ever. The whole world has unanswered questions, except you. Where do you get the information??? Are you a member of one of the courts? Have you personally reviewed these documents?

I'm thinking not. You know as much as the rest of us...SQUAT! It's all conjecture

How long is this trashing of Obama going to go on.

The rest of his life. And beyond.

Once he has been deemed a United States Citizen, What next???

It will probably continue for the next 8 years of his presidency.  The right wingnuts just can't believe they've lost the election and they are looking for something, ANYTHING that would negate the election.

The neocons and right-wingnuts are so darn cute when they're grasping at straws

22.2

Nah, we are not like the sore losers of Al Gore that sang during 8 years that GWB was not their President and wanted to leave the country.

determined, there is a distinct difference: Obama hasn't even taken office yet!!! The people who said GW wasn't their president had at least some valid reasons. The people opposing Obama haven't even waited to see him inaugurated yet!

So it stands to reason that they are just sore losers who can't handle a democrat or a black man or a so-called Muslim (which, again, he is not) be in office. It's sad...

Lo,

I lived among Muslims, those Muslims are still my friends. I don't catalogue people.

I just mentioned what is to live in the last 8 years with the counts, recounts, chad, pregnant chad/sunshine chad and the no mandate.

Fair enough was my comment.

i agree, dandemacy.

I have to agree.

Public record is public record.

I guess we have to accept the fact.org copy in the national musuem.

I wish upon a star that the organization known as factcheck.com be stricken from the net never to raise it's head again.

Are you talking about factcheck.org? Whats so wrong with them?

KRich,

they deal with facts, it's right there in the URL. Facts are Liberal

I know who they are, I've been following the site since its been around. I'm just wondering where connies deep objection for them stems from.

Dandemacy - Birth Certificates are not public records according to the State of Hawai'i. The only people that can request a copy of the certificate are the person whose certificate it is, and a relative. That's it.

Just like you can't go to the state and get a copy of my birth certificate. The certificate itself is not a public record.

KRich - Didn't you know? Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenburg Foundation, which is the parent organization of the Annenburg Challenge, which was the board that Obama served on with William Ayers. Ergo, it's a terrorist organization.

It doesn't matter that the Annenburg Foundation was founded by Walter Annenburg, a US Ambassador that was best friends with Ronald Reagan, whose family regularily gives tons of money to Republican candidates, and whose wife, Leonore (who now heads the foundation) endorsed McCain.

*sheesh*

Lady - lol, high five to you.

And you are correct, Birth Certificates in almost any state are not public records.  If anyone would like to dispute this, please - send me a message - I will give you my name, date and state of birth.  If you can send me a scanned copy of MY birth certificate (without committing fraud), I'll give you $100.

Hahahaha! Ryann, I will not take your bet because you are 100% correct. But I got 10 bucks that says none of the people claiming the opposite will have the cojones to take that wager. Well done!!

Indeed, Annenburg Foundation was founded by a friend a Ronald Reagan. Just the directions and purpose changed by 180.

This is the foundation Mission directly off of their site.

The Annenberg Foundation is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor, Pennsylvania established in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. It exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving its goal, the Foundation encourages the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge.

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/

What changed? They support educational initiatives, art, health and human services, civics, community. These are bad things?

dandemacy:

Can you cite anything that refers to the big riots by the majority of voters (who voted for Al Gore) in 2000?  I must have missed them.

Or were you just making the racist suggestion that black voters are inherently violent?

dandemacy:

I didn't vote for Bush, either time, and I suppose I am one of those liberals you are referring to.  I didn't riot, burn up things, or even say he wasn't my president.  You've got to respect the office, and hell, when the people speak, even if I don't agree with the words, that just how our country works.  If you're referring to that Baldwin brother who threatened to leave, well then consider the source.  For myself, I know that I have spoken out against the way in which Bush's presidency has played out.

We jail people without trials.

We spy on our own citizens.

We torture.

These don't sit well with me, and I'm sure there are others.  This liberal nutjob (myself) has often wondered why media outlets (Fox too) always refer to him as Mr. Bush all of the time?  How come they seldom refer to him as President Bush?  If I ever saw him somewhere, even while he is still in office, I would address him as Mr. President, or President Bush. 

Everyone who did not vote for him, and really don't support the tone and actions of his administration aren't foaming, vehement, nutcases.  Apparently, judging by his approval rating, it isn't just the liberals.  I don't begrudge your right to  have an opinion and speak out on such opinion in regards to the PE.  It seems the new argument I hear on a lot of blogs lately is, "Well, YOU did it to President Bush!"  It's like playground politics.

And, with the constant threat of identity theft, I sincerely hope to God that my BC isn't a matter of public record.

I'm sorry, but that isn't going to happen to the extent that you want it to.  We won't be happy that he is president, but we also didn't riot.  Do you think that there wouldn't have been riots for the last 2 weeks if McCain had won?  This country would have BURNED if Obama had not won, and you know it.

Amen.  Couldn't have said it better.

How about 8 years? 

Don't necessarily agree with this.  If Mr. O has the attitude that he is above the law and doesn't have to show us anything, then maybe just maybe it will only be 4 years!

J.

Well, Wiki said this:

natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption)

I hope this helps.

The answer to that question can be found if you do the research.  The reason given for the clause being included was very important to our founding fathers.  It was a form of protection for the citizens of the newly formed government.

They didn't want England, Spain, or France to be able to take over the control of this new government. They knew from previous experiences  a government established for the people and by the people was the most important issue we have as citizens. We the people determine where we go and our leader should only have the welfare and interest of our nation when leading.

Over the years we have lost this message and thus it is so unimportant now that no one is willing to require the letter of the law to be enforced.

Connie:

I am all about the letter of the law.  But you of all people have no business telling anyone else to do the research.

By the way, when did you decide that Hawai'i is trying to take over the control of our government?