On October 24, U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Barack Obama should remain on the Pennsylvania ballot. In August, Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg had filed a lawsuit arguing that Obama may have been born in Kenya, and that even if he had been born in Hawaii, that he lost his U.S. citizenship as a child. The decision is 34 pages long and also says that Berg does not have standing to sue. The case is Berg v Obama, 08-cv-4083, eastern district of Pennsylvania. UPDATE: this post has been altered on Monday, October 27; also see the new post made on October 27.
This decision parallels three U.S. District Court decisions this year that say John McCain is a natural-born citizen. One of them, Hollander v McCain, is now reported at 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (Dist. New Hampshire 2008). Thanks to Jonathan Cymberknopf for this news. Check back in a few days; hopefully there will be a link to the decision. The decision noted that a birth announcement for Barack Obama ran in the Honolulu Advertiser of August 13, 1961 issue. Obama was born on August 4.
It should be noted, that while Judge Surrick was a Clinton appointee, he is a Republican, as confirmed by his former law clerks – and Berg.
God bless you judge, you are a true american who made a truley good decision.
From what I understand, the court did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii. The court stated that Berg does not have standing. In an event, Obama has not produced his Birth Certificate (A Certification of Live Birth is not the same thing) proving that he was born in Hawaii. This issue is still outstanding and I believe Berg will try to Appeal possibly all the way to the US Supreme Court to truly determine if Obama is in fact born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born Citizen.
If Mr. Berg, an American citizen, does not have standing to raise an issue regarding violation of the Constitution, who does? I was under the assumption that any American would have standing under the Constitution. But since our Constitution has about as much value as toilet paper to most of our legislators and judges, I shouldn’t be surprised.
As far as I can see from http://www.americasright.com/ the judge did NOT rule that Obama was born in Hawaii; he ruled that Phil berg didn’t have standing to sue on this issue. Phil Berg can still appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and he likely will.
Mark Osborne asks just the right question: What the heck is “standing,” and if, as he asks, a United States citizen and voter does not have it, who possibly could?
What a terrible basis for a judicial decision!
In another case, the entire Republican Party was ruled not to have “standing” on some election matter pertaining to Democrat chicanery, or possibly chicanery.
Is this a way for judges to avoid having to think about a matter themselves? To just pass on, while continuing to draw a big salary? (Pardon my cynicism.)
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win†on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!
Legality questions aside, do these people responding still actually believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii and that there is no birth certificate? Take a look at it yourself:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
If it were fake or doctored, I’m sure someone from the Hawaii Health Department would have objected.
Use your heads people. This is such a non-issue.
Obama has not produced his Birth Certificate. There is no way to prove he was born in Hawaii.
It is likely Obama did not produce it because one does not exist because he was born in Kenya. It could be that birth certificate is buried or lost somewhere in Kenya.
What Obama has produced is Certification of Live Birth.
This IS NOT the same as a Birth Certificate.
This is a LIE that the Obama Camp has perpetuated.
For what I understand, a person can actually recieve a Certification of Live from Hawaii even if he was not actually born there.
It remains to be seem what Obama’s “real” Birth Certificate reveals assuming a copy exists.
I put a challenge to all Obama supporters to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii by producing a copy of Obama’s Vault Copy Birth Certificate.
This will not happen because Obama’s vault copy Birth Certificate does not exist proving he was likely not born in Hawaii.
A Certification of Live Birth is not proof that Obama was Born in Hawaii.
Obama Supporters, Produce Obama’s Vault Copy Birth Certificate and put this issue to rest once and far all.
I will bet no one will be able to beat my challenge.
Even Phil Berg did not insist that Obama was born in Kenya. He spent more time arguing that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he lost his citizenship in childhood.
As to standing, there is a good argument that no one has standing except Congress. Article Two says Congress shall count the electoral votes, and the implication is that Congress would reject any votes cast for someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. By analogy, Article One makes it clear that only Congress can decide whether any member of Congress was elected. So when congressional elections are too close to determine the winner, Congress decides who got the most votes. In the past, Congress has sometimes taken a year to adjudicate these vote-counting disputes.
there are 9 suits in 9 states and more are piling on
Philip Berg says he is going to thake this to the United States Supreme Court
This is just one judge, in one court..
More lawsuits are coming, this ruling will be appealed
The international civil and political rights organization AXJ is requesting further investigation and asks why this case has not gone before a Jury? http://www.axjus.com
I am sure Berg is hard at work getting his appeal together. He needs his appeal filed by Monday or Tuesday before time runs out.
If Berg has the tape on Michelle Obama he needs to release by Tuesday or Wednesday so it will have its time to work its magic.
If Berg has the tape about Obama’s grandmother saying that Obama was born in Kenya, he needs to release ASAP so it can work its magic.
Berg should also work with Republicians to add some fuel to his appeal.
Berg should as work on filing suits in more state so we can get Obama to produce his Valt Copy Birth Certificate or be booted off the ballot.
Time is running out and we only have 10 days left.
This issue must be resolved before November 4, 2008.
If Obama wins it will very difficult to undo his win.
If Obama is sworn in, it will be next to impossible to remove him from office.
Time is running out people.
Action must be taken NOW!!!!
If Berg were really interested in the truth, rather than promoting the idea of “Philip Berg”, he would have sued in the spring, when all these allegations were already all over the web, thus allowing orderly discovery and filing and hearing of motions all through the spring and summer. But Berg wanted teh timing to be such that he would maximize his chance to be on right-wing radio in the weeks before the election. So he waited. This is a guy who sues President Bush for causing 9/11. Etc. It would be funny if so many people did not pay attention to this tripe. Ah, what the heck. It’s still funny.
This proof from Kenya is devastating against OBAMA:
http://www.axjus.com
The judge did not rule that Obama should stay on the ballot; he ruled that Berg did not have standing to file the complaint, thus leaving the question still asked and unanswered.
Obama himself mentioned in passing having his birth certificate when on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father†he said, “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,â€
Why won’t he simply produce it (and all the other normally disclosed personal records that candidates (including Clinton and McCain) routinely release that Obama refuses to release) and put an end to all the speculation.
IMHO it’s a question so simple to answer that he must have something to hide. The longer he waits, the bigger the bomb when the truth finally comes out.
To my understanding no individual in this country will have the official certificate of live birth, that is something that is kept by the state or locality. By case law a birth certificate is a “legal certification to a record of live birth”. Enough so that a “birth certificate” as such is used by US citizens to obatin driver’s liscenses, Social Security Cards, Passports.. etc. If it qualifies one for the most sensitive documents attesting to American citizenship then it stands to reason that it should be able to used to determine orignal citizenship. I would like to add to this, even if this nutbag Phil Berg’s claims were true about Obama’s Kenyan birth, he was still born to an American citizen over the age of 14 years old, and as such is a deemed a “natural born citizen”. You folks need to lay off this horrible conspiracy garbage and accept the fact that Obama is a natural born citizen despite the fact that you may or may not agree with his politics.
The Federal Lawsuit didn’t settle the issue at all. Obama still has not produced his Birth Certificate.
The American People Demand Obama produce his Birth Certificate (Not a Certificate of Live Birth) to prove he was born in America.
I hope Berg will continue to get support.
His case has merit but no one seems to have standing to bring it to court so the court can rule on its merits.
We must somehow get the courts to hear the merits on this case before November 4, 2008.
The Hope for this country is at stake and Philip Berg is an American Hero.
If it is proven that Obama was in fact born in Kenya, he will be removed from office. First, he has to get elected because then the lawsuit is moot as to his eligibility for this election. Biden would then become President. But, the voters have not elected Obama. He should not be on the ballot if he is ineligible but that has not been proven yet. So, when and if it gets proven, the removal takes effect if elected or he gets barred from running in the future if he does not get elected. You would think the Hillary crowd would be investigating this with all their resources. And, why isn’t the McCain/Palin campaign making this an issue? What about the independent candidates, like Nadar, Bar, McKinley, etc not making this an issue?
2 more things to clarify, it can take weeks or months for a state or locality to sift through and track down a record of live birth from nearly 50 years ago, if they still even have a record of it (every state accepts birth certificates as legal certification of live birth).
2nd, you only have to be born to one American citizen abroad who is over the age of 14 years and has lived in the US for 5 years prior to the childs birth to be determined a natural born citizen. Obama is a natural born citizen.
Obama HAS PRODUCED his “birth certificate”,… Time, Newsweek and several other organizations were in posession of it, touched, investigated it authenticity. What in the hell do you want him to do,.. bring his birth certificate to your front door?
Further BEING BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY TO one AMERICAN CITIZEN makes that person a natural born citizen.
I may have mischaracterized what the judge says. With all these commenters so interested in this issue, I wish one would be able to help me obtain the decision.
Judge Surrick did NOT rule that Obama was born in Hawaii – your headline is misleading. The judge ruled that Berg lacked standing because Obama has not been elected President.
The biggest finding of this Judge was not that Berg had no standing but that his claims were “totally unreasonable” meaning totally inconsistent with legal and logical reasonong.
This ruling does not speak to the critical issue of Obama’s citizenship and Obama’s character in terms of how at various points in his life he may have represented it. As example of the character issue, what nationality did Obama himself claim in competing for college admission and scholoarships? Did he employ a flag of convenience to get more favorable treatment?
Obama supporters ought to be asking why Obama might want to suppress release documentation requested in the suit. A person without something to hide would release it. Given that the questions have arisen, it is reasonable to expect them answered. Doing so would require about an hour of an aides time as opposed to tens of thousands in legal expense to quash a lawsuit on procedural grounds.
Until release happens, I WILL NOT CONSIDER VOTING FOR OBAMA. I RECOMMEND OTHERS FOLLOW MY COURSE.
All we want Mr. ‘b’ is for Obama to present his birth certificate to the court. If Time, Newsweek, etc. had it in their hands, then why in the world wouldn’t Obama simply comply and produce it for everyone else to see? It is hard to believe that Obama or the DNC likes this controversy – So WHY has the birth certificate not been produced?
I know three people who can’t have personal knowledge of exactly where Sen. Obama was actually born. These are myself, U S District Judge Surrick and Sen. Obama! Beyond personal knowledge, one must rely upon the preponderance of credible evidence for such a determination. Remarks in the Memorandum on the decision challanges the judicial temperment of this jurist.
Obama has not produced his Birth Certificate probably because one does not exist. This is because he was born in Kenya. The only thing Obama has produced is Certification of Live Birth WHICH IS NOT a Birth Certificate. From my understanding, it’s possible for someone to get a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii without actually being born there. Even so, it has been determined that the Certifaction of Live Birth is a Forgey at best.
Berg might want to contact some House republicians to see if they will to file suit on behalf of Congress.
And if Obama was born in Kenya and his mother was a US citizen, she couldn’t pass the citizenship onto Obama based on the laws at the time of Obama’s birth.
Mr. Winger,
Before you edited this article, you should have gotten the issue right. The judge did not rule that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. You didn’t edit this story properly…as many on here have pointed out to you, Sir.
The judge ruled that Berg did not have standing. He said nothing of the birth certificate, and he didn’t say anything about that because the DNC and Obama himself did not ever produce the document to the court.
Bad reporting on this site…typical misrepresentation of the MSM
I would tend to agree with you Mr. Big B, that Obama should present his birth certificate to a court in a legal fashion but that is not what this loon, Phil Berg requested.
Mr. Berg requested that an “orignal vault” copy of Obama’s certificate of live birth be produced… None of us have the “original vault” copy of our certificate of live birth, those are kept on file with the states. Add to that none of us can request the original vault copy of the certificate of live birth from the state you can only recieve a copy or “birth certificate”, both of which certify the vault copy that the state has on file… Alot of us, myself included have the “birth certificate” not a copy of the certificate of live birth. I find it kind of wierd that Berg would request the original vault copy from Obama or Pennsylvania, why not from Hawaii where it is on file or request that a certified copy or a “birth certificate” be produced instead?
actually on the citizens born abroad:
On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.
http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
To all you commenters who are telling me I misinterpreted the decision, has any of you read the decision yet?
Why do you think Obama is visiting Hawaii now? For reason of medical privacy there are no true reports on the gravity Grandma’s condition other than what Obama says.
Phil Berg has not put the decision up on his own web page, nor does he respond to phone calls. The decision isn’t on Pacer yet.
I hope that Berg has a plan up his sleeve and come Monday morning, the beginning of the end will occure for Obama.
It would great to see Monday morning:
The Tape of Michelle Obama to the African Press Released.
The Tape of Obama’s Grandmother stating he was born in Kenya be released.
If these 2 items actually exist and are released Monday and Tuesday, Obama will be finished for sure.
Winning the White House on a technicality. He should be proud. After all, nothing else he’s said has been honest.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_secrecy/2008/10/22/143157.html
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: – 10/25/08 – Contact Info at end.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications†to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,†Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we†the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis†if this case is not resolved forthwith.
this is ridiculous. Obama’s mother never went to Kenya.
Also, let’s say, incorrectly of course, but just for sake of argume n, he was born in Kenya. do you think she could bring a baby back from a country like Kenya without a passport???
NO WAY! Obviously he was mulato. Could be anyone’s baby.
Obama’s birth announcement was in the Hawaiian newspaper.
You guys are really grasping at straws here.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/
Our great Chief Justice and the Supreme Court will not touch this case with a 10 foot pole, it is not a sound or reasonable case at all.
Anyone at all can post a birth announcement. So what. Berg will appeal this so no one get too excited just yet. If you want to back him up, check out this site below
rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis
no docket entry on PACER of this case’s order yet — or the EDPA homepage of recent opinions.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S.
Citizenship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S.
citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the
child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically
present in the United States for the time required by the law in
effect when the child was born.
And, will some reporter simply ask Barack Obama about this (from bouncingrealitychecks.blogspot.com):
“OBAMA’S REAL BIRTH LOCATION, AND HIS REAL FATHER: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
In light of the fact that the judge in the Philip Berg v. Obama and DNC case dismissed this case because of lack of standing on the part of Mr. Berg, ( http://www.americasright.com ), it is unfortunate indeed that citizens (until our Worthless Congress takes their heads out of their a**es and writes some laws protecting us from allowing this type of situation) have no recourse to prevent this situation we are about to enter, and simply must proceed to either a constitutional crisis or total destruction of the country by a marxist communist who is likely foreign born and not even basically qualified to be President. The judge might like to do more, but unless he “legislates from the bench†like liberal judges would (he is a Republican I understand), he has to rule on the basis of law — and I agree with his decision on that basis. As unfortunate as it is, the judge is likely correct in his ruling.
Here’s my take on the Obama citizenship situation. My view is a combination of both the Andy Martin theories and the Philip Berg theories. (See links in previous posts shown below.) It takes both into consideration and doesn’t ignore any of the possible scenarios. My theory:
Obama is a dead ringer for Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis is his father, and the “Anne†in Frank Marshall Davis’ sex/porn book IS Ann, Obama’s mother. There was an agreement between Frank Marshall Davis (as Andy Martin states) and Barack Obama, Sr. for Obama, Sr. to pose as Barack’s father. As the birth approached, Obama, Sr. wanted to move back to Kenya, and Ann agreed to go with him. She intended to come back to Hawaii before Barack’s birth and give birth to him in Hawaii. Unknowingly, she waited to long, and was too close to giving birth that the airline would not let her board a flight back to the U.S. She had no choice but to give birth to Barack in Kenya. She did, and within days after the birth flew back to Hawaii to get birth documentation. However, she was not able to get a full-fledged birth certificate since he was not born in Hawaii and only could obtain the Live Birth documentation. Additionally, Barack was not qualified to be a “natural-born citizen†as she was not yet 19 (the law at the time for children born to parents while overseas). Barack’s paternal grandmother claimed she was present for his birth in Kenya, and this is likely the case. The fraud was perpetuated until present, and she likely still does not know that Obama is not her blood grandson.
Obama, Sr. never really had a connection with Barack, Jr. as he was not his blood son, and didn’t really try to maintain any consistent relationship with him. However, the facade was continued by Ann and her parents. In Hawaii Barack became close to Frank Marshall Davis but Barack did not know until much later that Frank was Barack’s father. One reason why Barack may not want the public to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is likely because of Frank’s Communist admissions, and membership in the Communist Party USA (even though his stated father, Barack Obama, Sr., was also a marxist communist, but was not as related to the United States politically).
Another reason Barack may not want you to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is because of Davis’s graphic and infamous sex/porn book “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet),†(written under pseudonym “Bob Greeneâ€); Greenleaf Publishing Company (Evanston, IL), 1968. This would not reflect well on Barack, especially in light of the fact that Frank Marshall Davis had homosexual proclivities, and Barack has been connected to the scandal that involved deaths of 3 homosexual men in Rev. Wright’s Trinity church near the end of 2007, even though the news media has tried to cover up any link to Barack Obama in this situation. See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama_s_church_kill.”
Berg is appealing directly to the Supreme Court:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/45-press-release-berg-v-obama-dismissed-berg-appealing-to-u-s-supreme-court
Rally Congress around Philip Berg
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
Point of fact:
The judge did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii.
He ruled that the president is elected by congress, therefore qualification must be ruled by congress.
Rally Congress around Philip Berg
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: – 10/25/08 – Contact Info at end.
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It’s a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications†to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,†Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we†the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis†if this case is not resolved forthwith.
Rally Congress around Philip Berg
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
http://WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: – 10/25/08 – Contact Info at end.
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It’s a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications†to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,†Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we†the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis†if this case is not resolved forthwith.
BLOG AWAY MY FRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!
SPREAD FAR AND WIDE ACROSS AMERICA!!!!!
Please, just explain how a 20 year old Barak legally travelled to Pakistan? It was a banned country at the time just like Cuba is now. Explain why Barak needed to stop over in Indonesia on his way to Pakistan. Since everyone contends that he has obtained a US passport based on his US citizenship, how about a look at that passport to see about his Pakistan travels.
The truth is, he stopped in Indonesia to get his Indonesian passport updated. Since only Indonesians can hold an Indonesian passport, where is the documentation showing Barak’s oath of allegiance to regain his US citizenship? What, doesn’t have one? That means he is currently an illegal allien.
2nd point of fact:
Post 21 says his mother gave birth so he is a NDC. That’s not accurate. The prerequisite in 1961 was that the mother must have been a US citizen for ten years of which five must have been after the age of 14. She gave birth at 18. Therefore, she only had four years citizenship after the age of 14.
So many lies have been posted here, I don’t have time to rebut them all.
However, the “fact” that Obama is a natural-born citizen since his mother is a citizen is false. That was once the law, but as of Dec. 24, 1952, if you were NOT born on US soil, and only one parent was a US citizen, then the US citizen parent must have resided on US soil for 5 years after her 16th birthday. Obama’s mother did not come close to meeting the 5 year rule. The 1934 statute does not apply (nice try to mislead us though, “b”).
The idea that it takes “weeks or months” to get a “long form” birth certificate (the kind that names the hospital where the birth occured) is a joke. The state of Hawaii has a website you can order your BC from. The amount of time it takes to “sift through” the records is brief.
Furthermore, the idea (propagated by factcheck.org) that this is a charade because Sen. Obama met the State Dept. requirements for a passport is really false. Intentionally misleading. E.g.- Arnold Schwarzenegger can get a US passport, and a SS#, and a driver’s license. He cannot be president.
I just don’t get it. Why doesn’t Sen. Obama provide the BC to all the news outlets and be done with it?
Obama may not have a Birth Certificate which why he has refused to provide it. If he was born in Kenya, this would true. But, Obama did get a Certification of Live Birth WHICH IS NOT the same as a Birth Certificate. What everyone wants to see is Obama’s VAULT COPY Birth CErtificate and Obama refuses to provide it.
Does the whole birth certificat thing really matter if he is actually an Indonesian citizen and an illegal allien on US soil? He could have easily used the Hawaiian birth certificate to obtain a US passport without US passport authorities being aware of his actual status of being an Indonesian citizen. obamacom.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-lies-to-illinois-supreme-court-on.html clearly shows the school enrollment in Indonesia.
Why should we believe a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate are two different things?
Since it is the STATES doing the choosing of Art. II – 12th Amdt Prez/VP Electors, it is ANY of the States which should have *standing* regarding the enforcement of the Prez qualifications in Art. II.
See also Art. VII — the STATES giving the approval for the creation of the 1787 U.S.A. Constitution — and the resulting U.S.A. government and U.S.A. government officials – top to bottom.
The Supremes have totally screwed up the Principal-Agent concept regarding governments, government officials (top to bottom) and *standing* regarding constitutions and laws that require or prohibit some government or government official action or inaction.
The Principals are the People — especially the citizens-electors-voters in each State — with government officers (top to bottom) being the mere agents of the People SUBJECT to the Principals — i.e. the LAW.
Extreme case – a tyrant regime does NOT hold an election on the scheduled election day. Who has *standing* to complain. The tyrant regime obviously will NOT complain against itself in any court.
An enemy alien becomes a tyrant in control of a public office. Who has *standing* to complain ? The tyrant obviously will NOT complain to any court.
—-
*natural born* refers to tribal / middle age ideas about *at birth* ALLEGIANCE to a Nation-State regime — whereever one was physically born. See Blackstone’s Commentaries about the *subjects* of the British regime in the 1760s. See also 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Does so-called dual citizenship violate the Constitution ??? — see the parties in Art. III, Sec. 2 – U.S.A. – States – Foreign.
This mess may make Bush v. Gore in 2000 look like sandbox stuff in pre-school.
The qualifications for Electors and elected public officers are put in constitutions to NOT have party hacks mess with them in statutory machinations.
Typically a Certificate of Live Birth can be obtained through the state after the fact, i.e. delivering in the back of the taxi cab on the way to the hospital, or delivering in Kenya and then flying back to Hawaii. The Birth Certificate is hospital-generated documentation for a baby delivered in a hospital. Furthermore, the hospital of delivery will have patient(s) records regarding the delivery. Obviously, the hospital would not have patient(s) records if the delivery actually took place elsewhere. You can see where producing a Certificate of Live Birth does not establish where exactly the birth actually took place but rather where it was ultimately registered; and it certainly does not provide enough documentation in this case to establish qualification to be president.
FLOOD GRETA’S EMAIL!!!!!!
SHE NEEDS TO INTERVIEW PHILIP BERG NOW!!!!!!
ontherecord@foxnews.com
IT IS TIME FOR ALL GOOD AMERICANS TO COME TOGETHER AND PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!
EMAIL AWAY!!!!
“Certificate of live birth” in the US is not a birth certificate, it is the official record and property of the state, it is a state record. Further, it details all of the vital info regarding the birth. One can request a copy of the “certificate of live birth” from the state or a “birth certificate”, both of which are official birth documents verifying the vault copy of “the certificate of live birth”. Berg requested the original vault copy which is property of the state.
The judged ruled nothing except that Atty. Berg lacked standing – he could show no injury in fact.
Even if born abroad, there is no dispute regarding the fact that he was born to a US citizen parent (his mother). Under US law, this makes him a US citizen by birth – no naturalisation required.
Please read from the official dockets.–>Obama lost his U.S. citizenship and not COLB
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
BERG v. OBAMA et al
Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt [Tsue, Hawaii Department of Health] said “The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised.” He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for “all reasonable purposes.”
The silliness of this issue should be obvious to everyone: Obama was born an American citizen, regardless of where the birth occured. Obama’s mother was a US citizen in 1961. She could have hated the US, been in Cuba at the time of his birth working to bring nuclear weapons for use against the US, and son Barack would still be a citizen.
From http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
__________________________________________________
Title 8, 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).
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
__________________________________________________
The reason the MSM has ignored this story? IT’S BULLSIIIT!
Here is a link to the US State Department site that talks about how one can lose US citizenship
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
Acquiring dual nationality through a non-US parent does NOT cause you to lose US citizenship. Only a renunciation before a US consular officer does. If you think a 10 year old Barack Obama did that and had it accepted by a consular officer, PROVE IT.
Republicans F’ed up for thae last 8 years. The democratic system is now performing as designed; they are being turfed out and a new set of bums is being installed. Smart Republicans, instead of wasting time on nonsense, will focus on trying to have coherent policies in case the Dems F up in the next 4 years.
He did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii, only that U. S. citizens don’t have a right to require that is eligibility be verified!! Quit spinning the ruling.
Where is the network media on this issue. They want to know how much Sarah Palin’s dresses and make-up cost, but they don’t want to know if Obama is inelligable to be president. Sounds unbiased to me.
Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
THAT IS A CETIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH – NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! – Do some research.
Ah, another site where folks post without reading.
Abbie: Do some research yourself. It doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, or Kenya, or the Isles of Langerhans. He’s a natural-born citizen!
Mike: the MSM is where I said they are at the end of my posting. They know this to be a non-story!
I’LL REPEAT: Obama was born an American citizen, regardless of where the birth occured in 1961: Obama’s mother was a US citizen. She could have been in Cuba at the time of his birth, working to bring nuclear weapons for use against the US as she seethed in hatred of her country of origin – son Barack would still be a citizen.
__________________________________________________
From http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
__________________________________________________
Title 8, Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:â€
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).
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
Sue you are absolutely correct. He was born a citizen; unless he renounced it in front of a consular officer he remains one. Who says so? The US State Department
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
There is a not a shred of evidence that he ever renounced his citizenship; he was after all a child in Indonesia and it is doubtful he could have even had he had wanted to.
By the way, one reason the US makes it so difficult to renounce citizenship is that unlike most countries, the US taxes its citizens even if they never set foot inside the US. A number of very wealthy people have tried to renounce US citizenship and claim citizenship in tax havens. They have been denied.
So, now the Republicans, in their desperation and diversionary measures, are denying the validity/credibility of The Hawaii Department of Health in affirming its authenticity?
Taken from the link hyperlinked to my name:
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,†spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official “vault copy” birth certificate. Looks like this;
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
AND, The laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a “natural born” citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
It is simple HE WHO HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, HIDES NOTHING!! OBAMA = ??????
Adding to that, for those of you left wondering…
In the early 1980s, Pakistan was one of the destinations Americans were prohibited from visiting – it was on the State Department’s list of banned countries. Non-Muslims were not welcome, unless they were on official business, formalized through the embassy of the country of origin. The simple truth is that no young American would have a reason to or be able to visit Pakistan in 1981, unless he was on official government business of which the State Department was aware. Assuming the young Barack Obama was not on government business, he had no business in Pakistan
But because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama would have had to relinquish his U. S. Citizenship (assuming he was born in Hawaii and actually had it) to be a citizen of Indonesia and carry a passport from that country. If Obama never relinquished his Indonesian citizenship, he is not an American citizen – and thus ineligible to serve as its President. The issue could be clarified if Obama would release the appropriate documents, but he refuses to do so.
? You are WRONG!
The fact that the US Government discouraged visiting Pakistan in 1981 doesn’t mean that Pakistan would not let you in with a US passport. Americans are forbidden to visit Cuba by the US Government; yet, any American can go to Canada, get on a plane fly to Cuba and the Cubans will gladly let them in with their US passport. Thousands do so every year. The Cubans will even put the stamp on a detachable page so you will have no problem when you go back to the US. Then when you come back to the US you just say you went to Canada. End of story.
So you have no evidence that Obama ever had an Indonesian passport. But even if he did, unless he relinquished his US citizenship, he remains a US citizen. His relinquishment as a 10 year old would have had to have been accepted by a US consular official (extremely unlikely). If he did relinquish his citizenship and it was accepted the State Department would have a record of that. Where is such a record? End of story.
Am I alone in thinking that if certain people were working as election volunteers rather than constantly rehashing non-stories like this then their candidate MIGHT stand a better chance of becoming President. Talk about a prime example of a political faction disappearing up its own backside!
Judge ruled on the merits of the lawsuit, not on where Obama was born.
I don’t care who gets to be pretend president.
Lets get back to talking about Sarah Palin’s warddrobe now.
Let’s look at the requirements of citizenship from US Law when Obama was born – 1961. The more liberal laws, allowing parental requirements to be 2 years presence from age 14, apply only to persons born on or after 11/14/1986.
“In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. “Physical presence” was different from the concept of “residence” which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.”
If Barack was born in Kenya when mother was 18, she didn’t qualify to transmit citizenship to Barack. Period. This is not hyperbole, but the law at the time of Barack’s birth. No amount of “I’ll REPEAT” changes the law Sue (et al).
Barack Obama can put this to rest by producing a birth certificate. Some sources suggest that Barack was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii – doesn’t that Medical Center have records that could easily put this to rest? Barack could easily put it to rest, yet refuses to do so. Why?
SeattleBruce,
Thanks for your intelligent and insightful challenge.
Now, I’m asking for a link (not just quoted text of unknown origin) from you showing that the law at the time of Obama’s birth prevented the children of an 18 year old American citizen from being extended citizenship. It seems like a rather ill-conceived law, denying citizenship to the offspring of American adults overseas (e.g. military personnel, citizens studying abroad or on vacation).
Also, if such a law previously on the books was rescinded in 1986, wouldn’t such children who fell through the cracks before have been “grandfathered” in to citizenship?
From http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-birth.htm
Between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.
That would have required Barack’s mom to have been 21.
The truth eludes. . .
14th Amdt Sec. 1 defines who are citizens of the United States IF born WITHIN the U.S.A. — States, D.C., regular Territories. See the Insular cases for de facto U.S.A. colonies / possessions.
Is a child having a female U.S.A. citizen parent *subject to the jurisdiction of the United States* if the father is a FOREIGN subject/citizen ???
The Congress has ZERO power to define such citizens OR *natural born* — which is why CONSTITUTIONS exist — to NOT let party hacks define BASIC stuff by statutory machinations.
One of the reasons about such citizen definition sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1. was the major doubts about the attempt to define U.S.A. citizen in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — i.e. the political status of the ex-slaves after the 13th Amdt took effect in Dec. 1865.
See the U.K. regime with NO written constitution — result ALL *rights* are subject to total destruction at any time by the all powerful U.K. Parliament — i.e. a bunch of legislator – tyrants.
The Congress does of course have the power to define who can be become a *naturalized* citizen – Art. I, Sec. 8 by a *uniform* law — with the children of such naturalized citizens becoming natural born citizens – due to the ALLEGIANCE factor.
Obama at birth had ALLEGIANCE to what regime (whether he liked it or not — as with ALL new kids) ???
Supplement – there is also a *Law of Nations* aspect to this mess — regarding the ALLEGIANCE status of children born in foreign nations if ONE parent has NO allegiance or BOTH parents have NO allegiance to the foreign nation in which a kid is physically born — i.e. the so-called *dual citizenship* stuff.
Wake up the Supremes and their poor suffering clerks — about to be deluged with briefs on ALL aspects of this mess.
No, you anti-Obama people have got it all wrong. Since 1790 the US Naturalization policy has been dominated by the Roman legal idea of “jus sanguinisâ€, where natural citizenship can be transmitted to those born outside of the “soil” of the nation by being born to only ONE parent who is a citizen. This has been the overarching idea of US naturalization policy since the birth of our country and it has been expressed in nearly every naturalization policy development since.
Link from the above thread, if you all choose to read, explains our naturaliztion law sice the origin of our country.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Think about all the GI’s in WW2 and after that married foreign women and had children born abroad… either on and off bases… are all those children non-natural citizens, or just Obama because you all disagree with him?
I know many of y’all cannot stand the idea of an Obama Presidency but why don’t you try to argue about the issues, develop a counter philosophy that might be able to appeal to a majority of Americans and not just the 20 -30 % of fanatic conservatives, to challenge the Dems in ’10, and 12 instead of just making up your own versions of law and reality.
When the courts say your wrong, when the majority of “real” media says your wrong (Any nutjob can build a website and file a legal action), when a majority of your fellow citizens say that you are wrong does it not stand to reason that hey you few anti Obama people might be wrong?… or are the rest of us just delusional koolaid drinkers?
Plus do you really think that the Democrats would allow their party to be destroyed by nominanting a candidate that is ineligible? If these charges were credible don’t you think that someone during the primaries, or perhaps John McCain might try to exploit this (or once again are all of us crazy except the .001% of the nation that believes this crap) Don’t you think that a whole hell of alot of people over the last couple of years that are probably smarter than we are and definitely have more resources than we have investigated this? Don’t you all think that someone on FOX maybe would have picked up on this if it was at all credible?
The argument based on Obama’s current citizenship status isn’t likely to work. If Obama was natural-born but lost citizenship by becoming an Indonesian citizen, all he has to do is petition (the Democrat-dominated) Congress to grant him citizenship before Jan. 20. He will then be a natural born citizen at all times of his presidency. Or if the Court ruling comes down after Jan. 20, he can step down temporarily while Congress deliberates the issue, during which time Biden would be President. Neither scenario results in Obama not becoming President, unless somehow his petition for citizenship is denied.
In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court decides that a private citizen has standing to challenge an elected President’s qualifications, and the judiciary finds that Obama is disqualified, then Obama would have to step down and Biden would be President, as per Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. Unless, that is, it happens before the election.
If it happens before the election, and Obama’s eligibility is contested, then McCain’s eligibility is likely to be contested, too. The challenge to McCain’s eligibility is more likely to succeed (modulo the partisan chicanery of the Supreme Court), since there is no need to prove that he was born outside of U.S. limits but inside U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore not a citizen at birth either by act of Congress of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If both Obama and McCain are ruled ineligible, then the most straightforward remedy is to require the states to certify the electors of the remaining eligible candidate with the most electors, which could lead to a Ralph Nader or maybe Bob Barr presidency. This scenario is unlikely to the point of vanishingness, but is interesting to contemplate. Maybe I should write a political thriller.
b,
Great link. It states, regarding situations such as Obama’s:
7 FAM 1134.5-4 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. Under the second paragraph of section 205 NA, persons born out of wedlock to U.S. citizen mothers on or after January 13, 1941, acquired
U.S. citizenship at birth if their mothers previously had resided in the United States (see 7 FAM 1134.5-1).
No minimal age or residency. . .
There’s not much serious debate about this… Obama’s parents had a birth announcement printed in a local newspaper a few days after his birth. Also, certificates of live birth, rather than birth certificates, are common practice in Hawaii-acceptable for the purposes of getting a passport(source: Factcheck.org)
I want to encourage all Republicans to spend the next 8 years of the Obama administration fighting this and blocking all legislation that the American people want.
Sorry, folks, but jus sanguinis has no basis in law except through lex soli. Natural born is jus soli, and the 14th only had lex soli and jus soli as citizenship types, and one cannot be both. Go read some real law, whydontcha?
I pointed this all out 8 months ago regarding McCain, and some of the same laws apply here.
The 1790 act was repealed in 1802.
Citizenship by bloodline is only established through naturalization legislation.
“Natural-born” is not defined anywhere in the USC, and it cannot be without creating a legal and logical paradox.
As for some of the laws misquoted above, remove the spaces, then read the cited FACTS here:
http: //muddythoughts.blogspot. com/2008/02/ panmanchurian-candidate-mccain. html
Mr. Seebeck, first off unless you, myself or anyone else on this thread are a constitutional lawyers, then our opinions and understanding of these laws and legal ideas are amatuer, novice and overly simplified at best. Since I am not yet a constitutional lawyer and do not understand with total depth and clarity these legal ideas, I rely on sources like the State Dept and the US Govt to help inform my opinion. They seem to back up my opinion and discredit yours and others junk thinking on this subject. Further, I would venture to geuss that your research and thinking may be a bit biased by your objections to the Obama campaign and potential Presidency.
I would reccomend that you to read, with some philosphical context, these legal ideas of jus soli and jus sanguinis. The US like many nations, has a naturalization policy that is rooted in both jus soli and jus sanguinis,.. Lex & Jus soli are one of the avenues that one can become a natural born citizen, but not the only avenue, which is where jus sanguinis comes in. Think about how many people throughout our nations history that you would be disqualifying from being a natural born citizen because they were not born on our soil? GI’s, diplomats etc etc… there has to be an avenue for the children of American citizens abroad to transmit natural citizenship to there children that are born abroad. Do you qualify McCain as a natural born citizen since he was born in a private hospital in Panama?
Mr. Seebeck
Birthright citizenship in the United States of America follows from a hybrid rule of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Under the American system, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, [1] as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.
There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth. But children born to American fathers unmarried to the children’s non-American mothers are not considered natural-born citizens (or citizens at all) unless the father takes several actions:
1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
“Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
“(7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended.”
Stating basically, IF in fact Obama was born in Kenya, as many believe, his mother would had to have been 19 when he was born and we know that she was only 18. So….Obama would have, by law in 1961, then taken on his father’s Kenyan citizenship.
It is so simple Mr. Obama…..show us this document (link below) and the American people will leave you alone!!
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
Can’t say one way or the other if these allegations are true because for some unknown strange reasons that only Obama seems to understand….he won’t produce the needed documents! He won’t produce his Occidental and Harvard school records either? What is the big deal?? Obama = ??????
?
So you are saying that some unelected judge would have the power to overrule the votes of 70 million people because a teenaged mother was 18 instead of 19? That sound like judicial activism to me.
It’s all foolish because Obama has a US passport based on having proven US citizenship. Since there’s no basis other than birth by which he would have citizenship, unless you are holding his naturalization papers (I bet you aren’t), he’s natural born. The burden would be on someone (and it’s not clear who would have standing) to prove he is not. I don’t think the testimony af an elderly Kenyan woman remembering some event from 48 years ago would be sufficient, even if there were sworn testimony, which there isn’t.
I don’t mind your voting however you’d like, but I don’t see why you feel you have the right to deny that to 70 million others.
Hey “b”,
Cut the sarcastic crap. Had you bothered to read the link I provided, you would have found that the information is completely cited from government and legal citations and legal documents. In other words, I did my homework.
Obviously you didn’t.
And 95% of so-called “constitutional lawyers” can’t pass basic fundamental civics, either. That includes Barack Obama, who doesn’t understand what the ninth and tenth amendments truly mean (if he did, he wouldn’t be a progressive statist!).
Who would Obama be if he understood the Constitution? A neocon like Bush or McCain?
This is an idiotic requirement and should be abolished through the amendment process.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf
PDF order from court website
Mr. Seebeck
I was not being sarcastic, rather I was attempting to bring a bit a gravity to all these comments, we are all amatuers.
I am sure glad you hold that low of an opinion of lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers… do have that same opinion of our brilliant and reasonable Cheif Justice Roberts, who like Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law review and has serious grounding in constitutional law. Added to that do you really think that anywhere near 95% of Harvard Law grads could not pass a civics test? (If you do you are crazy and have no faith in our system)
The philosophical and legal underpinnings of our Constitution are not trivial matters to be interperted by a bunch of novices like ourselves, it takes many years of training and research in order to develop the intellectual tools necessary to come to true informed opinion on these matters, not just going to websites and cherry picking info like you, myself and probably everyone else on this thread has done. Maybe this idea is averse to you and your 20-30% of ultra conservatives in this country that detest lawyers and view the constitution and the law through your very limited cultural scope. I for one am confident and happy that y’alls view of our country, law and polcy is about to be roundly rejected by the American people on Nov. 4.
To CX Hall:
I suppose you’re also one who believes we should not worry about border control? If that’s the case, welcome President Jose Hernandez!
BTW, I could care less about border control… just making a point…
Per Abbie: “THAT IS A CETIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH – NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! – Do some research.”
Uh, may want to do some yourself, Abbie. “Certificate of Live Birth” is the legal title of the document, in all 50 states. It’s never called anything else. Call your local health department or state’s dept. of vital records if you don’t believe me. May want to get your “facts” right before you go being all righteously indignant next time; you come off as less of a fool that way. 🙂
Actually,”bill,” A certificate of live birth is not the same by any means… Want proof? Take your Certificate of live birth and try to get a passport, or a drivers license for that matter. When they turn your ignorant, democratic ass away- then you will see who the real fool is.
Proof I DID my research: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_certificate_of_live_birth_the_same_as_a_birth_certificate_in_Florida_A_friend_may_be_adopted
Try doing some reading yourself
The difference being simply put, “Certificate” and “Certification” Look up the words in Webster. a “Certificate of Live Birth” is issued at the Hospital at the time of Birth. It records all of the vital information from both mother and father, delivering doctor, nationalities of parents and more. It also often has a hand and footprint from the child for further identification. Mine does, does yours? Perhaps many of you have never actually seen your original “Vault Copy” I have mine. “Certification of Live Birth” is a post birth copy usually ordered as a replacement that only confirms that a person was legitimately born on a specific date and time. Usually to prove age and name authenticity. Most government agencies will accept it because the employees most often themselves don’t know the difference. Ask any identity theft expert how easy it is to duplicate, and they will almost invariably point to our illegal alien population as proof. The “Vault copy” will say “Certificate” and have all of the pertinent information like exactly what city and hospital the child was born as well as the doctors name who dilivered the child and his signature as well as witness names and signatures. The post birth (after the fact) official document will always say “Certification” and will not contain pertinent information such as the delivering Doctors name and signatures and witness names and signatures. (Redundant) It is for this reason the controversy survives as well as the Lawsuits. Provide the original and let all Americans Judge for themselves. If he has one he is not showing it. Which begs the question “Why”? If he actually was born in a hospital in Hawaii, why does he not prove it by releasing the document? I myself question the “Why”, not because I don’t like Obama, but because I believe in the Constitution Of the United States of America. The very document that we all take literally, and that brought us all into being who and what we are today.
We don’t have standing? What the justices fail to remember is that the “citizens†they are talking about are their bosses. We pay their salaries. If the boss asks their worker to make sure the customers they are serving meet the government laws (ex. old enough to buy beer) then that is what they need to do. If not they will be fired.
Fired is exactly what we need to do with these arrogant do nothings.
Has this country gone nuts, whats next the Supreme Courts decides that can overrule Wade vs Roe or anything else!! The Constitution is the Constitution Make Obama prove his is truly a US Citizen, Period!!! No loop holes, No Bullshit!!! I dont care who’s President No of them can do anything and none of them or the Congress do anything that is right for the US or its Citizens. The country should stand up FIRE all of them and start over.