The arguments made by people who believe that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” are sometimes very thoughtful and scholarly. For example, see Leo Donofrio’s blog, http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. Donofrio has discovered that President Chester Alan Arthur, who probably was born in Vermont, but whose father was not a U.S. citizen, went through the naturalization process. Apparently Arthur’s naturalization process was not known to the public during Arthur’s campaign for vice-president in 1880, nor during his presidency.
Nevertheless, the lawsuits trying to stop the electors from voting for Obama on December 15 lack merit. The U.S. Constitution gives the presidential electors full power to vote for anyone they wish, whether the people they vote for are eligible or not. And no one argues that any presidential elector chosen last month, in any state, is not eligible. The only restriction the U.S. Constitution places on electors is that they not vote for two residents (for president and for vice-president) who live in the state that the elector lives in. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution does not even require a presidential elector to take an oath to support the Constitution. Some states, however, do require such an oath.
The only constitutional remedy to prevent someone from taking the office of President or Vice President, is by Congressional action. Congress is charged with counting the electoral votes in January. Congress is free to reject an electoral vote if Congress believes that electoral vote was cast for someone who is not qualified. This precedent was set in 1873, when Congress refused to count the 3 electoral votes cast for Horace Greeley, who had died after the November 1872 election but before the electors met in December 1872.
Somewhat by analogy, Congress, not any court, has the authority to judge election returns for members of Congress, and to make up its own mind as to whether the election returns announced by state elections officials are accurate or not.
Some states openly place presidential candidates on the ballot even though those presidential candidates freely admit that they do not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president. Other states do not. This is illustrated by the fact that the Socialist Workers Party, which several times has nominated presidential candidates who do not meet the qualifications, has placed such candidates on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. Also, California accepted such a candidate as a declared write-in candidate. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link to Leo Donofrio’s webpage.
Mr. Winger,
I haven’t read your work before.
I have to admit I’m confused by your argument.
If the Constitution as amended states what should be required of a duly elected Pres., how is it not SCOTUS who acts as the ultimate arbiter of whether the requirement has been met?
Divison of powers. For example, if Congress declared Al Franken was duly elected to the U.S. Senate this year, not even the U.S. Supreme Court can interfere. The Constitution gives Congress some judicial-like powers.
Obama clearly stated on his website fightthesmears.com that his father’s British citizenship was passed on to him;
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
———–
Therefore Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen of the United States because he was born a “dual-citizen”. This is the basis of Leo Donofrio’s case from New Jersey which is now before the Supreme Court.
You can get the latest updates on Leo Donofrio’s blog;
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Electors may vote for any ELIGIBLE candidate.
The several lawsuits brought thus far to establish BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS and to restrain the Electoral College from voting in the meantime, argue different causes of action, by Plaintiffs not similarly situated. In other words, each case is different. However, no one has brought this case.
Plaintiff(s) (member of armed forces or National Guard about to be deployed into a war zone or, members of the soldier’s family) files a lawsuit alleging a civil rights violation as the cause of action, that violation being denial of the right to life and liberty without due process; on account of the fact, assuming BO is not eligible to be President, any law he issues is illegal; any order carried out is unlawful; and any killing based on those orders can be construed as murder under the Uniform Military Code of Justice, subjecting the soldier to imprisonment or execution. And, since the violation has not yet occurred but most certainly will if he is sworn in, the suit has to ask the court to Declare whether he is eligible, an action allowed under the federal Declarative Judgment Act; and, until that decision issues, to order the EC to refrain from voting on 12.15 or, if after 12.15, to order the House not to certify the EC vote.
And all of the research and documentation thus far on the internet and in other cases – the dead CA elector; the NJ S of S staffer admitting he just assumed the DNC vetted BO; the “Certification” of birth that BO claims is a “Birth Certificate” – can be used to argue he is ineligible!
This case might have a good chance to succeed not only in the lower federal court but also, if it gets there, in the SCOTUS, inasmuch as it would provide the Supremes with a legal hook to take the case on cert.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
The Constitution doesn’t say electors can only vote for an eligible candidate. Read Article II and the 12th amendment. The fact that the Constitution does dictate to the electors about residency, suggests that if the people who wrote the Constitution and the 12th amendment wanted further restrictions on whom the electors could vote for, they would have said so.
By analogy, there is no law that prevents an ordinary voter from voting for someone for Congress who is below age 25. Fortyfive states have write-in space on the November ballot for Congress, so in those 45 states, ordinary voters can vote for ineligible people for Congress.
I would think the point on which the Supremes could rule is the definition of “natural born citizen.” To me it’s clear enough — citizen from birth, without needing a legal naturalization process — but what do I know. Donofrio seems to think it means both parents have to be citizens, or at least that dual citizenship is not conferred on the child at birth.
I don’t see the basis in the Constitution for drawing that conclusion. Donofrio seems to pin it on the fact that the 14th amendment does not use the term “natural born citizen” in laying out the rules, and that “natural born citizen” is a separate category from citizens at birth.
But he seems to pull the prohibition on dual citizenship out of thin air. How on earth can a presidential candidate have divided loyalties when his dual citizenship expired at age 18?
Given that the Constitution defines two, and only two, classes of citizens for eligibility purposes, namely the “natural born” and the “natural-ized” (“citizens at the time of the Constitution”) there are, of course, two and only two permissible classes: Those that chose America later in life (the naturalized Americans and the Founders as a whole) and those who are citizens from birth, since it is clear that Obama, even if born in Kenya, has been an American citizen from birth, he’s clearly “natural born” and not natural-ized. It would be judicial or congressional activism of the most extreme and odious kind to invent a third class that is not itself part of the Constitution.
Besides, the 14th Amendment refers to peoples not subject “to the jurisdiction of the United States” which would include Native American tribees. Yet VP Charles Curtis in the Hoover administration was born in the Kansas territory to predominantly Native American parents, and tribes are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in full. This precedent, plus up to six Senators and Representatives who have served despite being too young under the express terms of the Constitution are proof enough that the sovereignty of the people who elected the folks to hold their power trumps any principle to the contrary, if any.
Anything to the contrary would, among other things, completely reject the position of Patrick Henry, because it applies the Constitution — designed to limit the powers of government and of laws — to the people, instead of to the government. As we all know, the Constitution doesn’t apply to the private sector, such as corporations. Both the ultimate principle of sovereignty, the proper construction of the constitution, and the historical precedent all say the Congress may not have a de facto second election that puts up for vote or reverses the choice of the electors.
Here are quotes from Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and during the ratification of the 12th Amendment, directed to the proposition that the Constitution is either trumped by popular soveriegnty, or must be narrowly construed against interpretations that purport to give Congress the power to second guess a presidential election on bases in addition to the failure of any candidate to get a majority or the death of a president-elect. It should not be forgotten that article II expressly prohibits Senators and Representatives from being electors, and even when the power “devolves” in the above narrow instances, the Senators and Representatives still do not vote individually, instead they vote on a one state/one vote basis. I see no support in the 20th amendment ratification history for a broad power for determining eligibility to be held by Congress, since the states determine “eligibility” in the usual course, and any exception to that rule would be a major modification of the constitutional scheme not advertised in the 20th amendment debates from anything I have seen:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” Patrick Henry
“The Constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no farther. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed …” Justice William Patterson
“The great check imposed upon Executive power was a popular mode of election; and the true object of jealousy, which ought to attract the attention of the people of every State, is any circumstance tending to diminish or destroy that check. It was also a primary intention of the Constitution to keep Executive power independent of Legislative; and although a provision was made for its election by the House of Representatives in a possible case, that possible case never was intended to be converted into the active rule, so as to destroy in a degree the line of separation and independency between the Executive and Legislative power.” –Senator Tracy, debate concerning ratification of Amendment XII to the United States Constitution
The Constitution was shredded beyond recognition over a hundred years ago.
The American Republic was taken out back like Ol’ Yello’ and shot in the head.
What we have is a zombie constitution that instead of asking for brains has taught all of its citizens to ask for MONEY.
It will take hard work, but we can stem the tide of Constitutional mangling – but it will require a radical paradigm shift made by strong and hearty Americans.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Divison of powers. For example, if Congress declared Al Franken was duly elected to the U.S. Senate this year, not even the U.S. Supreme Court can interfere. The Constitution gives Congress some judicial-like powers.
Your analysis / analogy here completely leaves out the issue we are facing: namely the Constitution spells out requirements pertaining solely to the Pres and VP. If the constitution spells out requirements for a Senator from MN, and Frankin did not meet them, once again the SCOTUS would have the superior authority over any other body to declare Frankin as ineligible based on Constitutional mandate.
The choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-â€natural born citizenâ€.
Mr Winger:
Your analysis may be indeed be true. But this is why we have checks and balances. Yes the people may indeed vote for whomever they may wish. However this does not mean they are right (including yourself). The reason is that may be some of these people in the other branches may not necessarily understand the arguement of “Natural Born” Citizen is (or are legal scholars. By-the-way are you a constitutional scholar? In other words, are you an attorney?). In ancient Greece as an example, BOTH THE PARENTS and THE CHILD had to be ALL born in the same city-state (polis). This is the same for BHO. By-the-way Obama was indeed born in the U.S. however his father was not. In other words, the buck stops with the Supreme Court. We are a country of laws not whatever people want at the time.
If your arguements are not true, why wouldn’t the Governor of California be able to be President of the United States? Because he and his parents were born in a foreign country.
In regards to this blog, article, in order to qualify a parties candidate, defined such as the Democratic Party, to place a candidate on the ballot in states, such as California, they must follow these rules to put their candidate on the ballot:
A political organization shall be qualified as soon as it:
(a) Files proof of organization with the Secretary of State;
(b) Meets to name a candidate to the general election ballot; and
(c) Certifies a candidate to the general election ballot.
Now from the Democratic Party on what it takes to be certified to be a candidate:
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
February 5, 2008
Presidential Primary Election
I. QUALIFICATIONS
The candidate must be:
A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
B. At least 35 years of age, and
C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)
II. REQUIREMENTS
There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a
presidential candidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary Election:
• by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
• by circulating nomination petitions.
That shoots that article out of the water. The States have rules in order to put candidates on each states ballots and at least in California, each party must have a certified candidate. That means that once again:
A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
B. At least 35 years of age, and
C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)
Notice the Democratic party says also that their candidate must also be:
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
I think they didn’t read their own rules of what it takes to certify a candidate.
LOTS of confusion about the expressed in all of the foregoing. Congress has the final power to determine election to the presidency, but that is not the same thing as determining qualification to hold office. The sole and exclusive remedy in the law to test qualification to hold office under the common law is traditionally Quo Warranto. I do not know whether that writ has been abolished under federal law, but if it has, its purpose can be served by an action for declaratory judgment. Under the common law, only an official charged with enforcement of the law for the whole people has standing to bring the action, in this case, it would be the Attorney General of the United States. At common law, only the crown had standing to bring the action. While Congress is the judge of qualifications of its own members under the Constitution, it is not given that power with respect to executive officers.
Hi Richard,
Are you are suggesting that only those Electors whose state requires that they take an oath to uphold the constitution are bound by the Constitution?
So you are saying that the rest of them are not constrained by the Constitution?
Or are you saying that none of the Electors are restrained by the Constitution and they can disregard the eligibility provisions of the Constitution?
Because the Consultation is the supreme law of land, every citizen must adhere to it. Electors are also citizens. You may be right that the Constitution does not say explicitly that the Electors must respect the Constitution. However it is obvious that they must, because they are also citizens.
Looking forward to your comment.
The Constitution states that the electors have to CERTIFY to congress that a President Elect is eligible. The question is how do they do that? What proof are they presenting that he’s qualified? Are they open to legal action? Now in California Alan Keyes has Named all 55 electors in his suit. It’s tentatively scheduled to go to court on Dec 11th. He is demanding that they hold off the nomination until it’s proven that Obama is qualified to be president.
if Obama was not born here he should not be president
Richard,
Even if what you’re saying is correct, couldn’t the state courts enjoin their electors from voting for Obama?
Hello Voco (#15). The Constitution constrains what government can and can’t do. The Constitution isn’t something that tells ordinary people what they can or can’t do. The Electoral College is not a governmental body; it is a group of citizens who are granted special powers, somewhat like juries.
Hello Bill (#10). Article One says only Congress can judge whether its members meet the Constitutional qualifications. Section 5 says, “Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and Qualifications of its own members.” So the U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to say about qualifications for congress.
“In ancient Greece as an example, BOTH THE PARENTS and THE CHILD had to be ALL born in the same city-state (polis). This is the same for BHO.”
Uh, what? Since when do we follow the citizenship laws of ancient Greece? Obama was born in Hawaii, so he’s a citizen by birth. Period.
Sorry, you’re wrong. They can only vote for ELIGIBLE candidates. Doing anything that violates the Constitution is a crime.
It’s irrelevant if there is anything directly saying who an elector can vote for. The bottom line is what the Constitution says and if the SCOTUS rules that Obama taking office would be a violation of the Constitution then any elector voting for him is also violating the Constitution.
“Hello Voco (#15). The Constitution constrains what government can and can’t do. The Constitution isn’t something that tells ordinary people what they can or can’t do.”
Are you insane? It’s the foundation for all of the lands laws. There isn’t 2 separate Constitutions. You are extremely uninformed, sir.
He’s not eligible and he knows it which is why he’ doing the whole smoke and mirrors thing with the Birth Certificate. I for one am glad this issue is before the court, because then they at least will tell us where it needs to go & what needs to happen with it. They are sworn to protect the Constitution…let’s all pray to God they do it no matter the cost, because a president who is above the law is BAD for everybody.
This is legal masturbation. Obama was a born a citizen. He won the election with more votes than any candidate in history and with the second highest percentage of the population casting a vote for him. The electors will vote for him, Congress will count the votes and Roberts will swear him in at Noon on Jan 20th.
If the Supreme Court grants cert on one of these cases they’ll only be wasting everyone’s time. If they were to go further and rule against Obama they would have their decision ignored (they cannot enforce it) and probably face impeachment themselves.
On top of all this, the technicality people are jumping on is a crazy one. Obama’s mom was a US citizen, why should it matter where she was located physically when she gave birth? Oh, hold on it isn’t about where she gives birth, technically, it’s about where he was born. He was probably born in the air-space 4 feet off the floor a Hawaii hospital…cleary he can’t be President.
Obama also had Vince Foster killed I heard…
The founders stated very simply, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Article II – Section I establishes who is eligiable to run for President of the United States, “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.”
Remember when these crazies were claiming Obama was lying about his sick grandmother and the REAL reason he went back to Hawaii was because he needed to do something dastardly (only befitting a non-native-born citizen) to stop some nut from filing a silly case?
I wish Barack Obama would address this issue. So I commend all the people who have filed lawsuits. I appreciate these lawsuits.
The government, or a judge, can no more tell a presidential elector whom to vote for, than a judge can tell a member of a jury whether to acquit or convict. A judge can reverse a jury conviction afterwards, but that’s not the same thing as telling a member of a jury how to vote. Anybody remember the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement? And the Peter Zenger trial?
Congress has always counted the votes of “faithless” presidential electors, and in a majority of presidential elections since World War II, there have been faithless electors. One in Minnesota in 2004 voted for John Edwards for president. One in D.C. in 2000 voted a blank ballot.
Who needs the SCOTUS or a Constitution ?
We have Richard to tell us coolaid drinkers what to do.
Now just one ? Richard, who put you in charge?
LMAO
I’m getting tired of these people like the guy in comment #26 who just say “He got elected and that’s all that matters.” Just because 69 million people were conned doesn’t make it legal or okay. 59 Million didn’t vote for him and the rest just didn’t give a damn. Now Obama is not president until he’s sworn in. Right now he’s not even a senator. He’s just an average Joe the Citizen (maybe). If the SCOTUS finds cause, I assume they can have him arrested for election fraud. I know that won’t happen but it would be fun to watch.
Up above, re for example Congress declaring Franken to have been elected regardless: Franken was running for Congress, so they can control their own affairs to a great extent. But the POTUS? Maybe SCOTUS should decide? However, I don’t think Congress could get away with installing the clear loser in a Congressional election since we could present SCOTUS with the argument, that implied (9th or 14th Ammendment) rights had been taken from the voters by Congress so doing.
As for Obama: Is there any evidence his mother was in Kenya at the time? How did that story get started anyway?
BTW also, can “common law” really be used to make points about this, not just “constitutional law”? Common law is a customary standard, but I don’t see that it could be applied as binding to these kind of issues.
I bet ya thousands if not millions of Obama voters are wishing they could have thier vote back!
All of them where lied to and the MSM should all be charged with treason!
The law is clear, to be a Senator you had to be a US citizen, to be POTUS or VP you have to be Natural born. The Founding Fathers did not write those requirments in there differently just for the heck of it
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he can legally hold a senate or house seat but since his father was not a US citizen, he does not qualify for POTUS!
Go back read the consitution again and see if what I am saying here is not true!
OK folks, Team Obama and its allied MSM have finally responded to Leo Donofrio’s Supreme Court position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” — proceeding from phase 1 (ignore) to phase 2 (ridicule) now to phase 3 (respond with legal points) … on the way to phase 4 (acceptance).
Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews — http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Barack-Obama-Natural-Bo-by-Hargrove-081207-817.html — in a nutshell is as follows:
The Framers elected not to define “natural born citizen,” except by exempting themselves, which self exemption “could be due the fact that they were not born in the United States without regard to whether or not they had been subject to British jurisdiction,” and the Framers’ lack of concern about dual citizenship or loyalties is shown by their only requiring Presidents to have been residents in the United States for 14 years — meaning an eligible candidate born in the United States still could have resided under the jurisdiction of another country for 21 years or more; and even if the Framers WERE concerned about split loyalties, those were intended to be addressed on a “case by case basis” — and it would not be reasonable to conclude that Obama would have British loyalty since the British Citizenship conferred on him at birth was only “due to his biological relationship to an estranged and unfamiliar father.”
Team Obama concludes that the Framer’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as “Citizen” meaning all that is required is birth in the United States, even if neither parent is an American Citizen.
I’d say, if that’s all they got, Leo’s case is a slam dunk!
Howard:
You Dems have all the answers right. Whatever is the flavor of the day. Well Howard, have you actually seen any of BHO records? It is in balck and white at Factcheck.org that his father is a British citizen. If you have (BHO birth certificate etc.) and know what is on them, why don’t share it with rest of the world. At least McCain showed his because he was forced too. Colero (I think that’s how you spell it, the Socialist is from Nicargua) Funny we are expected to trust what this guy (BHO) says. Good for you. I do not. Don’t give the arguement that winning side being disinfranchised either. What about the the other 250 million people who did not vote for him or did not vote at all? They may be fine for you, but last time I checked the guy who wins does not get to write the rules. We are a nation of laws. SO what if SCOTUS finds for Donofrio? What will he do then? Probably do nothing and defy the courts. So what else is new? By the way did you read about another President that lied? Chester Arthur did as well. Otherwise provide the proof. See the following link:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
I WONDER HOW BARRY SOTORO IS FEELING RIGHT NOW? AND DOES THIS BOTHER HIM AT ALL? DOES HE HAVE THE MIND SET THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SHEEP AND ARE WEARING BLINDERS ON THE WAY TO SLAUGHTER? YOU KNOW HE IS DEEP INTO THIS MATTER AND HAS PROBABLY BEEN TOLD THE OUTCOME IN ADVANCE BY THE ELITE IN WASHINGTON WHO KNOW EXACTLY WHICH WAY THIS WILL END DUE TO THE CORRUPT POWER OF THE ELITE. BUT WE DO HAVE THE AUDACITY OF HOPE TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN OF THE ELITE.
Hey Howard:
More bad news for you see this link below:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S2951&dbname=2008_record
In Congressional hearings Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff explains what and how he defines “A Natural Born Citizen.” What I find most humorous Howard, is Patrick Leahy Doemocrat agrees with Cherthoff. I guess you have some inside info.
Wow, this whole issue is really a good gauge of how much racism there still is in the US.
Richard Winger is the one with the clearheaded analysis. The rest of this stuff is just whining neocons and racists.
You people saying he is ineligible are stupid. End of story. IF you would take the time to read every relevant section of the constitution you would understand he is eligible. He was born in the united states of american to an american citizen and a british subject, Britain’s laws about citizenship do not apply, in the state of Hawaii and every american state the united states constitution is the supreme law of the land. And in that law it clearly states ANYONE born in the USA is a natural-born citizen. Thatis the definition of a natural born citizen, being born in the USA, wether you have 0 or 1 or 2 citizen parents. That is why the children of illegal immigrants south of the border who are born here become citizens at birth. Obama will be precident in a little over a months time. This silly thing you’re trying to send to the supreme court will be laughed right out of court. You people are delusional.
“U.S. Constitution” at #3 neglects to paste the rest of the factcheck.org information:
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Therefore Obama = a U.S. citizen.
Convenient cutting and pasting “U.S.”
Some points:
1) Most people think the Constitution is pretty clear, and that “natural born” means the same as “citizen at birth”. However, if there is any lack of clarity, the power to interpret the meaning of the phrase lies first with Congress, which could clarify either with legislation, or by the exercise of its powers to choose the President as specified by the 12th and 20th Amendments. The 20th Amendment clearly contemplates the possibility that a President-elect may not be qualified.
2) The only time a case would be “ripe” for presentation in the Supreme Court would be after Congress had acted in January. If the Supreme Court ever did rule on the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” in that context, it would apply the rational basis test – meaning it would defer to Congress if there was a rational reason to be advanced in support of its determination. The Supreme Court would also likely apply the “plain meaning” standard interpretation, meaning that words and phrases are construed based upon their ordinary meaning in plain English.
In other words, the starting point for the Supreme Court would be to (a) assume that Congress had gotten things right, and (b) assume that if the Framers of the US Constitution had meant to say that the parents of the President needed to be US Citizens, they would have said so.
So right there: even if this case could ever end up in the US Supreme Court, it would lose. The only way to turn it into a potentially winning case would be to FIRST get Congress on their side. That is, if, after proper objection and debate, Congress were to refuse to seat Obama and instead designate Joe Biden as President, OBAMA would probably have grounds to bring an action in the Supreme Court, since he certainly would have standing.
Make any mention of the words “Donofrio” and “wrong” on the internet and you shall have the plague of a thousand Donofriobots descend upon your comments section.
Yes, they’re REALLY that bored.
No, they have no life.
@Deran, love the little “RACISTS!” comment. Nice assumption. Do you go around and scream ‘racism’ for every issue that you don’t agree with or is inconvenient for you?
@Peter & Jim, no one is saying that he isn’t a citizen!
What they are saying is that BHO isn’t a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a US citizen and has acknowledged British/Kenyan Dual-Citizenship from birth. And Jim even if his Kenyan citizenship did expire in ’82 he would still have problems as “divided loyalties” come into play. Which is just why the Framer’s went into so much detail on this subject as it actively reduces foreign influence within the Presidency.
Another point, on the issue of “qualifications”.
As clearly explained in the article above, it is up to each state to set its own rules for ballot qualification. However, if a state has a requirement for a candidate to show that he/she is qualified under the Constitution, it is likely that would be met simply by the candidate’s affidavit — that is, the candidate’s statement and signature would be enough for those purposes. (After all, its good enough for voters to register).
So Obama is under no legal obligation to produce a birth certificate — the burden would be on those who contest his statement to prove otherwise.
However, Obama HAS in fact produced a birth certificate, which he has allowed to be examined by outside organizations such as Annenberg Political Fact Check. Contrary to the claims of Obama’s detractors, the short form birth certificate he has produced does contain all requirements to be accepted by any government agency.
As FactCheck.org noted, 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 certificate that Obama produced is properly certified and shows that he was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961.
So if someone were to succeed in getting the matter before some court, and ordering Obama to produce the birth certificate that has already been posted online– that would be enough to satisfy any court. The courts would not order Obama to produce some “vault copy” because, by law, and by established rules of evidence — the document he has produced is prima facie evidence of the facts it represents.
“Prima facie” means that the only way to overcome the presumption that the facts it documents are true is with ACTUAL EVIDENCE to the contrary. Speculation is not evidence — someone would have to come in with documentation proving that Stanley Ann Dunham was in Kenya on August 4, 1961, or documentation that Barack Obama was born somewhere in Kenya, and that has not been done — nor can it be done, because it simply is a false assertion. (The people who claim that Obama was born in Mombassa and that Obama’s step-grandmother was present have obviously never looked at a map).
All of these claims are based on the false belief that Obama must “prove” something when in fact the burden to challenge his qualifications lies with the people who are disputing them.
George Romney, after serving as Governor of Michigan, also ran for President. He was a candidate for President in 1968, ultimately losing the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/george-w-romneymney.html
It is notable that while Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for office. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and changed the status of such children born to US Citizens abroad to that of citizen. Therefore, Romney, if challenged, would likely have been ruled ineligible for the office of President.
Why can’t BHO’s ancestry be tracked as this was?
Re post #43: There is NO mention whatsoever in the Constitution of “dual citizenship” or “divided loyalties”.
Many of those posting here do not seem to get the point that they are addressing their arguments to the wrong venue: it’s not the Supreme Court. It’s the Congress to whom you should be directing your concerns.
Some of may regard the Congress as too corrupted to redress your grievances. You may well be right. So why not wake up and demand a more responsive House of Representatives? How can you get that? Demand that the size of the US House be increased by a factor of four to ten or even one member per 50,000 population.
If you don’t like the federalist aristocracy picking the President, then your have take back the government and the most direct and peaceful way to do that is to enlarge the House, the most potentially powerful body of the government, to serve your interests.
Enlarging the size the of the House means not only more Representatives but the broadest diversity of candidates for you to fill those seats – open ballot access. Most people remain woefully ignorant of how the federalist aristocratic parties nave conspired together to make elections a democratic sham.
Perhaps, a protest will be raised in the Congress to investigate Mr. Obama’s eligibility, but I expect it will be arrogantly brushed aside because they expect the ignorant public to swallow and submit.
If any Democratic Elector has a reservation about Mr. Obama’s eligibility, they can vote for another Democrat who has no eligibility issues as a backup candidate. The federalist aristocrats have conspired from the earliest days of the Republic to nulify all popular sovereignty. The Obama episode is just a demonstration of their arrogant grip on your life, liberty and property.
In short, Mr. Obama’s eligibility is a legitimate issue for concern and those who were intended to represent your concerns feel themselves immune to you questions.
When was the last time you voted for an incumbent? If so, that was your first and last mistake. You have until after the 2010 Census to impose reform on the Congress by defeating every incumbent who votes against enlarging the size of the US House for the 2012 elections. Thereafter, you probably needn’t vote at all – they won’t don’t need your approval – your will governed by decree.
Richard –
Thanks for the very cogent legal analysis. I suspect that you are right. I’m surprised the Court took this even as far as it did – it seems very clearly in the range of political questions that the Court tries to avoid. Really, if it rules before Jan. 20, what’s the result? Bush stays in office? Biden takes over? It goes to the House to determine who is President? What if they pick Obama? There is no legitimate resolution to this question, as far as the Court is concerned. As long as the electors vote for him, Congress accepts the electoral votes and certifies them, then Obama will in fact be President. The Court is not going to overrule the votes of 69 million Americans after a 2-year presidential election without actual video of Obama being born to two non-citizens, in some other country. Barring that, he will be 43rd President and Thomas was either being careful and giving the Court a chance to hear some related issue that he cares about – or he was just trying to throw some heat to the new President who obviously has very little respect for Thomas.
There are, in fact, constitutional questions that the Court either can’t hear or as a rule won’t hear because they can’t offer a real remedy or they don’t want to risk their legitimacy by intervening in a clearly political process.
Either way, we’re all wasting our time. I can’t believe I got sucked into this, and probably wouldn’t have, except Richard is pretty clearly right about the constitutional analysis of this question.
Ed, the matter is not being considered by any court.
Anyone can FILE a petition or lawsuit to any court – that someone has filed it doesn’t mean the court will consider it.
The Supreme Court allows litigants to file a request for a stay to any Justice; if the Justice denies the stay, the litigant can come back and ask a different Justice. The normal practice of the Supreme Court with a 2nd application is for the 2nd Justice to refer it to the whole court, for the clerk then to assign a conference date and distribute the application to all Justices. They do that to avoid having vexatious litigants repeatedly submit the same petition to each of the 9 Justices separately.
In fact, the Supreme Court rules (Rule 22.4) specifically require that when a litigant makes a 2nd application, that they include 10 copies of their request — that is specifically so there will be enough extras to distribute to all 9 justices. (The first application, to 1 Justice, only requires 2 copies).
This is explained in a document called “A Reporter’s Guide to Applications” that the Supreme Court puts out to explain to the media how things work — see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf at page 4 — so any journalist who actually bothered to read this would know the court was simply following the normal procedures.
I doubt the Justices even look at it. Their law clerks are probably assigned to read these things and flag any case that they think is important — but Donofrio’s petition doesn’t even set forth a basis for Supreme Court jurisdiction. Richard’s article explains some of the reason why — but there are easily about a dozen other reasons why Donofrio’s application would have to be dismissed.
So basically you can expect to see this petition summarily dismissed on Monday.
I’m sure that most judges and court clerks would prefer if they could just take garbage law suits filed by crackpots and toss them into the trash without going through the pesky procedures, but they can’t.
In any case the 20th Amendment makes it clear that if for any reason Congress deemed Obama to be unqualified, then Biden would become President. Basically if no one in Congress objects, there is no issue; or, to put it another way, it’s Congress’ job to decide what “natural born Citizen” means and whether Barack Obama meets the standard.
Thanks Bradley Gee!
Regarding Presidential qualifications, any lawsuits need to have standing and as far as I know only one does. If the court even considers the below then Obama is sunk. He can’t prove he is a US citizen, or he is natural born (which I believe means born in the US).
BELOW IS THE BOTTOM LINE. READ IT.
Article II – Section I establishes who is eligiable to run for President of the United States, “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.â€
The thing about sore, bitter losers is that they are still, ultimately, losers. The election was between a war hero with decades of public service vs. a young black guy with the middle name Hussein. And the war hero lost, courtesy of 8 years of Republican mismanagement and delusion, and his choice of one of the most funnily pathetic vice presidential candidates in history. Palin is the only VP *candidate* in recent history to have higher negative ratings than positive (even Dick Cheney had a net positive rating, until after he assumed the co-Presidency).
All the conspiracy theorists forget that regardless of where Obama was born, because his mom was a U.S. citizen, he’s a U.S. citizen. Being a DUAL-citizen doesn’t make you “not a citizen.” Actually, it makes you a citizen of “two countries,” one of which is America.
These lawsuits can be explained by the following fact: the Republican party does its worst in well-educated states.
(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
08A348
DOMANTAY, MARGARITO I. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
The application for stay addressed to Justice Kennedy and
referred to the Court is denied.
08A407
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
referred to the Court is denied.
So if the Constitution imposes eligibility restrictions on the Presidency, but the Electoral College is not bound by such restrictions, what happens if a majority of Electors vote for a constitutionally ineligible candidate for President?
Ryan (and anybody else who has a problem with richard’s statement that the Constitution doesn’t apply to citizens) should try a little exercise:
1. read the Constitution
2. find everything that it says citizens are NOT allowed to do
i can save you some time: it doesn’t mention things citizens aren’t allowed to do. that’s because it isn’t a set of rules for citizens (as is pretty obvious from the fact that all it talks about is the rules for our government), but instead the supreme set of rules for OUR GOVERNMENT.
reading: try it sometime.
The hypocracy of the so-called conservatives (actually right-wing reactionaries) is rich. They rail against “activist judges who legislate from the bench” then go running to the Supreme Court to overturn the popular will whenever the people or their elected representatives do something they don’t like (i.e.; Bush v. Gore in 2000). Elections are in the domain of the people and their elected representatives-Congress, state legislatures and the Electoral College.
I will be curious to see if any of these same people come forward if the Republicans nominate Bobby Jindal in 2012. Although born in Louisiana, he is the child of 2 Indian citizens and was unquestionably a US/Indian dual citizen at birth. Since he supports most of the right-wing agenda, I suspect these same folks moaning about Obama will be silent in his case.
“So if the Constitution imposes eligibility restrictions on the Presidency, but the Electoral College is not bound by such restrictions, what happens if a majority of Electors vote for a constitutionally ineligible candidate for President?”
It is up to Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, to ratify or not ratify the Electoral College’s votes. This is normally their first order of business when they convene in January. Challeneges must be in writing and signed by one Representative and one Senator. You may recall that in 2000 one House member-I believe it was Maxine Waters from California-signed a challenge of the Florida results. Sen Boxer considered joining in, but ultimately decided not to, since the Republicans controlled the House and the challenge would have gone nowhere. Had the Democrats controlled the House, the challenge probably would have gone forward and Gore might well have become President despite the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore.
Here’s what the 20th Amendment provides:
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
It’s pretty clear that the Constitution is giving Congress the power to determine qualifications.
The only way I see the Supreme Court getting involved would be if Congress determined the President-elect to be unqualified — it seems to me then the President-elect would have standing to seek a court determination, since he could then argue that Congress was depriving him of his right to take office under an unconstitutional standard. But short of that… I’d think that Congress’ determination is the last word.
Roger Calero who received more than 7000 votes for presidenet this year, under the Socialist Workers Party, was actually born in Nicaragua !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero
Greg – being fair, the Constitution does restrict citizens under the age of 18 from voting. There was also a time when it restricted citizens from buying alcohol.
But I agree with your larger point.
Question – are electors bound by the 22nd Amendment? That would be another limitation on citizens — the right to vote for the same person again.
“The hypocracy of the so-called conservatives (actually right-wing reactionaries) is rich. They rail against “activist judges who legislate from the bench†then go running to the Supreme Court to overturn the popular will…”
Oh no…not you again. I have to admit, you are a very intelligent liberal who has thoughtfully considered the issues. Unfortunately, you use your keen intellect to blow smoke rather than clear the air. If you were honest, you’d stop spinning this “overturn the popular will” mantra and get to the real point.
The plaintiffs in these cases have gone to the Supreme Court not to “overturn” anything but to uphold (in their view, of course) the Constitution. You have every right to disagree with their views, but to mischaracterize their actions is blatantly dishonest on your part.
“Elections are in the domain of the people and their elected representatives-Congress, state legislatures and the Electoral College.”
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, wait a second…..you’re not a Justice, are you?
These cases are not about the election itself; they’re about who exactly qualifies candidates to be put on the ballot and what should be done if they aren’t doing their job.
“I will be curious to see if any of these same people come forward if the Republicans nominate Bobby Jindal in 2012. Although born in Louisiana, he is the child of 2 Indian citizens and was unquestionably a US/Indian dual citizen at birth.”
This is the best (and most legitimate) point you’ve made here. I’m curious as well.
“Since he supports most of the right-wing agenda, I suspect these same folks moaning about Obama will be silent in his case.”
You could be right about that one.
Jury: You are a comedian, but a bad one. You try to mock my opinions and claim superior knowledge, but in the end, I was right as to what the court would do, even though I may not be a Justice (are you?). Of course we can only speculate as to their reasons, but here are at least 3 good ones:
1. The case had no merit. I fail to see how anything in the words “natural-born citizen of the Unbited States” precludes holding other nationalities. The US-born child of a French man and Canadian woman is a natural-born citizen of the US, France and Canada and is eligible to be President of the US, President of France and Prime Minister of Canada (though holding all 3 at once might present practical difficulties!). If conservatives believe anything, surely they believe that if the intent had been to exclude dual nationals the Coinstitution would say something like “natural-born citizen of the United States and of no other country”. But it does not. So Donofrio’s case lacks merit.
2. The power to determine the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” rests with Congress. You can mock all you’d like, but this is the case. The Supreme Court is equal with Congress, not above it. They have never taken it upon themselves to tell Congress how to run its affairs. If they did so, even by a 9-0 vote, they would be wrong. They have intervened in disputes between Congress and the Executive, but that is not the case here.
3. Popular sovreignity-The Consatitution is a piece of paper-an important one, to be sure, but ultimately a piece of paper. Without the consent of the governed, even the best-constructed Constitutional republic cannot stand. The Constitution must protect the fundamental human rights of unpopular minorities against being trampled on by the majority, but should not be used to overturn elections.
Let’s be clear, Obama is fully eligible to be President, as much as any of his 43 predecessors. All arguments to the contrary are unadulterated malarkey. But even if you had a candidate elected who was clearly ineligible, I question whether the judicial branch would be the proper ones to deal with it.
Responding to comment # 51
Re:
“BELOW IS THE BOTTOM LINE. READ IT.
“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;”
What I see is “natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States”
NOTE THE WORD “OR”
******************
Also I have seen this block quote twice in this thread and both spell “eligible” thusly: “eligiable”
Was “eligiable” the correct spelling back then, or is this block quote from Berg or Donofrio’s website and possibly altered from the original?
“Jury: You are a comedian, but a bad one.”
All in YOUR opinion, of course…
“You try to mock my opinions…
Not at all. A little defensive, are we?
“…and claim superior knowledge…”
Wrong again. I’ve never claimed to be superior to anybody.
“…but in the end, I was right as to what the court would do…”
Well, we all had a 50/50 chance of correctly guessing what the Court would do.
“…even though I may not be a Justice (are you?).”
No. I also refuse to speak authoritatively about Court decisions.
“Of course we can only speculate as to their reasons, but here are at least 3 good ones:
“1. The case had no merit. I fail to see how anything in the words “natural-born citizen of the Unbited States†precludes holding other nationalities.”
Who cares about your opinions (or mine, for that matter)? Also, if you’re in the business of reading tea leaves, I suppose it may be a fun exercise for you, but this would be a little ironic coming from a guy who calls himself ‘Mr. Reality’. Maybe your name should be ‘Mr. Speculation’ instead?
“The US-born child of a French man and Canadian woman is a natural-born citizen of the US…”
Too bad reality (pun intended) isn’t on your side. Tell me, oh wise one, which court made such a ruling? (Hint: none)
“…France and Canada and is eligible to be President of the US, President of France and Prime Minister of Canada (though holding all 3 at once might present practical difficulties!).”
You’re too clever by half. This is exactly why some people claim that such a person would not be a natural-born citizen. But again, the Court has never ruled on this issue, so I suggest a reality check (pun intended).
“If conservatives believe anything, surely they believe that if the intent had been to exclude dual nationals the Coinstitution [sic] would say something like “natural-born citizen of the United States and of no other countryâ€.”
To play devil’s advocate, their response might be that such a statement is redundant.
“But it does not. So Donofrio’s case lacks merit.”
There you go again. Your opinion lacks merit. (Key word: opinion) The justices obviously didn’t feel that his case should be heard, but who knows the reason why? Not you or I. (In fact, the Wrotnowski case which makes similar arguments is scheduled for conference this Friday.) Again, you need to face reality (pun intended).
“2. The power to determine the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen†rests with Congress.”
You might want to retake Civics 101. The judicial branch (not legislative branch) of government interprets the Constitution.
“You can mock all you’d like…”
Thanks for your permission.
“…but this is the case.”
…in YOUR opinion (which, of course, has no merit).
“The Supreme Court is equal with Congress, not above it.”
Not when the matter is interpreting the Constitution. (Have you signed up for that Civics 101 class yet?)
“They have never taken it upon themselves to tell Congress how to run its affairs.”
Right, they interpret the Constitution, which is not “running Congress’ affairs”.
“If they did so, even by a 9-0 vote, they would be wrong.”
Gosh…we ought to just fire the 9 justices and let you serve, since you seem to always know what’s right and what’s wrong.
“They have intervened in disputes between Congress and the Executive, but that is not the case here.”
Exactly. Interpreting the Constitution is what’s here. You’ve come to the right conclusion, but–I suspect–for all the wrong reasons.
“3. Popular sovreignity-The Consatitution [sic] is a piece of paper-an important one, to be sure, but ultimately a piece of paper.”
Just a piece of paper!? Yikes!
I suppose you’d use it if you ran out of Charmin, too.
“Without the consent of the governed, even the best-constructed Constitutional republic cannot stand. The Constitution must protect the fundamental human rights of unpopular minorities against being trampled on by the majority, but should not be used to overturn elections.”
I’m disappointed in you. You’re obviously a thoughtful liberal, but you’re also a dishonest one. This “overturning an election” line is beneath you. (Then again, maybe not?) Whatever the case, taking an ineligible candidate off the ballot is the proper action. Too bad you believe that ineligible candidates should serve.
“Let’s be clear, Obama is fully eligible to be President, as much as any of his 43 predecessors.”
…in YOUR opinion (which means nothing).
“All arguments to the contrary are unadulterated malarkey.”
…in YOUR opinion (which means nothing).
“But even if you had a candidate elected who was clearly ineligible, I question whether the judicial branch would be the proper ones to deal with it.”
I question your knowledge of basic civics. I need to hammer this point home: The judicial branch INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION.
And that’s reality (pun intended).
Jury: Where do I begin in the face of such foolishness?
1. You conveniently neglect that when courts dismiss cases they are ruling and when higher courts refuse to hear appelas they are concurring with those rulings. Either the Supreme Court thinks Donofrio is wrong or sees no importnat Constitutional issues in his case, or both.
2. You pretend that I am making up out of whole cloth the idea that the final word on these matters rests with Congress not the Court. It is in fact what the Constitution says regarding the election of a President. Lest you think I am alone in this opinion, I suggest you read Richard Winger’s piece above and take it up with him. I also refer you to the Constitution itself http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm. Please pay particular attention to Article II, Section 1 and note that it only mentions Congress not any court.
3. You provide no logic to support the contention that “natural-born citizen” means other than the plain English meaning of citizen at birth, whether of one country or more than one. Nor do you provide any arguments as to why if the intent was to exclude dual citizens, the Constitutions does not clearly say so. Failing your providing such arguments, one can only assume you have none.
Have a nice remainder of your life…
You know, folks, it helps if you understand some basic principles.
First, Congress has no power delegated to it to define “natural-born”, and it never has. Nor is there any current statutory definition. They can only define rules for naturalization, and any citizenship status left over not from being naturalized must be natural-born. It’s a reduction argument backed by the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and the Ninth Amendment, restriction on the powers of Congress to those enumerated..
Second, natural-born is based entirely on geography and nothing to do with bloodline. Citizenship by bloodline is a European concept that only exists in this country in the naturalization statutes, so anyone claiming that is actually arguing a naturalization citizenship and not natural-born. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law except through lex soli, and only jus soli and lex soli are the bases for U.S. citizenship. Chester Aurthur was a natural-born citizen born in Vermont (jus soli). Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona Territory, part of the U.S., as a natural-born citizen (jus soli). George Romney, born in Mexico to U.S. parents, was naturalized (lex soli) by statute but was not natural-born (jus sanguinis). John McCain was born either in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, both not U.S. territory, and was naturalized by statute, INA 1952, specifically 8 USC 1403(a) (jus sanguinis and lex soli). Obama’s location of birth (not where it was recorded, but where it actually happened) is the key issue. Dual citizenship stuff is basically irrelevant. The geography does matter.
As for the Process, no one seems to mention the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, in this whole mess. The term “failed to qualify” is in there for a reason, and that reason is simple: eligibility. So someone has to make that determination. The Twelfth Amendment only address counting the Electoral ballots and not eligibility. Article II doesn’t address who makes the determination, either, just what the eligibility requirements are. In fact, the entire Constitution is silent on that issue, and it’s a gaping hole that needs addressing. To claim Congress can do it is in error as that only applies to their own respective Houses and not an Electoral vote tally.
Yes, this all needs to be addressed, but the arguments are a lot simpler than everybody is making them out to be. The solution is even simpler: a court, ANY court, needs to compel Obama by a subpoena duces tecum to produce his original birth certificate. AFAIK that has not been done.
“Jury: Where do I begin in the face of such foolishness?”
Try Civics 101.
“1. You conveniently neglect that when courts dismiss cases they are ruling…”
Gee, you can add Government 101 to the list.
The Supreme Court didn’t “dismiss” anything. (The fact that you used this term to describe the Court’s action proves that you have no idea of that which you speak) The Court declined Leo Donofrio’s application for a stay of the election (ie; the Dec. 15th vote of electoral college), that’s all. They did not rule on the merits of the case.
“…and when higher courts refuse to hear appelas they are concurring with those rulings.”
Wrong again. (Where did you go to school anyway? It’s amusing that Mr. Reality’s opinions are devoid from reality.)
Anyway, when the justices refuse to hear an appeal without comment, they are letting a lower court’s ruling stand. That’s it…nothing more, nothing less. So reading the tea leaves is dealing in speculation, not reality (pun intended).
“Either the Supreme Court thinks Donofrio is wrong or sees no importnat Constitutional issues in his case, or both.”
So you’re a mind reader, too? Wow…your talents are unlimited.
Again, this is pure (irresponsible) speculation on your part. Unless your last name is Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas, Souter, Scalia, Stevens, Alito, or Gingburg, then you have no idea what was going on in their minds at the time. (You should really consider being ‘Mr. Speculation’ from now on)
“2. You pretend that I am making up out of whole cloth…”
You are. Stick to reality (pun intended).
“…the idea that the final word on these matters rests with Congress not the Court.”
Civics 101: The U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the SUPREME COURT. Case closed.
“It is in fact what the Constitution says regarding the election of a President.”
This is strictly about the ‘natural-born’ requirement for president which is stated in the Constitution. Too bad you can’t admit that…
“Lest you think I am alone in this opinion, I suggest you read Richard Winger’s piece above and take it up with him.”
Oh, so your (misguided) opinions aren’t even original? Wow. And to think I considered you an intellectual…
“I also refer you to the Constitution itself http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm.”
That’s funny, when you haven’t even read it yourself? (And yes, I’ve read it many times)
“Please pay particular attention to Article II, Section 1 and note that it only mentions Congress not any court.”
Oh brother, this is too easy.
Civics 101: The Supreme Court INTERPRETS THE CONSTITUTION.
I know you like blowing smoke, but this fact will continue to shine through.
“3. You provide no logic to support the contention that “natural-born citizen†means other than the plain English meaning of citizen at birth, whether of one country or more than one.”
It appears that you understand very little of what I said because I don’t ‘contend’ anything. I’m unbiased (unlike you). Since ‘natural-born citizen’ is written in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court (not you, not I) is the only body who can determine what it means.
“Nor do you provide any arguments as to why if the intent was to exclude dual citizens, the Constitutions does not clearly say so.”
Because it would be redundant (according to proponents of this argument). The term ‘natural-born citizen’ takes care of this.
“Failing your providing such arguments, one can only assume you have none.”
Not the case. You just refuse to listen to opposing arguments. Strange for someone who is named ‘Mr. Reality’. (I still like ‘Mr. Speculation’ better)
“Have a nice remainder of your life…”
I will.
Jury: No matter how many courts agree with me, you continue your folly. Here, hot off the presses, is the 3rd Circuit’s denial of Berg’s appeal:
“”Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any Votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal, is hereby DENIED. As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.”
Once again, just for you- “Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question.”
This is a POLITICAL question, not subject to court jurisdiction. It is up to CONGRESS.
Now you go back and take Civics 101.
“Jury: No matter how many courts agree with me…”
The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the case. You’re a smart guy, so I’m just assuming that you’re deliberately misrepresenting reality (pun intended).
“…you continue your folly.”
Translation: Folly = calling Mr. Reality’s bluffs
“Here, hot off the presses, is the 3rd Circuit’s denial of Berg’s appeal:
“Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any Votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal, is hereby DENIED. As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.â€
You’re good…..but not quite good enough. I’m in awe of your ability to slyly sneak in a lower court’s opinion. We’re talking about the Supreme Court here, not lower courts. Nice attempt to change the subject, but try again.
In poker terms, it would go like this:
Jury (A,A): Raise
Mr. Reality (K,K): Re-raise
Jury: Re-raise again
Mr. Reality: All-in!
Jury: Call
Mr. Reality: “Oh s***!”
“Once again, just for you- “Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question.â€
Too bad for you that the Supreme Court didn’t make this decision.
“This is a POLITICAL question, not subject to court jurisdiction. It is up to CONGRESS.”
…in the lower court’s view. And they, of course, cannot interpret the Constitution. Nice try, but you’re not fooling anybody.
“Now you go back and take Civics 101.”
Already taken. I think you must have skipped class the day they taught that the Supreme Court supercedes all lower courts.
I will add one more thing. It is disconcerting that so many here want to cede the most basic function of a democracy, the selection of leaders, to unelected and unaccountable judges. The “questions” regarding Obama’s citizenship were known prior to the election, along with all the other charges leveled against him. The voters weighed the “questions” and the credibility of the questioners and made their choice. What makes the judgment of 9 people in black robes more valid than that of 130 million citizens?
I’ve lived in a few other countries and note that they manage to hold elections in a few months and don’t generally turn them into orgies of litigation. It’s hard to argue that their leaders are any more (or less) incompetent and corrupt than ours.
“I will add one more thing. It is disconcerting that so many here want to cede the most basic function of a democracy, the selection of leaders, to unelected and unaccountable judges.”
There you go yet again. Even if the Supreme Court declares Obama ineligible, they will not be selecting his replacement–the electoral college will. Please, please, please be honest for once in this discussion.
“The “questions†regarding Obama’s citizenship were known prior to the election, along with all the other charges leveled against him.”
This is actually a valid argument that you’ve made (for once). Now in Philip Berg’s case, he did in fact raise questions before Obama was even nominated. The others (ie; Donofrio, Keyes, etc.) probably should have filed their lawsuits much sooner. Thanks for finally bringing up a decent point.
“The voters weighed the “questions†and the credibility of the questioners and made their choice.”
Unfortunately for you, the voters have no say in interpreting the Constitution. That’s the job of the Supreme Court (which you never seem to want to admit).
“What makes the judgment of 9 people in black robes more valid than that of 130 million citizens?”
The fact that they were appointed to the Supreme Court, while the “130 million citizens” were not. (BTW, this is another gross distortion on your part. Obama did not receive 130 million votes, while McCain did receive almost 60,000,000 himself. Thanks for the obfuscation.)
“I’ve lived in a few other countries and note that they manage to hold elections in a few months and don’t generally turn them into orgies of litigation.”
I agree that we should be more like them, in that respect. That’s why the Supreme Court (or Obama himself) should clear this up once and for all.
“It’s hard to argue that their leaders are any more (or less) incompetent and corrupt than ours.”
Our President-elect seems like a pretty competent guy, but unfortunately his supporters are not.
“Jury: No matter how many courts agree with me…â€
The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the case. You’re a smart guy, so I’m just assuming that you’re deliberately misrepresenting reality (pun intended).
“…you continue your folly.â€
Translation: Folly = calling Mr. Reality’s bluffs
“Here, hot off the presses, is the 3rd Circuit’s denial of Berg’s appeal:
“Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any Votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal, is hereby DENIED. As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.â€
You’re good…..but not quite good enough. I’m in awe of your ability to slyly sneak in a lower court’s opinion. We’re talking about the Supreme Court here, not lower courts. Nice attempt to change the subject, but try again.
In poker terms, it would go like this:
Jury (A,A): Raise
Mr. Reality (K,K): Re-raise
Jury: Re-raise again
Mr. Reality: All-in!
Jury: Call
Mr. Reality: “Oh s***!â€
“Once again, just for you- “Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question.â€
Too bad for you that the Supreme Court didn’t make this decision.
“This is a POLITICAL question, not subject to court jurisdiction. It is up to CONGRESS.â€
…in the lower court’s view. And they, of course, cannot interpret the Constitution. Nice try, but you’re not fooling anybody.
“Now you go back and take Civics 101.â€
Already taken. I think you must have skipped class the day they taught that the Supreme Court supercedes all lower courts.
“Jury: No matter how many courts agree with me…”
Man, you’re terribly good at obfuscating the real issue. You keep talking about lower courts when the discussion is about the _Supreme Court_. And no, the Supreme Court has not ruled on this case, so unfortunately it doesn’t agree with you (or me or anyone else, for that matter). Try again.
“…you continue your folly.”
Translation: Folly = calling Mr. Reality’s bluff
Yes, I will continue.
“Here, hot off the presses, is the 3rd Circuit’s denial of Berg’s appeal:
“â€Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any Votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal, is hereby DENIED. As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.â€
Hate to sound like a broken record, but since you like to ignore the real issues, I must say it again. The lower courts cannot make ANY rulings on constitutional issues.
“Once again, just for you- “Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable ontroversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question.â€
You keep bringing up rulings from lower courts, yet they can’t rule on constitutional matters. Do you really think readers of this thread are that dumb? (I guess so…..sorry I asked)
I often wonder why people bring up irrelevant issues in a discussion, but in your case I know the answer–you just want to obfuscate the real issue here. You don’t want to talk about the Supreme Court because the Court has not ruled one way or the other on the ‘natural-born’ clause.
“This is a POLITICAL question, not subject to court jurisdiction. It is up to CONGRESS.”
Wrong again. It’s a constitutional question since the term ‘natural-born citizen’ is in the Constitution. And I’m sorry to tell you that Congress doesn’t interpret the Constitution; the Supreme Court does. (You can repeat your line as many times as you want, but that won’t make it true)
Now you go back and take Civics 101.”
Already taken. I guess you must have skipped class the day they talked about who interprets the Constitution.
Sorry for the double post. I thought the first one didn’t go through, so I typed out a second one.
That’s the reality of it. (No pun intended)
Your extreme veneration for the wisdom of the Supreme Court as opposed to all other courts and the rest of humanity can only lead me to conclude that you must have a strange sexual attraction for one of the justices. I’m guessing Clarence Thomas, but who knows, it could be Alito. Fortunately, the likelihood is extremely high (approaching certainty) that they will actually demonstrate some wisdom (as they foolishly did not in 2000) and stay out of this area where they don’t belong.
I’ll tell you what Mr Smarty-Pants, how about you put your money where your mouth is. I’m willing to place a wager that says Obama is inagurated on Jan 20th and the Supreme Court will have nothing to say on the matter (other than the Chief justice adminsitering the oath). Are you man enough to take the bet?
“Your extreme veneration for the wisdom of the Supreme Court as opposed to all other courts and the rest of humanity can only lead me to conclude that you must have a strange sexual attraction for one of the justices.”
Ah, this statement puts a smile on my face because extreme personal attacks must mean I’m winning this debate.
“I’m guessing Clarence Thomas, but who knows, it could be Alito.”
All nine of their opinions are valid since they all sit on the Court (obviously).
“Fortunately, the likelihood is extremely high (approaching certainty) that they will actually demonstrate some wisdom (as they foolishly did not in 2000)…”
I’m sure it keeps them up at night knowing that Mr. Speculation on Ballot Access News thinks they’re foolish…
“…and stay out of this area where they don’t belong.”
…which is YOUR opinion, of course. (And we all know that it means nothing, as does mine)
“I’ll tell you what Mr Smarty-Pants, how about you put your money where your mouth is. I’m willing to place a wager that says Obama is inagurated [sic] on Jan 20th and the Supreme Court will have nothing to say on the matter (other than the Chief justice adminsitering [sic] the oath). Are you man enough to take the bet?”
I’m unbiased, so I haven’t made any predictions. I’m content to live with whatever the Court decides. If they say Obama is eligible, then congratulations to him. He should proudly serve. But if they find him ineligible, then he should be thrown off the ballot immediately. Whichever way the Court rules, I’ll be happy because, once more, I’m completely unbiased. You, on the other hand, will be kicking in screaming (like in 2000) if you don’t get your way. Very sad when adults throw tantrums.
Jury wrote:
“It’s a constitutional question since the term ‘natural-born citizen’ is in the Constitution. And I’m sorry to tell you that Congress doesn’t interpret the Constitution; the Supreme Court does.”
Actually, the Supreme Court only makes that determination in its role as the final arbiter, in cases that are properly brought before it, which it *elects* to hear and determine.
Congress does interpret the Constitution all the time in the exercise of its powers — and the laws that it passes or determinations it makes are proper and enforceable, up to and until a case arises that provides a federal court with jurisdiction to rule upon constitutional claims.
The Supreme Court does NOT issue advisory or prospective opinions. That means, Congress can’t submit a case to the Supreme Court, saying “we don’t know what X means, can you give us a better definition?” — or, “we want to pass a law that says X…can you tell us in advance whether it will be Constitutional?” Since this is the case, it follows that it is Congress’ responsibility to “interpret the Constitution” in the course of exercising its duties, subject to the possibility of being overruled down the line by the courts.
Since the Constitution clearly empowers Congress to count the electoral votes and designate the President (12th and 20th Amendments), it obviously falls to Congress to also interpret the term “natural born citizen” in the event that an objection is properly raised to them.
“Actually, the Supreme Court only makes that determination in its role as the final arbiter, in cases that are properly brought before it, which it *elects* to hear and determine.”
Very true. I was speaking in general terms, of course.
“Congress does interpret the Constitution all the time in the exercise of its powers — and the laws that it passes or determinations it makes are proper and enforceable, up to and until a case arises that provides a federal court with jurisdiction to rule upon constitutional claims.”
Sure, every person in the world who picks up a copy of the Constitution reads it and ‘interprets’ it himself. BUT, the Supreme Court has the final word. (Not you, not I, not Congress, etc.)
“The Supreme Court does NOT issue advisory or prospective opinions. That means, Congress can’t submit a case to the Supreme Court, saying “we don’t know what X means, can you give us a better definition?†— or, “we want to pass a law that says X…can you tell us in advance whether it will be Constitutional?†Since this is the case…”
Huh?? The Berg, Donofrio, and Wrotnowski cases all prove otherwise.
“…it follows that it is Congress’ responsibility to “interpret the Constitution†in the course of exercising its duties, subject to the possibility of being overruled down the line by the courts.”
You’re using the word ‘interpret’ quite liberally here. Like I said, anyone who reads the Constitution interprets it himself. For that matter, anyone who reads anything interprets the written material himself. We’re talking specifically about the role of each branch of government. The Congress passes laws, the executive branch (the President) enforces laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, plain and simple. Civics 101.
“Since the Constitution clearly empowers Congress to count the electoral votes and designate the President (12th and 20th Amendments), it obviously falls to Congress to also interpret the term “natural born citizen†in the event that an objection is properly raised to them.”
…which is YOUR opinion, of course (which means absolutely nothing). It falls on the Supreme Court to ultimately interpret anything written in the Constitution. (BTW, your alter ego said the same exact thing, and it was just as silly then as it is now)
“Huh?? The Berg, Donofrio, and Wrotnowski cases all prove otherwise.”
Those cases have all been tossed out of court by every single court that has heard them. Wrotnowski will be on next Monday’s deny order — there isn’t even proper jurisdiction. It’s an appeal from a state court ruling and was dismissed at the state level on grounds of lack of standing — so the only issue that could properly be appealed would be the question of standing. But since its a state action, then it is a matter of state law, not federal, to determine whether the guy has standing.
” Civics 101″
I’m glad you’ve taken a basic course in civics. Its a good start. Its amazing how much more there is to learn in law school, though.
My comment about the Supreme Court not issuing “advisory opinions” is pretty basic stuff. I don’t know if they teach that in high school civics, but any first year law student would know that.
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion#United_States_federal_courts
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cases_and_controversies
I am not sure what you mean by “alter ego” — if you are referring to another comment on this page, it wasn’t me. If you are detecting a similarity in some posts, it might be because other posters also have legal training.
It looks like all the people making comments do not
remember that on December 15th some electors in certain states may cast there vote for John Sidney
McCain III for President.
John McCain is not a United States citizen. He was
not a citizen at birth, nor was he ever naturalized. He was born at the Colon Hospital at
6:25 PM on August 29, 1936. Colon Hospital was located in the city limits of Colon, Republic of
Panama. It is an out right lie to state he was born in a hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
By the Collective Naturalization Act of August 4,
1937, viz., 8 USCA 5e, a requirement to be in the
class of children to be collectively naturalized was that one or both of the child’s parents (at the time of birth)had to employed by either the United States Government or the Panama Railroad Company (or its successor in title). However,
John McCain’s mother listed her employment on that
birth certificate as a house wife.
In John McCain’s book “Faith of my Fathers” at pages 48 & 50, plus confirmed on CNN by his mother,
viz., Roberta McCain n’ee Wright, a false claim was
made by them that Ensign John Sidney McCain II married at a bar in TJ, Baja California, Mexico,
Roberta Wright on January 21, 1933. By the laws of
Baja California effective 1927, all marriages had to take place in the office of the civil registry.
Therefore, there was no legal marriage. McCain was
born out of wedlock. He could not claim rights to
the collective naturization under the Act of August
4, 1937, an act that required being born in wedlock
for a father to pass citizenship class to his child.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
Gee, let’s play along with this silly game for our friend Jury, because I’m having fun. As res ipsa has pointed out, the Supreme Court does not issue advisory rulings, but, wisely, limits itself to cases before it. Since they already passed on Donofrio, the case before them is Berg (and other similar ones0. Now Jury seems to think that the court will come out and declare Obama eligible or ineligible for the Presidency, but in fact the appeal before them is of a dismissal on the grounds of standing. So all they could do is say Berg has standing and kick the case back to the District Court for trial on the merits. The Supreme Court is not a trial court and does not try cases on fact.
So we would then have a District Court case based on a bunch of facts asserted by Mr Berg that he would have to establish. This would involve documents which would have to be examined by each side’s experts and testimony by these experts with cross-examination by opposing counsel. There could also be witnesses, many of whom are beyond the reach of subpoena, by virtue of being in Kenya, Indonesia and perhaps other countries. Translations might be involved as well. Eventually the judge would rule on whether, in light of the facts, he believed Obama was a “natural born citizen”. Then the losing party could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Only at that point could the Supreme Court even address the issue of defining “natural born citizen” and they could only do so if Berg had established sufficient facts to call that into question.
By this point, we would be a couple years into Obama’s presidency. Since we are out a limb with this entire scenario, let’s now suppose that the Supreme court in the end rules in favor of Berg and declares Obama to be not a natural-brn citizen. What happens then? Well, I’m sure our friend Jury would say the Supreme cCourt would then order Obama to be removed as president. But now our friend Mr Constitution pokes his head up and says, “Where does it give the Supreme Court the power to remove a PresidenT?” And the answer is… nowhere. The only ones with the power to remove a President is Congress (there they go agian). So the either Obama would have to resign or Congress would have to impeach him. But impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. If Obama fraudulently claimed he was a natural-born citizen, there might be a case. But how in fact do any of us know our birthplace, parentage, etc? We only know what our parents tell us. So if his mother told him he was born in Hawaii (and she is not around to say differently), he is committing no crime if it later turns out he was not. So an impeachment would be far from a slam dunk.
So here we are once again faced with reality, as opposed to a self-described Jury that ascribes absolute unchecked power to a group of 9 people, power that they have never claimed for themselves.
“Those cases have all been tossed out of court by every single court that has heard them… [factually incorrect drivel deleted]”
Oh no…a new (and persistent) ‘identity’ for you?
Anyway, these arguments are still specious whether they come from you or any of your other identities. (BTW, you didn’t even correctly state the facts in your post, which is funny)
“Its amazing how much more there is to learn in law school, though.”
Judging by your writing style and the content of your posts, neither you nor your alter ego is an attorney. You didn’t even get the name of your current identity correct. It should be ‘res ipsa loquitur’.
“I am not sure what you mean by “alter ego…”
Of course you do.
“Gee, let’s play along with this silly game for our friend Jury, because I’m having fun.”
No you’re not. You’re getting frustrated; I can tell. It’s the whole reason why you’ve resorted to having your ‘friend’ help you out since you can’t handle it alone.
“As res ipsa has pointed out…”
You mean your alter ego?
“…the Supreme Court does not issue advisory rulings, but, wisely, limits itself to cases before it. Since they already passed on Donofrio, the case before them is Berg (and other similar ones0 [sic].”
I know you think this makes you sound like an attorney, but it really doesn’t. Look, you’re a smart guy. (And no, I’m not trying to be patronizing) There’s no need to use alter egos in order to advance your arguments. I mean, you have made a few very valid points. I respect that. But it’s humorous to see your reaction to an opponent who doesn’t throw profanity-laced personal attacks at you (which some conservatives, I admit, do).
“Now Jury seems to think…”
More proof of your alter ego. See, you’re letting more evidence of your ruse slip through. Why refer to me in the third person now? Ah…perhaps it’s because you think you’re creating the illusion that there are 2 separate and distinct people opposite me. (If there in fact really were 2 people, you don’t seem to realize that there would be no need for this) You really should refine your manipulation skills.
“…that the court will come out and declare Obama eligible or ineligible for the Presidency, but in fact the appeal before them is of a dismissal on the grounds of standing. So all they could do is say Berg has standing and kick the case back to the District Court for trial on the merits. The Supreme Court is not a trial court and does not try cases on fact.”
More obfuscation. (Then again, at this point I wouldn’t expect anything less from you)
“So we would then have a District Court case based on a bunch of facts asserted by Mr Berg that he would have to establish. This would involve documents which would have to be examined by each side’s experts and testimony by these experts with cross-examination by opposing counsel. There could also be witnesses, many of whom are beyond the reach of subpoena, by virtue of being in Kenya, Indonesia and perhaps other countries. Translations might be involved as well. Eventually the judge would rule on whether, in light of the facts, he believed Obama was a “natural born citizenâ€. Then the losing party could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Only at that point could the Supreme Court even address the issue of defining “natural born citizen†and they could only do so if Berg had established sufficient facts to call that into question.”
You just blew your cover with this one. You remind me of the kid at school who gets called on by the teacher to answer a question, and since he didn’t do his homework the night before, he gives a glib answer trying to ‘sound’ smart. Unfortunately, after just 10 seconds the whole class realizes that the kid has no idea what he’s talking about, and they start laughing. Poor kid and poor you.
“By this point, we would be a couple years into Obama’s presidency. Since we are out a limb with this entire scenario, let’s now suppose that the Supreme court in the end rules in favor of Berg and declares Obama to be not a natural-brn citizen…[blah, blah, blah…..blah, blah…..blah blah blah blah blah]”
You know, I was actually going to respond to this point (or should I say, nonsense) until I read the rest of the paragraph. Again, anybody reading your post (other than your alter ego) will know that you’re no different than the kid in class of which I spoke earlier.
“So here we are once again faced with reality[!!!]…”
Freudian slip???
“…as opposed to a self-described Jury that ascribes absolute unchecked power to a group of 9 people, power that they have never claimed for themselves.”
That’s funny. Read the Constitution. (Oh, that’s right…both you and your alter ego are already well-known constitutional lawyers)
Re #45: “(The people who claim that Obama was born in Mombassa and that Obama’s step-grandmother was present have obviously never looked at a map).”
How would looking at a map help?
(I don’t believe Obama was born in Mombassa but I don’t know how looking at a map would disprove that.)
It’s interesting that there are so many people who believe that Obama is ineligible for the presidency. I wonder if they all want to put Joe Biden in the Oval Office, pursuant to the 20th Amendment.
Looking at a map you could see that where the grandma lives is a rural village in western Kenya very far from Mombasa, to the east– with the major city of Nairobi located midway between the two. You can also easily find out online that in 1961, Mombasa didn’t have an international airport, so even if Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya, it does not make any sense for her to be in Mombasa or giving birth there.
The whole thing doesn’t make sense because of the fact that it is highly unlikely that Obama Sr. would have wanted his American wife to come to Kenya, where he already had an another wife and a couple of kids. Usually men in that situation do not want wife #2 finding out about wife #1. So the last place on earth that Obama Sr. would have taken Stanley Ann Dunham would have been home to meet the family.
You really have to have a screw loose to believe the born-in-Kenya fantasy, given the fact of a legal certification of birth from Hawaii that has been confirmed as valid by Hawaii authorities, coupled with a contemporaneous birth announcement – along with fact that Kenya was politically unstable at the time – I mean, essentially the country was in the middle of a revolution at the time. Why would an 18 year old American college student travel there during late stages of pregnancy?
res-Did I hear you right? You seem to be asking for actual evidence as opposed to conjecture. Naughty you. Don’t you know that the Supreme Court is going to “rule Obama ineligible” merely on the basis of the unsupported allegations of Berg et al.? They are, after all, the Supreme Court and can transform the dross of unsupported speculation into the gold of proven fact as if by magic. They can also construct out of whole cloth the right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution to decide all elections by a 5-4 vote.
Oh, I’d just like a conspiracy story that makes sense. Given Occam’s Razor, I prefer conspiracy theories that are simpler (or at least equally convoluted) as the official version — such as the questions about the lone gunman theory of the Kennedy assassination, given bullet paths & testimony of witnesses at the scene.
I mean… we know from his own account that Bill Richardson’s mother actually traveled FROM Mexico in order to give birth to him in Pasadena — and then went back to Mexico City to raise him. He did not return to the US. So I suppose if Richardson had cleared the first hurdle of making it past the Iowa caucuses that some logical questions and an alternative scenario could be constructed for his birth. That’s kind of a wonky story – I can see a few questions being raised. Has anyone ever seen Richardson’s birth certificate? Did anyone ever ask?
Reply to #84.
res ispa,
The airport of Mombassa was a Portrietz, but was a regional airport. At the end of the runway, was the 2nd largest hospital in the Mombassa District.
Seaplane service ran off Mombassa Island in late 1939. In fact a Cataline PBY-1, flew from Mombassa
to Dakar on June 27, 1939.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
Split personality disorder, talking to oneself, etc. It’s good theater though…
Yes, Mark, but what would Ann be doing in Mombasa? The international flights would have come in and out of Nairobi and the Grandmother lives in Kogelo, which is about 10km from Siaya.
Responding to #89, res ipsa’s question. We know that Kogelo in 1961 did not have a hospital. It is
a good question what Stanley Ann was doing in Mombassa in 1961. It is also a good question why was Teddy Roosevelt doing in Mombassa in late April, 1909.
First, Mombassa is the sister city of Honolulu. Many Hawaiians visit it. Including, Stanley Ann.
If visiting Kenya, Mombassa has a great many historical places.
In August, 1961, the International flights either
departed Embakasi Airport or Entebbe Airport. BOAC
was the carrier by choice. It stopped in HNL on the Hong Kong to London route. Then the BOAC route
left London to Embakasi Airport. The service between London and Embakasi went via Rome, Benghazi, Khartoum, & Entebbe. As I recall the flight number was BOAC 161.
Remember there were many hospitals in Mombasa at the time. The second largest in the Mombassa district was the Portrietz District Hospital. At the end of the runway to the Portreitz Airport.
In 1958, almost 11,000 luolanders lived in Mombasa.
Do you think that BO I might have friends or family
that could put Stanley Ann up for a time in Mombassa? Remember, five of Obama I’s eignt great grandparents were Arabs. Plus BO I’s father lived in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar for some years according to Barack Obama II’ s book “Dreams”. Mombassa was part the British Protectorate of the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar
until December 9/10, 1963. On December 12, 1963
Mombassa and its environs were ceded by Seyyid Sultan Jamshid to the Government of the Republic
of Kenya. Therefore, Stanley Ann could have stayed
with Arabs relatives as well.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
Actually there is no evidence whatsoever that Ann Dunham EVER has visited Kenya. Its all just speculation, and given the Ann’s age, and as I said it defies common sense to believe that Obama Sr. would have wanted his 2 wives to meet one another. Given the expense of international travel in those days, I doubt that they could have funded travel in any case.
Just more tin foil hat stuff, based on pure fantasy, in the face of clear documentation of the Honolulu birth.
Attention all you right-wing nut-jobs!
This court battle over Obama’s birth certificate is now over. In case you haven’t heard you loons are now supposed to move on to the next great cause-Hillary’s appointment and its violation of the Emoluments clause (even though she will forego the pay increase). Judicial Watch has taken up the baton and is getting ready to sue. At least this has the virtue that you won’t have to make up “facts” to support your case, like Berg et al did.
After that, who knows what other frivolous nonsense you can find to keep yourselves busy over the next 4 years?
Comment reply to res ipsa # 91ravel
res ipsa, you stated “Given the expense of international travel in those days, I doubt that they could funded travel in any case.” What do you
base that on. Travel in 1961 to East Africa was very cheap in those days. Kenya Colony was very
popular in 1961 based on J. Adamson’s book “BORN
FREE A LIONESS OF TWO WORLD” which was a best seller published in 1960. It cost about the same
to fly from Honolulu to Moscow as it did Honolulu
to Mombasa. Also rail travel was dirt cheap from
Mombasa to Kisumu.
I was in that area of the world just two years later, viz. 1963. And it was still very cheap
to travel in East Africa. Bottom line why do think
they could not afford to travel?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
“Attention all you right-wing nut-jobs!”
Wow, you’ve really gone downhill since your first post. You’re smart enough to respond with class and dignity, which makes it even more of a shame…
“This court battle over Obama’s birth certificate is now over.”
Actually, not yet. You haven’t been doing your homework, have you? The Wrotnowski case is scheduled for conference tomorrow. After that, it may or may not be over.
“In case you haven’t heard you loons are now supposed to move on to the next great cause-Hillary’s appointment and its violation of the Emoluments clause (even though she will forego the pay increase). Judicial Watch has taken up the baton and is getting ready to sue. At least this has the virtue that you won’t have to make up “facts†to support your case, like Berg et al did.”
To my understanding, Berg was arguing that there was a lack of facts which is why he wanted the birth certificate released. Does he have a case? We shall find out soon enough.
“After that, who knows what other frivolous nonsense you can find to keep yourselves busy over the next 4 years?”
The only nonsense is written by those who use multiple identities on Ballot Access News…..hehehehe.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the Wrotnowski case and the stay will be denied. Wrotnowski is an appeal from a state court decision that rejected the lawsuit on grounds of lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction; in its opinion the Conn. appellate court specifically refused to consider federal Constitutional issues, essentially because they lacked jurisdiction under Conn. law to weigh on anything other than state statutory provisions.
Even if there was a proper jurisdictional basis, the stay would have to be denied because the Supreme Court does not have the ability to delay or interfere with the meeting of the electoral college, which is Constitutionally mandated. The Constitution requires that electors from all states meet on the same day, on a date that Congress is required to set.
And even if somehow the Court had the authority, since the lawsuit runs only against the Connecticut secretary of state, there is no jurisdiction over the secretaries of state in the other 49 states — so no way to enjoin or influence the electoral college meetings there.
All this to pursue a very questionable and tenuous argument about “natural born citizen” that is entirely at odds with what every Constitutional scholar in the US believes, and is not supported by a single citation to binding legal authority in the form of a prior court decision. The primary argument of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court should OVERRULE legal precedent dating back to the 19th century.
Richard,
You’re the first person I’ve run across who has gone wrong the other way on this question. The courts can and should rule an ineligible candidate off the ballot. The problem with the Obama Truth Lawsuits is that they are all kook, including, I’m sorry to say, Gail Lightfoot’s lawsuit against California S.O.S. Bowen.
If, hypothetically, the GOP were stupid enough to take up the dare of certain Freepers and nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS, and assuming 50 state S.O.S’s let it by with a wink and a nod, (big assumptions) a lawsuit against his candidacy might look something like this:
1. Harm: Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible to be POTUS because he is a naturalized, not natural-born citizen, WHICH WE WILL DEMONSTRATE FROM HIS IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION PAPERS.
2. Injunctive relief: We ask the court to either remove Schwarzenegger from the ballot, or for Schwarzenegger to enter into a stipulation that his is a “placeholder” nomination, and that his electors will vote for some other candidate if they should win.
If you look at Berg’s lawsuit (quite a piece of work,and not in a good way) you notice that it is basically flinging poo and hoping some will stick. He offers not one shred of evidence to support his assertions. Notice in my hypothetical Schwarzenegger suit I mentioned providing evidence. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, Berg. He offers no record of visa applications, immigration or customs records from Kenya or the U.S., passenger manifests from airlines or ship lines, no sworn affidavits, no nothing to support his story, just rumor and speculation, despite having had many months to gather appropriate documentation. In my opinion, Berg is a mixture of publicity-hound, kook, charlatan, and scammer.
Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s lawsuits are even kookier. They assert that there is a distinction between “citizen by reason of birth” and “natural-born citizen” despite there being nothing to back their assertion in the Constitution, statute law, case law, or even court decision dicta, law review articles, U.S. Constitutional Law texts, or constitutional law courses. In other words, they’re pulling it out of their asses.
Mr. Speculation,
“The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the Wrotnowski case…”
Interesting point, considering the you’re the only person (either pro-Obama or anti-Obama) who says this. This, of course, further proves that you are no attorney. BUT, you are indeed entitled to your (factually incorrect) opinions.
“…and the stay will be denied.”
Well, you have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
“Wrotnowski is an appeal from a state court decision that rejected the lawsuit on grounds of lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction…”
This is too funny. In your haste to sound intelligent and authoritative, you forgot to research the facts. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the SOS has no authority to qualify candidates, which is why Chief Justice Rogers dismissed the case. ‘Standing’ was not an issue (while your lack of due diligence is…..hehehehe). Time for a reality check. (pun intended)
“…in its opinion the Conn. appellate court specifically refused to consider federal Constitutional issues, essentially because they lacked jurisdiction under Conn. law to weigh on anything other than state statutory provisions.”
You are hilarious. I feel sorry for you because I get the impression that you really think this is some sort of profound revelation when all you’ve done is state the obvious. I’m waiting for you to say that “all triangles have 3 sides” so I can watch you smile, sit back in your chair, and reflect on your keen intellect.
“Even if there was a proper jurisdictional basis, the stay would have to be denied because the Supreme Court does not have the ability to delay or interfere with the meeting of the electoral college…”
I don’t know where you get these (kooky) opinions. Like I said before, I’ve never heard this kind of commentary from anybody else, including the most pro-Obama people alive. Then again, maybe you’re just a genius who is miles ahead of the rest of us? I keep forgetting that you’re a celebrated constitutional scholar who can spot truths that no one else in the world (including those on your own side) can see. (Yeah, right…)
“And even if somehow the Court had the authority, since the lawsuit runs only against the Connecticut secretary of state, there is no jurisdiction over the secretaries of state in the other 49 states — so no way to enjoin or influence the electoral college meetings there.”
You’re like that guy William Hung. The above statement reminds me of when he was singing “She Bangs”. Not meant for comedy, but it’s totally hilarious. Totally.
“All this to pursue a very questionable and tenuous argument about “natural born citizen†that is entirely at odds with what every Constitutional scholar in the US believes…”
Umm…I think you mean you.
“…and is not supported by a single citation to binding legal authority in the form of a prior court decision.”
Nothing supports either side, Einstein. The Court has never defined the term. (Oops…sorry. I forgot that you already knew that since you hold such esteem in legal circles.)
“The primary argument of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court should OVERRULE legal precedent dating back to the 19th century.”
Now I’m laughing uncontrollably…hehehehe. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter, yet they established a precedent in the 19th century?? This is too good, Mr. Hung (and I’m talking William, not the other meaning).
C’mon, friend, just admit it. Admit that you are Mr. Reality, Mr. Speculation et al. Your writing styles are exactly the same, you make the exact same (humorous) arguments, and……….oh, wait a second. I forgot, it’s because you both know something that the rest of the world doesn’t, right? Of course it is. (You are too funny, my man)
Bob, the appropriate way to stop Schwarzenegger, in your hypothetical, would be for a person with standing to file a timely action, for the right sort of relief, in a court of proper jurisdiction. An opposing candidate would likely have standing — and an action for declaratory relief well in advance of the election would seem like the appropriate remedy.
One irony here is that Obama won his first election – to the Illinois Senate – by disqualifying his opponents from the ballot. In his case, it was a simple matter of examining the signatures on their nominating petitions. But he took this action ahead of the election — had he waited and then lost the election, he would not have been able to retroactively eliminate the winner by raising the same issue.
I think you recognize that, given the hurdles that face anyone running for President, its highly unlikely that anyone would get their party’s nomination if there were genuine reasons to question the qualifications. It is precisely because of that concern that McCain’s supporters obtained a Congressional resolution before he ran, essentially certifying that his Panama birth to US Citizen parents qualified him as “natural born”.
If I was the lawyer representing an opposing candidate, I certainly would do my best to get the issue settled before the party’s convention — even if it came down to initiating a lawsuit against the party, to restrain them from nominating an unqualified candidate.
I don’t think it would happen unless there was some case where there was a complex and very real question. As you recognize, the problem in this case is that they rest on kook theories. You would probably have to have a bona fide dispute over place of birth; or (more likely) of the citizenship status of the parents of someone born outside the US to get to the point where there would be a legitimate basis or need for a court determination.
Jury, I must say your post gives tremendous insight into the working of the mind of a die-hard conspiracist.
In any case, I won’t respond to ad hominem.
“Jury, I must say your post gives tremendous insight into the working of the mind of a die-hard conspiracist.”
That’s funny because I’m the most unbiased poster here. (You’d know that if you had bothered to read my posts) I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on these cases. I’ve said time and again that if Obama is eligible, then let him serve honorably. But if he’s ineligible, then we need to get rid of him immediately.
So if being reasonable = being a conspiracist, then I am guilty.
“In any case, I won’t respond to ad hominem.”
You just did…..hehehehehe.
Oh…and if you meant that your multiple identities are the conspiracy, then it’s good that you’ve finally admitted it.
Now go seek some help…
I’ve been randomly reading through this turgid discussion. (Would anyone be insane enough to admit to reading the lot?) Really, it’s the most amazing pile of pseudo legal analysis I’ve read in 60 years of experience of Constitutional Law. I just wish my knowledge of Psychiatry was more complete; surely I would have found the humour of all this.
Those of you who are attempting to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility either have no (or insufficient) knowledge of Constititional Law and should be pitied for whatever motivates your masquerade, or are skilfully concealing their qualification.
Those of you who are attempting to sustain Obama’s eligibility should leave this discussion to turn ever more in upon itself, cf an ingrowing toe-nail, because whatever common-sense or qualification you may have is being grossly abused by your concession of status to your opponents.
Those who would pull Obama down in whatever court have no grounds on which to found a sustainable case. That is the meaning of the Supreme Court of the United States’ rulings so far in this gross waste of the Judges’ time and of taxpayer’s dollars: there is no case to answer. I hope that the rulings of no case to answer are soon accompanied by rulings that the full costs be borne by the plaintiffs. Rulings of vexatious litigation would be difficult to sustain, since the various plaintiffs are unlikely to be proven as acting in concert. Contempt rulings would be sustainable, and really need to be handed down soon, “pour decourager les autres”, paraphrase permitted.
To Legal Alien: While you have been “randomly reading through this turgid discussion,” You must have a real headache. Go take some “Preparation H.”
It will help your condition. It’s called “Head-up-rectum-itus.” To any TRUE American to NOT question if the person that is going to be the president of these United States, is qualified, is just wrong! All the evicence points to this fraud being ineligible to serve as president, let alone being a Senator! This illegal alien needs to be deported immediately, and his family with him! We need to be a country that follows the Constitution, not treat it as “just a piece of paper.” If we are just going to ignore it, like the incoming usurper, then we might as well be called the USSA! (United Socialists States of America) Any ignorant moron, can just say that “the American people have spoken and voted him in.” But it means nothing when you are voting someone that is ineligible to be president! All these people are asking for is for this poser to prove he is eligible, but instead he spends $800,000 to seal all of his records??? What a moron! Arrest him and deport him now. If he won’t go, charge him with treason and treat him accordingly! Now, the people have spoken!
What is the difference between a Somali pirate extorting millions in ransom and Obama extorting billions in taxes? ….
The Somali has a birth certificate.