Obama's birth to go to supreme court

[cosermann]

It seems like if there was anything to this the Clinton team would have dug it up and buried the guy during the primary (unless there's something bigger going on).

Don't get me wrong, I think it should have it's day in court. This is about a citizen being able to ensure that a candidate for president meets the constitutional requirements. Darn tootin' we ALL have standing! I just don't think they'll find anything. Unfortunately

 

[flagtag]

It seems like if there was anything to this the Clinton team would have dug it up and buried the guy during the primary (unless there's something bigger going on).

Don't get me wrong, I think it should have it's day in court. This is about a citizen being able to ensure that a candidate for president meets the constitutional requirements. Darn tootin' we ALL have standing! I just don't think they'll find anything. Unfortunately

Well, Billery has been nominated for SoS, hasn't she? Obama didn't want her for VP, and exhibited anamosity toward her, but he did nominate her, didn't he.
Could Hillary have beat McCain? Who knows, but it seems that many are getting what they want out of the deal. (Politicians, that is)

 

[homeless]

Hillary has allready accepted the apointment for SoS. However she is Constitutionally unqualified. Her term isn't up until 2012, and last year the Senate voted a pay raise for SoS and several other top jobs. This exempts HIll and most of the Senate for the those jobs until their terms run themselves out.


But all is well, The Dems have always been able to get around things like this just by forgetting what the constitution says. When FDR is the hero of the party you know that logic and reason are crippled and deforemed.

 

[antsi]

Dislike Obama, but don't want to see this succeed

I dislike Obama as much as any rural conservative Christian gun owner - maybe more than most because I did time as a subject of Comrade Da Mayor in the People's Repbulic of Chicago, and so I've already had the displeasure of being a constituent of Obama's and delighted in his consistent efforts to disarm or make a criminal of me for being a gun owner.

However, that being said, I would not like to see Obama kicked out of office "on a technicality." I think that outcome would be even worse for our country than an Obama presidency - which is to say, very bad indeed.

I want Obama out of office. But I want it to happen the old fashioned way: voters sobering up and electing someone else.

 

[homeless]

I keep hearing people talk of the "very bad things that will happen if something happens to Obama." What exactly do you expect? And how would allowing him to circumvent the constitution be better than a small amount of rioting.

The Constitution is very specific in its language, and there is nothing wrong with bringing these questions up. Obama truely needs to be vetted by SCOTUS. I think all Presidents should be. If Obama is proven to be unqualified, and his election is found the be illegal, then yes there will be some very angry people. However it will be the media that will make a large bearing on how many react. When the people are angy they want blood, and the spin will determine whose. It will either be Obamas for lying, or it will be SCOTUS for tossing him.

In either case there will not be much of anything that comes of it. Riots happen, big deal. All that it will be is a temper tantrum when their side is proven wrong. You either wait it out or you stop it.

On a final, yet very important note. If Obama is kicked out on a "technicality" would he still be in violation of the Constitution? The Constitution IS the united Sates of America. Without it we are nothing, if we continue to neglect it then we have no right to be a Nation of Laws any longer.

It is OUR responsibility as citizens to be sure that the constitution is upheld. Just because you haven't been doing doesn't mean that you shouldn't start. We must follow that "damn piece of paper" to either greatness or our downfall. This expiriment has gone awry and needs to be put back on track. I don't give a damn how painful or bad it will be for the current populus, we need to get back.

As a young man, I blame the generations before me. It was your job to protect this nation until I could, and you have handed me a country in shambles. Since Abe the Tyrant my forefathers have by and large shown admoration for tranpling the Constitution. You people still think FDR was a great man. Some of you might have voted of LBJ.

The excuse I have always heard, is that "it would be bad" or "now is not the time" When gentlemen, when is the time to stand up for what is right? I am but a student of life, still wet behind the ears, so teach me how to judge when I should shout and when I should fight. But do not teach me how to back down, or to accept compromise. You men and the ones before you are the reason t hat I don't own class III items, That I can't buy a NIB G3. You cannot compromise when it comes to rightiosness. Extremisms is acceptable in this case. And I will die before I follow your route.

 

[ryanmercer]

It seems like if there was anything to this the Clinton team would have dug it up and buried the guy during the primary (unless there's something bigger going on).

Don't get me wrong, I think it should have it's day in court. This is about a citizen being able to ensure that a candidate for president meets the constitutional requirements. Darn tootin' we ALL have standing! I just don't think they'll find anything. Unfortunately

The hospital and Hawaiian governor are fighting it and will not release it (the bc) to anyone but him(Obama).

 

[ryanmercer]

So Obama is allgedly British/Kenyan, American, Indonesian, and technically Hawaiian as the Queen of Hawaii never accepted the ratification agreement to become a u.s. state so technically it's still a nation of it's own. Wow.

 

[flagtag]

So Obama is allgedly British/Kenyan, American, Indonesian, and technically Hawaiian as the Queen of Hawaii never accepted the ratification agreement to become a u.s. state so technically it's still a nation of it's own. Wow.

While Hawaii was not a state at the time, it WAS the property (territory) of the U.S. (Or was it? I can't remember when Hawaii became a state. Was it in 1950 or 1951?) Can anyone remember when Hawaii became a state?

I found it!
Hawaii was "organized as territory" in 1900
Entered Union: Aug. 21, 1959

 

[homeless]

We should ask Obama he has been to all 57 of them.

 

[ryanmercer]

While Hawaii was not a state at the time, it WAS the property (territory) of the U.S. (Or was it? I can't remember when Hawaii became a state. Was it in 1950 or 1951?) Can anyone remember when Hawaii became a state?

I found it!
Hawaii was "organized as territory" in 1900
Entered Union: Aug. 21, 1959

Yes but the native government never gave control over... then again neither did they for the other 49 states.

 

[flagtag]

Yes but the native government never gave control over... then again neither did they for the other 49 states.

Apparently, the PEOPLE voted. So, it seems that control was given - at least in 1959.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I keep hearing people talk of the "very bad things that will happen if something happens to Obama." What exactly do you expect? And how would allowing him to circumvent the constitution be better than a small amount of rioting.

The Constitution is very specific in its language, and there is nothing wrong with bringing these questions up. Obama truely needs to be vetted by SCOTUS. I think all Presidents should be. If Obama is proven to be unqualified, and his election is found the be illegal, then yes there will be some very angry people. However it will be the media that will make a large bearing on how many react. When the people are angy they want blood, and the spin will determine whose. It will either be Obamas for lying, or it will be SCOTUS for tossing him.

In either case there will not be much of anything that comes of it. Riots happen, big deal. All that it will be is a temper tantrum when their side is proven wrong. You either wait it out or you stop it.

On a final, yet very important note. If Obama is kicked out on a "technicality" would he still be in violation of the Constitution? The Constitution IS the united Sates of America. Without it we are nothing, if we continue to neglect it then we have no right to be a Nation of Laws any longer.

It is OUR responsibility as citizens to be sure that the constitution is upheld. Just because you haven't been doing doesn't mean that you shouldn't start. We must follow that "damn piece of paper" to either greatness or our downfall. This expiriment has gone awry and needs to be put back on track. I don't give a damn how painful or bad it will be for the current populus, we need to get back.

As a young man, I blame the generations before me. It was your job to protect this nation until I could, and you have handed me a country in shambles. Since Abe the Tyrant my forefathers have by and large shown admoration for tranpling the Constitution. You people still think FDR was a great man. Some of you might have voted of LBJ.

The excuse I have always heard, is that "it would be bad" or "now is not the time" When gentlemen, when is the time to stand up for what is right? I am but a student of life, still wet behind the ears, so teach me how to judge when I should shout and when I should fight. But do not teach me how to back down, or to accept compromise. You men and the ones before you are the reason t hat I don't own class III items, That I can't buy a NIB G3. You cannot compromise when it comes to rightiosness. Extremisms is acceptable in this case. And I will die before I follow your route.

I don't think it will be "a small amount" of rioting. I think it will be widespread and protracted. Of course, to be fair, that's what I thought would happen after the election, too, no matter how it went. I bought extra ammo and prayed I wouldn't need it. My prayer was answered.

You will find few who support more of our Constitution than I do. (not to disparage any of our other posters, simply saying that I am a strong Constitutionalist) I think the making of citizens of any who are born within our borders (as opposed to being born here to American parents) was a mistake. With that exception, I think the errors in the Constitution have been mostly corrected, removing slavery, adding women's suffrage, and the like. I definitely think that Obama's legitimacy needs to be investigated. If the same questions were raised about a Conservative candidate, I would say the same.

Of note, the "damn piece of paper" comment supposedly made by GWB has been refuted; only one person claims he said it, and all the reports out there return to that as the original source. This does not change his actions showing contempt for it, especially the 4th Amendment, but he's done enough damnable things, we don't need to perpetuate falsehoods and unprovables.

Additionally, please do not blame all of us for FDR and LBJ-LBJ was President when I was born. I'll take my share of the blame for Clinton-I was young and stupid, and I've since learned the error of my position at the time.

I also had nothing at all to do with NFA 1934, GCA 1968, or Bush (41)'s Executive Order in 1986 re: automatic firearms. I think you will be hard pressed to find someone on here who voted for anyone who had anything to do with NFA 1934 being passed. Such a person would have been born prior to WWI, therefore over 90 now.

When do you fight? That is a very, very personal decision. Perhaps the only way to answer it is to say, "When your personal "line in the sand" is crossed." When the rioting is ongoing and your home or business is threatened by rioters and you are the last line of defense for your family, that would be a line for me. Perhaps you have many "lines" for different situations and adversaries. I saw a good list a while back; you can read it and the reasoning that goes with it here: Cornered Cat - Personal Boundaries.

For myself, I recommend doing your fighting now, in the "soft war"... making sure those who write and pass laws understand where you stand and that you expect them to represent your interests, and that if they fail to do so, you will fail to support them in their bids for re-election.

Hope that helps you make your decisions.

While Hawaii was not a state at the time, it WAS the property (territory) of the U.S. (Or was it? I can't remember when Hawaii became a state. Was it in 1950 or 1951?) Can anyone remember when Hawaii became a state?

I found it!
Hawaii was "organized as territory" in 1900
Entered Union: Aug. 21, 1959

Yup, 1959... and Obama was born in 61. It was a state, he just wasn't born there, according to his grandmother. Among others.

Blessings,
B

 

[flagtag]

Obama seems to be pretty sure of himself (or his "associates") since he still refuses to "prove" his citizenship. And the fact that there are so many people protecting him makes me wonder just how much money/promises/threats were spread around.

Even those "stories" about him being born in Hawaii are conflicting. Two hospitals were listed. (Wow! THREE birthplaces! What a man! )

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Case Tossed...

like a bad salad. SCOTUS did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call.

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve - White House transition- msnbc.com

 

[haldir]

After they were savaged for involving themselves in the Bush Gore election, I would have been very surprised to see them take this case. The whole situation, the facts and the law, are quite murky.

 

[rjwin1967]

Unfortunately, I believe that since Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen that makes him one as well. The child of a citizen is a citizen. It's always worked that way for the military and civilians working outside the country. Besides, the supreme court has guts only when they know their personal safety won't be affected. In this case, they could very well find themselves under siege in their court if they ruled against Obama. The same mob mentality that elected him would be easily swayed to violence. I believe as I do because a child born in this country to Mexican parents, even though they are here illegally, is a citizen of this country. If a U.S. citizen had a child in another country, returned to the U.S. and then died before her 21st birthday, would her child be denied citizenship? That hardly seems equitable.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

And if its so simple, why not just produce the damn BC? lol I had to for a drivers license. I also have to whenever I accept a new job. My son had to have a copy when he started kindergarten.

Also, its unclear if he was even born in the United States which would negate his being a Natural Born Citizen under the 14th. Plus at the time of his birth, the law clearly states that even if he was born to one US Citizen, that citizen must have lived in the US for a minimum of 5 years past the age of 16. Since she was only 18 at the time, this would negate it as well.

IMHO, its all based on morality and ethics, both of which are missing in todays society. Produce the document and put this to bed once and for all.

 

[dburkhead]

Unfortunately, I believe that since Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen, that makes him one as well. The child of a citizen is a citizen. It's always worked that way for the military and civilians working outside the country. Besides, the supreme court has guts only when they know their personal safety won't be affected. In this case, they could very well find themselves under seige in their court if they ruled against Obama. The same mob mentality that elected him would be easily swayed to violence.

Um, no. It isn't always that way. There are specific rules. Born in the US is an automatic qualification. Military who are overseas on orders are generally an automatic qualification. Both parents US citizens is an automatic qualification. Birth to a US citizen in the Panama Canal Zone (at least during a specific period) was an automatic qualification spelled out by statute.

With a single parent being a US citizen and the birth not taking place within the US, then US citizenship only comes "automatically" if the parent has resided in the US at least 10 years, with 5 of those years being after the age of 14. My understanding is that being overseas on the business of the US government (military or government office) counts as "resident in the US" for purpose of this law--basically Uncle Sam cannot deny your citizenship because it sent your parent overseas.

Obama's mother was 18 when she gave birth to him. It is physically impossible for her to have met that requirement. Thus, if Obama was not born within the US (I don't consider this likely, but stipulate the possibility for the sake of discussion) then his mother's citizenship is not enough to make him a US Citizen.

What might really be interesting is if this issue is revisited in a couple of years (say, were the Republicans to retake the House and Senate in two years--unlikely in the case of the Senate, but not beyond the pale of possibility) and it be discovered that Obama were not really a natural born citizen. This, however, is the least likely possibility of all. With two years in the White House, I'm pretty sure that all the official documentation will be unassailable--even if the ink does still glisten a little.

 

[CarmelHP]

Berg had several counts, some wrong headed, others just plain silly (the promissory estoppel count was a laugh riot). Standing wasn't the only basis for dismissing counts, some did not state a claim, others were based on statute which did not grant private causes of action. Every American has a concern, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have standing. Read the full decision then tell me why it isn't well reasoned. I'd be happy to reconsider. There were no state secretaries of state stepping forward to question Obama's eligibility. You want to make a difference, lobby for a law in Indiana that any candidate for President in the state must offer positive proof of his eligibility for the office. On what possible legal basis, not our preference, will the Supreme Court grant cert?

It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the case was legally deficient. Just as I do not wish to chuck out the law and due process to help Obama, I do not want to do it in order to hurt him either. The brethren looked at it and it was a non-starter. The Third Circuit was correct.

 

[ryanmercer]

Unfortunately, I believe that since Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen that makes him one as well. The child of a citizen is a citizen. It's always worked that way for the military and civilians working outside the country. Besides, the supreme court has guts only when they know their personal safety won't be affected. In this case, they could very well find themselves under siege in their court if they ruled against Obama. The same mob mentality that elected him would be easily swayed to violence. I believe as I do because a child born in this country to Mexican parents, even though they are here illegally, is a citizen of this country. If a U.S. citizen had a child in another country, returned to the U.S. and then died before her 21st birthday, would her child be denied citizenship? That hardly seems equitable.

I thought she was born in Kenya, just like his biological father? But now I see she was born at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. However she was only 18 when she had Obama... and I know the laws about children of American parents born abroad was complicated prior to February 2001when they simplified it some, and the biggest thing in question is the fact that blood relatives of his claim to have been at his birth in Kenya.

Now it appears if your child is born abroad, (even if at a u.s. military base or embassy), you have to apply to have them naturalized as a u.s. citizen... not sure if it was similar before that or not.