Supremes to review Barack's citizenship
Posted November 20th, 2008 by northstar
output
I understand this topic is frequent, but so much is being written around the web, we have to keep up with any new angles on it.
----------------------
Case challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.
More at: http://www.worldnetdaily....
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I just checked the blog site
I just checked the blog site of Leo Donofrio, the young man who sued the New Jersey Secretary of State over Obama being born with British citizenship because his dad was a British citizen, hence making Obama not a natural born citizen.
http://www.blogtext.org/n...
He seems to think that the Supreme Court is taking his application to stay the election very seriously. We shall see, but can you imagine the ruckus a decision finding Obama ineligible would cause. Make sure your television is in good working order early in December on the outside chance that the Supreme Court actually follows the Constitution and disqualifies Obama.
I personally find Donofrio's argument sound. Before the US Constitution was adopted in 1788 it would not have been possible for that document to control anything since it didn't exist legally. The first Continental Congress was only in 1774, a hand full of years earlier. Before that the Colonies were under British jurisdiction, and anyone born or living there would look to British law to determine citizenship. The Framers of the Constitution did not want people not natural born under the Constitution of the new country to be President (commander in chief), but that would exclude virtually all of the population who had been born as British citizens, so they made an exception qualifying everyone who was a citizen at the date the Constitution was adopted. To understand "natural born" think of the difference between a child born to you and a child adopted by you; "natural" was used in the sense of being of the same blood.
Obama was born from the womb of a US citizen, but his father was a British citizen and did not have US citizenship. Under the operation of British law in 1961 he was automatically a British citizen and under the operation of US law he was a US citizen (presuming he was actually born in Hawaii), so this raises a serious constitutional question. He certainly was not a citizen in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted, so he must qualify as a natural born citizen.
Understanding that the intent of the "natural born" clause was to exclude people born under the flag of another country because they might have allegiance to that country, I think this excludes ANY people who were born citizens of another country, even if they had dual citizenship. So what will the Supreme Court do? Stay tuned.
I can see it going any number of ways, none of them pretty
Scenario A: The Supremes take the case, decide Obama is foreign-born and not qualified, cancel the election plunging the country into absolute chaos so that Shrubbery can declare martial law. Mean, ugly and violence-filled Depression ensues.
Scenario B: The Supremes take the case, decide Obama is foreign-born, but it doesn't matter, further eroding the value and power of the Constitution to which just a few freedom-loving citizens object. Mean, ugly and violence-filled Depression ensues.
Scenario C: The Supremes don't take the case, election stands, Obama serves and makes numerous wrong decisions about the economy (see Roger's interviews in another thread). Mean, ugly and violence-filled Depression ensues.
There seems to be a lot
There seems to be a lot going against Obama these days...
We have the Philip Berg suit in the SCOTUS, the suit by the NJ plaintiff being heard by the Supreme Court and I just recently read something about Alan Keyes being involved in an Obama citizenship related lawsuit as well. I'm pretty sure there are a few other lawsuits as well.
Don't get your hopes up too high. I'm all in favor of a plenary
hearing on the matter, but I am not holding my breath. If I were placing a bet, it would be against the court ruling in favor of the petitioner.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
I always liked the Supremes...
Diana Ross was off the hook.
A bit skinny for my tastes.
A bit skinny for my tastes. I think she had an eating disorder.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Read the title and this immediately came to mind:
Supremes
Gee, I wonder how they will rule?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
According to the 14th Amendment,
any person who is born in the United States ... is a citizen of the United States.Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen. It's that simple!
Annie
If it were just that simple,
If it were just that simple, why are the American people being denied its disclosure? Why all the extreme efforts to protect this information from public scrutiny. Surely in an atmosphere of growing mistrust of institutions and upholders of the law, open and transparent disclosure is the only way to go UNLESS there is something to hide. If there is nothing to hide then this man, Obama, is showing unprecedented arrogance for the American people and can only make one wonder what he's capable of doing with presidential power. ??????
why are you here?? to show us your ignorance ?? your stupidity??
if you are really in ignorance and just do not know ...please go to the upper right corner ..hit search .... and then type in obama.. then read...
And that's the general mentality you're talking to
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
Keep dreaming
I guess you where to busy sleeping when Obamas half sister and grandmother both stated they where at his birth in KENYA.
Now..Ive never been to Hawaii...but..I dont think Kenya is in that neighborhood....
Let me guess..you voted for Obama...didnt you? Ahhh you poor thang....
If he was born in Hawaii..then..why did he have the record sealed? Its suppose to be a public record under the F.O.I.A, but noooooooo...its sealed under the I.LIED.YOUR.SCREWED.ACT
Obama Crimes
Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.
assumption:
he was born in hawaii.
You mind might be that simple, but the Constitution is not.
So why would the framers of the Constitution have made an exception to the natural born citizen requirement to let Colonial citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution also qualify? It was because those citizens were British citizens born in the Colonies, who would not have otherwise qualified under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution being then written. Obama was likewise a British citizen at birth, and fell into the same category as most, if not all framers of the Constitiution, i.e. British citizen. Except the exemption in the Constitution covered the Framers; it did not cover someone living more than 200 years later.
Is a child that comes out of your womb your natural born child? Yes. Is a child you adopt your natural born child? Hardly. This is the context of "natural born". Obama was natural born to Stanley Ann Durham Obama, an United States citizen. Being the biological son of the British citizen, Barack Obama, Sr. he was born a citizen of Great Britian, hence not natural born within the meaning of Article I, Section 2. This is the question, so it is not simple.
The intent of the Framers was to exclude from the office of commander in chief someone with allegiance to a foreign government at his birth. Under British law, because his father was a British citizen, Obama was also born a British citizen. He was also born a US citizen to a US citizen mother in Hawaii, but was he a natural born citizen as envisioned by the Constitution. I think the answer is obvious that he is not a natural born citizen because he was also a British citizen. The Supreme Court, however, will decide this not so simple issue. The may take a political course and abdicate their responsibility finding him eligible, but I doubt that they will give such a flip and uninformed response as your simple answer.
The fact that the 14th amendment makes someone a citizen does not make them a natural born citizen.
You Know This How?
Were you there? . . . uh, wait, Barack, is that you?
________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Annie. I'm 300 years old and half bear
I ust thought I'd write it down so you defend me when and if people ever question my bear heritage or age. It's written down, so it's true. Would you like to see my 300 year old birth certificate? I've got a link, it's not fake cause I say so.
Beary funny,
but stoopid!
You'll see!
Annie
Oh, so you were there at his
Oh, so you were there at his birth? Why did you take so long to come forward?
If you believe what you are told.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Clause 5
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.
The closed session they are going to hear on December 5th 2008 is different than Berg's argument.
This Citizens argument from NJ, is that under the above clause; At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution everyone born here was a British Subject, or a citizen of Great Britain, so to start no one was a Natural born citizen till birthed after the adoption of the Constitution, so the founding fathers in an effort to run for President they listed themselves as citizens of the United States, (they did not consider themselves to be natural born) There is no one living today that was alive at the adoption of the constitution, so the door has been closed on anyone living today that was not then a citizen, they must now be natural born here with no dual citizenship.
The argument to be heard, assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii, but it was Obama's father citizenship that calls clause 5 into question.
When Obama Jr was born August 1963. Kenya was a British colony. But Obama Sr, and Jr citizenship would soon be changed to a citizen of Kenya, when Kenya was granted Independence.
Obama still had dual citizenship till 1982 when his citizenship expired.
In 1948 the British Government gave full citizenship to all people of Kenya and their children.
That is the gist of it. There was another thread on here this morning that explained in more detail. But this is indeed a very powerful and convincing argument.
--Daryl
As per the Constitution,
natural born if birthed in the U.S. and naturalized if born elsewhere. Past court cases and so-called case law (stare decisis) have corrupted this very simple law regarding U.S. citizenship. Ergo, court opinion has replaced Constitutional LAW. Or, as it has become known, legislating from the bench.
Duplicate thread: Better details at
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
This has nothing to do with the Berg or Keys suits challenging where he was born. The likelyhoood that he was born in the US (Hawaii) on 8-4-61 is almost 100% certain. Berg and Keys are displaying their lack of knowledge.
The question is if he is a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution to qualify as President. If your father is a citizen of another country, and not a citizen of the US and that country grants the father's child citizenship at birth by virtue of their laws, no matter where he was born, then are you a natural born citizen? I think you are not; this is what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide. It does not matter that his mother was a US citizen. It does not matter if he was born in front of a crowd of 1,000 in the middle of Missouri. It does not matter that US law makes him a citizen at birth. He must be a natural born citizen and having British citizenship at birth, makes him not a natural born citizen. Many of the founding fathers were not natural born citizens because they were born in the Colonies as British citizens, so that is why there was an exemption from the natural born citizen requirement for those who were citizens of the Colonies at the time the Constitution was adopted, and Obama did not live 200+ years ago in the Colonies.
This is a very significant Constitutional issue, unlike the other unfounded lawsuits challenging his qualification.
Read the details in the duplicate thread.
Who is Roger Calero?
Looked him up, and he appears to be Nicaraguan by birth and one of the losers who fought CA Prop 187 and messed up this state.
So he wasn't eligible in the first place.
Assuming WND is accurate (and that's a huge assumption!), the conference is not an actual hearing, but a determination if SCOTUS will grant writ of certorari to hear the case. They can also turn it down with or without comment.
The fact that at least two clearly ineligible candidates were allowed on the ballot makes this interesting.
It's STILL a red herring.
Obama's mother was a US citizen when he was born. That makes him a citizen, too. Get over it.
-jcr
Read what Berg has said before you spew.
If his Mom is american and his Dad is kenyan, is he still an american? You don't know what you're talking about.
I doubt anything will actually come of any of these cases, but our new prez is not a natural born citizen.
When a child is born outside
When a child is born outside the U.S. and only 1 parent is a U.S. citizen, that parent needs to be a certain age and spent a certain amount of time in the U.S. or something like that. Obama's mother didn't qualify. This is the argument in relation to his birth in Kenya.
But there is also the issue of Obama having become an Indonesian. When his mother remarried the family moved to Indonesia where they could either be U.S. citizens or citizens of Indonesia, but not both. Dual citizenship was illegal there at the time. Obama's family chose Indonesia over the U.S. So, this is the issue which adds fuel to the fire about Obama being a naturalized citizen when he immigrated back to the U.S.
Nope.
Bloodline has nothing to do with natural-born status. Google "Panamanchurian Candidate" for the explanation.
WRONG
she hadn't lived in the US for 5 years after turning 14 so he couldn' be a citizen either
--------------
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."
And how about some real
And how about some real news, not World Net Daily which has as much credibility as the Kentucky Penny-Saver.
The docet is listed on the
The docet is listed on the supreme court website. Is that real enough?
Credibility of WND
I find World Net Daily to be an extremely credible source. May I ask what you're basing your accusation on?