Obama must respond to Writ of Certiorari by December 1

[chadkal 0]

According to the lawsuit that I read the certificate had to give the name of the hospital and have the signature of the attending doctor at the time of birth, without these things on the document it does not qualify.

Even if this document did qualify this does not address his Indonesian citizenship.

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

According to the lawsuit that I read the certificate had to give the name of the hospital and have the signature of the attending doctor at the time of birth, without these things on the document it does not qualify.

Even if this document did qualify this does not address his Indonesian citizenship.

I am not a lawyer but I don't believe the plaintiff gets to determine the rules of evidence in American civil courts.

[DSE 5]

Quote

According to the lawsuit that I read the certificate had to give the name of the hospital and have the signature of the attending doctor at the time of birth, without these things on the document it does not qualify.

Even if this document did qualify this does not address his Indonesian citizenship.

Well damn...It doesn't address that Obama has one arm shorter than the other and both of his legs are too long. It also doesn't address the *highly* suspicious level of articulation he offers with most every comment.
Does it address that he bought a dog for his daughters? Are we sure the dog is UKC/AKC papered?

[chadkal 0]

What does any of that have to do with him being qualified to be pres?

If the allegations are true,... that he had to become an Indonesian citizen at the age of 4 in order to go to school, thus giving up his U.S. citizenship, because at the time Indonesia would not recognize a dual citizenship, then he would not be qualified to be pres. When he came back to the U.S. he would have then become a naturalized citizen.

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[tkhayes 348]

And what if this said 'original birth certificate' does not actually exist?

Not everyone has their original birth certificate, so it may not be available. No court can make you produce a document that does not actually exist in the world.

Therefore, some tangent would take place in the courtroom. i.e., the court would have to decide what to do assuming the birth certificate does not exist. I doubt that they would rule that he is NOT a citizen due to the lack of it.

The likely answer? Go get a new copy of the birth certificate - a relatively easy thing to do. I can apply for and get a renewed copy of my birth certificate and should the original records not exist, I expect some court clerk simply issues one with some rudimentary investigation into where I was actually born.

Either way, birth certificate or not, he is going to be the next president, because the act of producing the birth certificate would be pretty easy to do. And if this case had any merit, someone higher up that this asshole Phil Berg would also be looking into it, probably someone at the Justice Dept.

This country is filled with frivolous lawsuits, this being one of them. No wonder Obama seems to have little interest in responding to it.....

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

My understanding was that when he went to Indonesia he could not go to school there unless he was a citizen, and that Indonesia would not recognise a dual citizenship, therefore he had to give up his U.S. citizenship at that time. Like I said, this is just ho I understood it.

Where did you get that understanding from? Any sources?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,008]

>If the allegations are true,... that he had to become an Indonesian
>citizen at the age of 4 in order to go to school, thus giving up his U.S.
>citizenship . . .

Doesn't matter. The constitution requires him to be a natural born citizen, not a citizen who never went to Indonesia. It further says that if he was born in the US he is a citizen. Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

The BOR says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, yet laws infringing the right are still considered constitutional. Your argument doesn't hold water in that regard.

IF he gave up his US citizenship as is alleged (and I have NO idea if it is true or not), then at that point he could only become a naturalized citizen, could he not? Have there ever been cases of renounced citizenship being re-awarded, and if so, in what capacity?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

Doesn't matter. The constitution requires him to be a natural born citizen, not a citizen who never went to Indonesia. It further says that if he was born in the US he is a citizen. Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

Where is Fox News reporting this?

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Doesn't matter. The constitution requires him to be a natural born citizen, not a citizen who never went to Indonesia. It further says that if he was born in the US he is a citizen. Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

Where is Fox News reporting this?

Because only ignernt rednecks (you know, those people that watch Fox News) say anything against The Chosen One®

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here is SNOPES article:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp And before we get the usual whining about whether SNOPES is an accurate source, note that the article contains links to the info.

Here's another link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Quote

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.

Here's another link, with photos of the birth certificate, and also a photo of an announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser (unless you believe that the newspaper was in on the Vast Conspiracy back in 1961) :
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Will all of this evidence stop the really determined rumor-mongers & conspiracy theorists? Probably not. Just as no amount of evidence would stop the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[BIGUN 1,326]

Quote

The burden of proof is now on the anti-Obama forces.

Actually, most of these suits are being thrown against the wall by Dems or AIP's.
For example, Berg is a Hillary supporter.
Keyes' opinion and reason on the matter appears to be (which I agree with):

Quote

In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Ambassador Keyes commented, "I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation."

Furthermore...

Quote

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Case challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'
Posted: November 20, 2008
1:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

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.

Personally, I would like to see a Supreme Court ruling just to put the matter to rest. Finally, I served as a soldier under Dems and Reps., I may have an opinion about them, but the bottom line was that I did not have to agree, disagree or even understand the CinC's directives, The only thing that mattered was we support the Constitution and the CinC.

If the Supreme Court finds that Obama is a natural-born citizen and can constitutionally serve as the next President; then let's get behind him, join hands, sing kumbaya, and get busy with fixing a whole lot of shit.

I can tell you this... With what he's stepping into; there's not going to be a lot of middle ground. He's either going to do really well or really poorly.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,008]

>>Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

>Your argument doesn't hold water in that regard.

So you believe we should base our laws on FOX news rather than the US constitution? I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, then.

>IF he gave up his US citizenship as is alleged (and I have NO idea if it is true or
>not), then at that point he could only become a naturalized citizen, could he not?

The US Constitution does not say that a naturalized citizen cannot be president. It only says that he must be natural born. It does not refer to what happens after that. The exact text is:

"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."

An example would be a law that says you have to be a born Texan to be eligible to get an authentic Texan commemorative flag. If you were born in Texas, moved to New York, then back to Texas, then you would still be eligibile to get a flag - even if you claimed you were a New Yorker for a few years.

[JohnnyD 0]

Seriously people. I can actually feel my brain cells dying from reading this ridiculous thread. It ranks equal with the people saying the exact same thing about McCain. If you are actually arguing in this thread you really need to get a life.

[billvon 3,008]

> If you are actually arguing in this thread you really need to get a life.

Good argument!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

IF he gave up his US citizenship as is alleged (and I have NO idea if it is true or not), then at that point he could only become a naturalized citizen, could he not? Have there ever been cases of renounced citizenship being re-awarded, and if so, in what capacity?

You know.. the straws that you guys are grasping at are so fucking ludicrous as to be utterly ridiculous...

Can any of you actually give ANY freaking credence to ANYTHING any of you did at 4 YEARS OF AGE...

CHRIST ALMIGHTY.....get the fuck over it already....this is only making the fringe right look like what they are.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Quote

Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

The BOR says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, yet laws infringing the right are still considered constitutional. Your argument doesn't hold water in that regard.

IF blah blah irrelevant.

If there's no need to go by the constitution then why are you still questioning if he's constitutionally qualified?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>>Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

>Your argument doesn't hold water in that regard.

So you believe we should base our laws on FOX news rather than the US constitution? I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, then.

Nice strawman there, Bill - Fox News doesn't make law so far as I know. There *have* been laws passed by congress concerning citizenship, however.

>IF he gave up his US citizenship as is alleged (and I have NO idea if it is true or
>not), then at that point he could only become a naturalized citizen, could he not?

The US Constitution does not say that a naturalized citizen cannot be president. It only says that he must be natural born. It does not refer to what happens after that. The exact text is:

"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."

An example would be a law that says you have to be a born Texan to be eligible to get an authentic Texan commemorative flag. If you moved to New York, then back to Texas, then you would still be eligibile to get a flag - even if you claimed you were a New Yorker for a few years.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Seriously people. I can actually feel my brain cells dying from reading this ridiculous thread. It ranks equal with the people saying the exact same thing about McCain. If you are actually arguing in this thread you really need to get a life.

Isn't that like standing up in an AA meeting and saying something like "You guys need help!"



Even though I'm not a fan of Obama, I'm pretty sure that the Dem's lawyers have gone over all of this ground already. Probably long before the primaries had really been fleshed out.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Even though I'm not a fan of Obama, I'm pretty sure that the Dem's lawyers have gone over all of this ground already. Probably long before the primaries had really been fleshed out.

Yep, I'm thinking Hillary's peeps had a look.

[billvon 3,008]

>Nice strawman there, Bill . . .

I was replying to your post. Do not post strawmen if you don't want them discussed.

>I don't dispute what the Constitution says, I am asking what the status
>of someone who has renounced their US citizenship would be if they attempt to
>regain it.

If they were officially stripped of it, then they would have to become re-naturalized. If not, then they do not. (And in neither case would it affect qualification to become president of the US.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

this is only making the fringe right look like what they are.

Like liberals whining about Bush's military records or the Florida vote for the last 4/8 years, respectively?

ZOMG!!! How DARE anyone say anything not in praise of the Obamessiah???? *barf*

Sarcasm aside, my point is valid - I do not know what the citizenship status would be of someone in the situation I described. If you know of any court cases establishing that precedent, by all mean trot them out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gotta go by the Constitution, not by FOX News.

The BOR says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, yet laws infringing the right are still considered constitutional. Your argument doesn't hold water in that regard.

IF blah blah irrelevant.

If there's no need to go by the constitution then why are you still questioning if he's constitutionally qualified?

Because, just like with the BOR, there have been laws passed SINCE the constitution was written in regards to citizenship that may have an impact on that clause.

C'mon, jakee - I know you're not that dense.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Like liberals whining about Bush's military records or the Florida vote for the last 4/8 years, respectively?

On balance Mike.. think about this straw you are grasping at...

If you did not show up for duty for what period of time when you were dealing with the military.. at what point would you be prosecuted for desertion.. let alone AWOL.


On the flip side... can you remember a day when you were in your 4th year of life..???

Usually one would think that a 4 year old would remember an event like filling their uderwear with poo being more momentous since you are not going to school yet.

[billvon 3,008]

And STILL Obama supporters have no explanation for what he was doing between 1940 and 1960. Was he palling around with terrorists? Was he living in a foreign country? It's a question THEY CAN'T ANSWER! Why don't they want the truth to come out? What are they hiding?