Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

theteleprompter.com

Well, I didn't realize that the court would not rule immediately! I really thought that when a case was presented they either accepted or rejected the suit. I guess it's still a waiting game!

Links within article are on article link at the bottom. I don't think the Bush administration wants involvement with the court cases.


We're in 'good shape' over Obama's birthplace
Presidential spokeswoman suggests there's no controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2008
10:27 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

President Bush doesn't have a significant level of concern over allegations, including those pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be commander in chief in the United States.

"Does the White House believe there is no question at all about the birthplace, and thus the required U.S. citizenship of the president-elect?" Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked at a news briefing today.

"I think we're in good shape on that," responded Dana Perino, the spokeswoman for the president.

(Story continues below)




WND reported just days ago when presidential candidate Alan Keyes brought a lawsuit over the location of Obama's birth. The Constitution is specific in demanding a "natural-born" citizen of the U.S. as its president, excluding "naturalized" citizens and others.
Alan Keyes

The lawsuit said the California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. There have been various reports – and a multitude of questions raised – about whether Obama was born in the U.S., and even if he was, whether he retained citizenship in Indonesia.

The legal action was just the latest in a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen."

Get Brad O'Leary's blockbuster book detailing the agenda for the upcoming Obama White House, "The Audacity of Deceit."

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as he stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, but there have been suggestions he actually was born in Kenya.

The Keyes action challenges: "Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

An Obama spokesperson interviewed by WND described the lawsuits as "garbage."

But last week, WND reported more than half a dozen other legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding Obama's decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

Among the states where cases are being tracked are Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii. There were also reports of other cases in Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia.

In another question, Kinsolving asked, "Sunday's lead editorial in The New York Times had this statement: 'We believe the military needs 65,000 additional Army troops, and the 27,000 additional Marines that Congress finally pushed President Bush into seeking.' What is the White House reaction to that statement?"

"Was that in Afghanistan, or in general?" Perino said. "I don't know. I didn't read The New York Times editorial this weekend, so I don't know."

Do you have a tough question you'd like to ask the White House? WND's MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance.






http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=81363

You can not lose U S citizenship as a result of anything your parents do. So if Obama was adopted by his step father and thus given Indonesian citizenship he would still have U S citizenship natural born status if he was born in Hawaii. He would not have to reclaim it at age 21 or whatever. His school records in Indonesia say he was born in Hawaii. Also even if he was born in Kenya he would still be a U S citizen since the law was amended to include someone whose mother was 14 and had been only 2 years in the U S prior to giving birth in a foreign country and it was amended all the way back to 1952 so that would cover Obama under those circumstances.

Justthatguy wrote

So if Obama was adopted by his step father and thus given Indonesian citizenship he would still have U S citizenship natural born status if he was born in Hawaii.

How do you figure when he changed to Indonesian that country doesn't allow dual citizenship, so he would have to relinquish his us citizenship. And even if he got it back it would change from a natural born status to naturalized us citizen which would disqualify him from the presidency. Just watch the video on obamacrimes.com they explain in detail the difference.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

[Leo Donofrio's] lawsuit attacks eligibility on the basis of dual citizenship -- to which Obama admits right on his own website -- being Constitutionally impermissible [to establish natural born Citizenship].

I don't see any grounds for a complaint here. Even in this case, where Barack Obama II did hold dual citizenship with the U.S. and (G.B. =>) Kenya until the age of majority, the U.S. has no problem with - makes no distinction about - dual citizenship for those born on U.S. soil to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. If he were born in Hawaii to at least one U.S. citizen parent, he would be a natural born citizen.

BUT, if he were born in Kenya or Canada or other soil not under U.S. jurisdiction, and if one parent was not a U.S. citizen, he would be a U.S. citizen if and only if the other parent had been a U.S. citizen for ten years, five of which were after age 16. His 18-year-old mother did not meet that last qualification.

Even if he was born in the U.S., he may still be an Indonesian citizen unless he declared an oath of allegiance to the U.S. after the age of majority (18 ) and thus reclaimed his U.S. citizenship.

There's nothing to it... unless he didn't do it.

Those three sequential words -- "natural born citizen" -- appear to have never undergone careful analysis in respect to a Presidential candidate by the nation's highest court. Why? Because they have been sparsely used by the Constitutional framers, appearing only in Article II itself, then briefly in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was then REPEALED in 1795 and replaced by a new statutory scheme that, as to children of American citizenS (both parents? a global whole?) born overseas, had the same provisions EXCEPT THAT "natural born" had been DELETED in favor of using solely "citizens." Since many of the original framers would have comprised the Congressional sessions in 1790 and 1795, one has to assume some DELIBERATION on their part in deciding to enact a new law that took care in excising two words.

The beauty of Donofrio's lawsuit is that it ASSUMES that Obama is going to be able to produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawai'i. And his suit essentially says "so what?" because it looks to the need for a court to determine if the known condition of dual citizenship at birth comprises the impediment. It forces the Court to look at what went into the framers' thinking, which was an abhorrence for any "split allegiances" to a foreign power.

A series of posts located below on another website takes a line-of-possible-argumentation through some stages which points to where any pleading, AT THE LEAST, should plead an "alternative theory" that someone who at his/her birth was "afflicted by" a situation of dual citizenship and hence dual loyalties may have been born in circumstances making Presidential eligibility impermissible.

All the statutory enactments over time do not rise to what the Constitution itself says (because it is "supreme law"), and all the caselaw over time which dealt with mere "citizenship" fact patterns do not rise to the circumstances of a "citizen" wishing to be found eligible for Highest Office. What is truly needed is a well-pleaded case which is one of first impression for those three words ,,, NATURAL .... BORN .... CITIZEN. There is an article cross-linked in one of the posts below by a Constitutional scholar out in California.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11 ... mment-3121

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11 ... mment-3123

Someone else wrote an article -- which Leo Donofrio (on the radio last night) said was in the U of Michigan law review -- and it had laid out the template that Leo Donofrio is essentially following to avoid being challenged on standing. Author of the article this guy, a law professor at Ohio State, who attended Harvard and Yale, and is apparently up at Harvard Law temporarily doing some teaching/research this semester.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=52

This entire issue is a serious area for Constitutional scholars or the U.S. Senate would not have written a Resolution (co-sponsored by Obama) which expressed its own non-binding "sense of the Senate" with respect to John McCain based upon his birth outside the formal U.S.

The problem with the two lawsuits which have gotten all the publicity so far is that they find an issue (rooted in the candidates' births) HIJACKED by people who have serious "wingnut" aspects to their own personal histories. Berg was fined $10,000 not too many years ago and has a blot on his record from that standpoint.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263

Andy Martin appears to have been unable to get State of Illinois to agree to let him even sit for a bar exam, according to one published report claiming he had a psychiatric impediment, and other reports cite to cases where he has used language in pleadings of some of his past litigations that is simply beyond the pale of what courts or decent citizens might find tolerable.

If you're going to pursue a suit, then it would be best to frame pleadings in ways that bring forth high-minded and recognized areas of legal scholarship.

It's also important to frame the issues in such a way that make production of an original birth certificate a development that DOES NOT TORPEDO THE CASE.

The other suits are all going to wither on the vine when the original birth certificate is trotted out by Obama, and those suits will end up conceding -- as a determination of FACT -- a status of natural born citizen attributed to a birth on the American soil of Hawaii.

Donofrio's suit frames the issue as one where the court must rule as a matter of LAW what those three words "natural born citizen" meant to the founding fathers. It forces them to go digging into the Federalist Papers and all kinds of historic documents surrounding the Constitutional Convention to determine intentions.

Even as late as the 1800's when the 14th Amendment was adopted, the debate made birth on American soil not the SOLE determinant of citizenship but added the requirement of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (its laws, and some could argue, only its laws). There was debate (a "legislative history") that pointed out how Native Americans born on such soil WOULD NOT be citizens. Why? Split loyalty owed to their tribes and jurisdiction over them maintained by their tribes. There was debate that pointed out how aliens' children who happened to be born on American soil ALSO WOULD NOT be citizens. Why? A foreign sovereign state also had "jurisdiction" over them.

Read this article, published in July 2008, very carefully since it points to American citizenship being something more than the mere accident of birth which, in England and on British soil, created the "king's subjects" under a monarchy.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/ ... 8&month=07

There are nuances about the law in this case. People who think that the original birth certificate is the ONLY thing and who are prepared to concede an issue needing legal clarification as one that will be settled by merely a factual proof (a document) are going to be blindsided, and made to look ridiculous by the mainstream media.

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8

Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007 ... buted-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on November 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.

http://www.rense.com/general84/scotus.htm

Oh please let it be so! Read this article....

Originally Posted by Lynne

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8

Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:

Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407

Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:

http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007 ... buted-for- conference-on.html

Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.

This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."

Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on November 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.

http://www.rense.com/general84/scotus.htm

Way to GO, Leo!!!

Originally Posted by jcsjcm

Wow, lets see how long this stays up!

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/election ... 87804.html

On NBC Who'd have ever thought?

Did you happen to see this post?

When Obama Jr. was born, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s 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. Obama being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be POTUS. The Framers did not want future Commander in Chiefs with split loyalities. SCOTUS will decide.



Has that been one of the arguing points concerning his citizenship? I don't recall seeing it before.

Even if the laws or regulations are changed to permit Obama being President I still think it is great this issue is being brought to light, maybe it will get more people to think about the Constitution more.