Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Supreme Court justices will discuss challenge to Obama's citizenship Friday

Though it writes that the legal action has "little chance of succeeding," the Chicago Tribune notes that Supreme Court justices will sit down tomorrow to "take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship."

At issue is the contention of some Obama opponents that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that at one point as a child he gave up his citizenship. The arguments have been dismissed by lower courts and well as by Obama and his aides.

The nonpartisan FactCheck.org reported earlier this year that its researchers "have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."

Another nonpartisan fact-checking outfit, PolitiFact.com, reached the same conclusion.

Justice Clarence Thomas submitted the case, Donofrio v. Wells, for the court's consideration.

Posted by Mark Memmott at 01:58 PM/ET, December 04, 2008 in Election law

USA TODAY Online

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/
----------------------------------------------------


Supreme Court Not Considering Obama's Birth Certificate Case

By Michael Kraskin
Dec 5th 2008 8:48AM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Breaking News, Supreme Court

Today is the day that all the Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists--or "birthers," as they're known in some circles*--have been waiting for. Yes, at long last, it's Birth Certificate Day at the Supreme Court! Time for the highest court in the land to settle this dispute once and all.

Or so the "birthers" would like to believe.

They're a tad mistaken, though. That's because the authenticity question over of Obama's birthplace document has all ready been put to rest innumerable times.

No, the question before the court today is not whether Obama was born in the U.S., it's whether that birth makes him a natural born citizen. The argument brought by Leo Donofrio goes like this:

"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen 'at birth', just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens".

Got it? The argument is that even if he was born in the U.S., his daddy was an immigrant, so he can't be president. Donofrio in fact "concedes Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii."

Also, the Supreme Court isn't hearing the case, they are deciding whether to hear the case.

So, sorry birthers, no closure for you today. But hey, just for fun, here's a poll.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... cate-case/
--------------------------------------


December 5, 2008

Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

The Supreme Court made no announcement today whether or not it will hear Donofrio v. Wells, the lawsuit challenging the election based on Barack Obama's release - or alleged lack thereof - of his official birth certificate and his citizenship status. (The court did decide to hear two cases, one of which is the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, an Al Qaeda combatant seized on American soil.) Of course, there's no guarantee the Court will ever actually issue any statement on the Obama case since it was simply petitioned to the court and, along with hundreds of other cases, could be dismissed without any comment at all. But as Frank James, over at The Swamp, says, "the lack of an announcement doesn't mean the court definitely won't hear Donofrio." So either we will or we won't. Hmm.

Meanwhile, our comrades at our sister site DCist scoped out a protest held by supporters of the Donofrio cause at the Supreme Court this morning led by Roger Bredow, who claims Obama has duel citizenship.

The Supreme Court will announce whether it will actually consider the Obama lawsuit as early as today and as late as Monday. If (as expected) the Court tosses the suit, Bredow will start challenging Obama's legitimacy based on "foreign money that went into his campaign." Other protestors said they'd start contacting members of the Electoral College. Steve Brindle, who drove down from Pennsylvania, said he'd called his senators yesterday.

"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Brindle. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."

Of course, only 15 to 20 people showed so...yeah.

Either way, nothing will ever outweigh the rage we felt this morning when we read that Obama has allegedly chosen a Zune over an iPod. We're whipping up a petition as we speak and expect a protest very, very soon.

http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/05/no_wor ... _obama.php

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Supreme Court justices will discuss challenge to Obama's citizenship Friday

JohnDoe2

Why do you insist on reposting this article? This is 7 weeks old and there have been several court cases since this and several court cases pending from SCOTUS to different Federal and State courts across the land. The whole Fact Check.org issue has been thoroughly discussed and refuted several pages ago. If you have pertinent and current information on the case, great post it for all of us to see.

Either way, nothing will ever outweigh the rage we felt this morning when we read that Obama has allegedly chosen a Zune over an iPod. We're whipping up a petition as we speak and expect a protest very, very soon.

Love it! It just proves that his loyalty to this country is questionable by picking a tech device (probably made in China) named Zune, over an iPod (probably made in China.)

Originally Posted by vortex

There are several people who claim that in one-to-one talks with Representatives they have been informed that the ineligibility problem is known

Freedom of speech is on the line here, folks, and there is nothing that gives freedom of speech more strength than cold, hard facts to back up an argument to one position.

As far as I am concerned the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS ON THE LINE HERE! What in God's green earth can be more important than that? Just because all branches of our government, for whatever reason, are failing to do their duty to protect and defend the constitution, should we all just lie down and say, okie dokie, you don't need to follow it if you don't want to? What solid foundation do we even have to fight illegal immigration, or any other issue, if our constitution is no longer in tact. Does it not bother you that an Illegal alien might be in the White House? Commanding our troops? Giving away our money to people like ACORN? His relatives and other witnesses in the lawsuits have given their names, they just want it blocked from the public out of FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES AND THE LIVES OF THEIR FAMILIES.

A number of people have called myself, Highlanderjuan, Minuteman ect racists on this and other sites simply because we have a problem with Obama and his "transparency". We also have issues with our Government officials failing to honor their oaths. My post you referred to was not a private, but rather a public post. I was addressing everyone.

Originally Posted by vortex

There are several people who claim that in one-to-one talks with Representatives they have been informed that the ineligibility problem is known

WHAT? Who are these several people? I can probably produce several people who were snatched by aliens into the spaceship, and if I can't get their quotes as valid proof, I just write that sources who preferred their identity be shielded spoke to me. Absolute horsecrap. If you are going to be taken seriously you give your name, not launching a blog attack with no backup to support anything more than a political (or racist) point of view. Freedom of speech is on the line here, folks, and there is nothing that gives freedom of speech more strength than cold, hard facts to back up an argument to one position.

I belong to a small group of people on a private board who - when we see a remark attributed to an elected Rep or Sen - have no compunction about picking up a phone or sending a letter to inquire about the accuracy. We have made an effort to get info from about a dozen officials currently in office and 2 or 3 who were once in office but opted not to run and are currently principals in lobbying or law firms. When some ask to be "off the record" with their remarks, we respect that.

Justin Riggs at yourfellowcitizen and puzo1.blogspot.com and Arlen Williams are all bloggers who tend to show proofs for what they write. Orly Taitz has induced some hesitancy by some people for putting names "out there" for public consumption when she should have shown greater restraint. Ed Hale has published so many claims that he could not authenticate that he is not deemed a reliable source absent physical documents.

We are contemplating a suit which would be calculated to withstand any challenge on grounds of standing. We are not likely to tip our hand in litigation thru blogs or the like.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by vortex

There are several people who claim that in one-to-one talks with Representatives they have been informed that the ineligibility problem is known

WHAT? Who are these several people? I can probably produce several people who were snatched by aliens into the spaceship, and if I can't get their quotes as valid proof, I just write that sources who preferred their identity be shielded spoke to me. Absolute horsecrap. If you are going to be taken seriously you give your name, not launching a blog attack with no backup to support anything more than a political (or racist) point of view. Freedom of speech is on the line here, folks, and there is nothing that gives freedom of speech more strength than cold, hard facts to back up an argument to one position.

I belong to a small group of people on a private board who - when we see a remark attributed to an elected Rep or Sen - have no compunction about picking up a phone or sending a letter to inquire about the accuracy. We have made an effort to get info from about a dozen officials currently in office and 2 or 3 who were once in office but opted not to run and are currently principals in lobbying or law firms. When some ask to be "off the record" with their remarks, we respect that.

Justin Riggs at yourfellowcitizen and puzo1.blogspot.com and Arlen Williams are all bloggers who tend to show proofs for what they write. Orly Taitz has induced some hesitancy by some people for putting names "out there" for public consumption when she should have shown greater restraint. Ed Hale has published so many claims that he could not authenticate that he is not deemed a reliable source absent physical documents.

We are contemplating a suit which would be calculated to withstand any challenge on grounds of standing. We are not likely to tip our hand in litigation thru blogs or the like.

FreedomFirst;

When/Why do you suppose standing out trumped the constitution? If the sole purpose of your job was to make sure the constitution was being followed, shouldn't that be more important than "standing" ? Especially since the term can not be found in the constitution.

I have an inquiring mind :P

I belong to a small group of people on a private board . . . "

What is the name of this board?
Who are the members?
When you leave out this info you loose all credibility.
This is like posting an article with no link which no one can verify.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

I belong to a small group of people on a private board . . . "

What is the name of this board?
Who are the members?
When you leave out this info you loose all credibility.
This is like posting an article with no link which no one can verify.

I think FreedomFirst has already addressed the reason why he did not provide details and supporting information.

Disregard him if you like. He has placed many fine posts herein, and I expect he will add many more in future days.

Rather than trumping the Constitution, the notion of standing is actually recognized by it in Article III's provisions about "cases" and "controversies" although judge-made law (stare decisis) and codifications (legislated enactments) have had an impact on who has standing to sue.

The basic idea is that courts want parties with a real stake in an outcome. They don't issue advisory opinions nor engage in speculative endeavors. The federal court system is guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which set limitations on jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

I belong to a small group of people on a private board . . . "

What is the name of this board?
Who are the members?
When you leave out this info you loose all credibility.
This is like posting an article with no link which no one can verify.

I think FreedomFirst has already addressed the reason why he did not provide details and supporting information.

Disregard him if you like. He has placed many fine posts herein, and I expect he will add many more in future days.

I agree HJ. And how many times have I SAID that there is much more going on behind the scenes than most people are aware of?



Sheesh....some peoples' children.......