Main Menu

Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 1)

I have come to realize that there are two debates on the question of presidential eligibility and the definition of “natural born citizenship,” and some of the more thoughtful people on each side are debating different things. One debate thesis may be summed up this way:

The Constitution does not define “natural born citizen,” nor is it defined in legislation. The U. S. Supreme Court has never decided the question of the relationship of parentage to natural born citizenship. The uncertainty should be resolved.

The second debate thesis might be summed up this way:

Based on common law principles, and supported by numerous authorities, one may conclude with a high degree of certainty that natural born citizens of the United States are those born within its borders except the children of ambassadors.

Folks like Ken Dunbar and Stephen Tonchen (the author of the piece to be discussed here) are debating the former, and this web site is largely geared towards investigating the latter. If debating the first question, then one might say that Barack Obama’s eligibility is “unproven,” but when debating second one will conclude that it is “proven.”

I have no strong objection to the first thesis, but because I affirm the second, I don’t find that there is any urgency towards a judicial resolution of a question that has already been decided by force of argument, the same argument that would be made to the Court and that would certainly prevail. Whichever the case, I find language like “usurper” to be totally irresponsible.

Free Republic published on June 5, 2009, an article titled Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer by Stephen Tonchen that argues the first thesis from a historical perspective. In an introductory comment Tonchen says:

Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen”.

I find this bit of honesty refreshing. This is the consensus opinion (except in regard to the children of ambassadors). In the context of that consensus opinion Tonchen then sets out his task:

However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.

The rest of the Tonchen article primarily deals with that historical research. While I would not call Tonchen’s article fair and balanced, I would say that that it is far more fair and far more balanced than what has gone before.

This web site already has over 40 articles addressing the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, and I do not propose to repeat what has already been said or to answer one massively vertical argument with another. What I intend to do  is offer a “reality check” to Tonchen’s article, to identify unsupported assertions and to balance some one-sided views. This article cannot be understood in isolation from Tonchen’s article. Backup evidence to all of the assertions I make below are contained in those other articles on the site, some of which are linked and some of which are not.

Tonchen claims:

With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem…

Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

There are two “reality checks” here. First, one cannot be sure that the public was unaware that Arthur’s father was not a US Citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth. There is a contemporary newspaper reference to Arthur as being “Irish born” (his father was Irish). It may well be that historians “re-discovered” his father’s emigration status.  There is strong evidence that opponents of Arthur (in particular A. P. Hinman) were aware of the fact. But I think it important that Tonchen acknowledges that the American voters did elect Barack Obama in the full knowledge that his father was not a US citizen. There are also remarks from Theodore Roosevelt suggesting he know that Arthur was born a British subject.

The second check is the assumption that there was an eligibility “problem” in the first place. Arthur was from New York, and just a few years earlier the highest court of New York (Lynch v Clarke, 1844) had stated that the child born in the United States to aliens was eligible to be president, and declared this to be the universal view of the public and the legal community. So just as today where the consensus view is that birth in the United States is sufficient to make one a “natural born citizen,” so it was in the time of Chester A. Arthur. Given that fact, it seems quite a misrepresentation to describe the situation as a “problem” since the consensus at the time (just as it is today) is that it was not.

Tonchen then comments:

According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the child of a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen.

It is true that a comment in this Supreme Court opinion says this and says that it was not necessary to resolve this doubt for the purposes of that case. However, no reason for this doubt is given; no authority is cited. The comment’s context remains a mystery. That someone had a doubt  does not imply that the Minor court could not have resolved that doubt should it have chosen to. One must be careful not to rephrase the comment in Minor to say that Obama’s eligibility is “doubtful.”

Tonchen then goes into an balanced discussion of the fact that in England, its “natural born subjects” where those born in the territory, without regard for the citizenship of the parents. What arises then is the question of whether one can rightly say that the American phrase “natural born citizen” is a close analog to the English “natural born subject.” Tonchen then jumps into a literary pool borrowing from the work of Mr. Greshak. After citing the historical example, Tonchen concludes:

In both Patsall and Vattel, “natural born citizen” meant much more than someone who was born in a particular place. Parentage, upbringing and education also contributed to the meaning of “natural born citizen.” [Conclusion to section 4.3].

From the historical examples, I would not arrive at this conclusion. Tonchen’s own sources state the equivalence of  “natives” and “natural born citizens.” And of course, de Vattel, writing in French, did not use the words “natural born citizens,” nor was de Vattel translated into English as “natural born citizens” at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution. I have a concern when Tonchen says:

Thus alumnum urbis –” the “natives” or “natural born citizens” of a city –” are those who were not merely born in the city, but were raised or parented by the city –” specifically, by residents or citizens of the city.

My objection is to the choice of the word “parented” here. While it is technically correct, it could be easily misunderstood to refer to birth parents, not to who raised the child. The emphasis in the original text is to language and manners. In the case of Barack Obama, he was not “parented” by Barack Obama Sr. and so this text raises no objection to the particular case of Barack Obama being a natural born citizen. I don’t think anyone would say that Barack Obama talks like a foreigner.

I have an overall objection to both the literary examples, because the translation “natural born citizen” is not a literal rendering of the original in either case. In both cases “natives”  is a better translation for our time and our purposes in this discussion.

The next remark from Tonchen came as a surprise, when he said:

In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

First, de Vattel was arguing from the point of view of natural law, not common law. Second, English translations of de Vattel that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution did not use the phase “natural born citizen.” So, I find it difficult to say that de Vattel has been affirmed either by definition or by results (since de Vattel’s natural law definition of “natives” by “parentage only” is also brought into doubt).

Tonchen then fairly describes the historical record:

Throughout American history, various “authorities” (judges, district attorneys, legal experts, etc.) have expressed support for the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory. According to this theory, U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are citizens at birth and presumably natural born citizens as well.

I can give dozens of citations in support of this statement. However, Tonchen states that it is “unproven.” That is correct at least from the point of view that no court has made the definitive ruling specifically on the question. However, I would say that it is proven based on the weight of authorities cited here and elsewhere.

For more, check out Part 2.

Stephen Tonchen

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

127 Responses to Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 1)

  1. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    No court has ever defined Natural Born Citizen at it applies to a citizen who is the POTUS. This is new precedent that court must address since a citizen of the POTUS is inherently different from an ordinary citizen becuase of the powers and abilities endowed to the POTUS. In that regard, a citizen who is the POTUS must be constrained to the the definition of a Natural Born citizen to the highest degree. Such a definition must insure that the POTUS possesses 100% allegience to the US. Obama was born with split allegiances which would make him impossible to be a Natural Born Citizen as it applies to the POTUS.

  2. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    Mario explains the common sense:
    http://thebirthers.org/apuzzo/apuzzoseanandfrankshow20090618.mp3

  3. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Phil at tRSoL is fond of saying that questions about Obama’s eligibility have not been “formally answered.” (Query: When were they formally asked?)

    It is a common canard in debate to equate “unproven” with “meritorious.” As with other conspiracy theories (i.e., Holocaust deniers, 9/11 “truthers”), asking “hard questions” doesn’t mean there’s actually anything to question.

    As for the attempt to ignore the prevailing body of law on the meaning of natural born citizen, this presentation is slightly better than others. Still unconvincing.

  4. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Besides the United States, to whom does Obama owe allegiance?

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Actually, as I see it, there is no necessity for the court to address anything. We have a standing common law principle to guide us insofar as a person actually born in the United States. The courts, as well as the framers, have said that allegiance springs from the place of birth, not parentage, at least in the United States.

    Those who consider Obama to have split allegiance because of his father’s status are talking like foreigners, not like Americans.

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 20, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    John is echoing the basic fallacy of Tonchen’s argument, which totally misconstrues the role of the US Supreme Court in our system of Government. That is, the argument that the Supreme Court has a responsibility to define “natural born citizenship” for purposes of Presidential eligibility in order to legitimize Obama’s Presidency.

    But the US Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions and it does not determine political questions. The US Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to enact laws defining citizenship and also gives Congress the sole authority and responsibility both to seat and unseat the President.

    Legally, I think it is questionable that the US Supreme Court would have authority to overturn a determination of Congress, even if jurisdiction could be established. That is, if Obama’s eligibility had been challenged on January 8th during the joint session of Congress to ratify the electoral college vote — and if, hypothetically, to resolve such challenge Congress had specifically voted to affirm a finding that “Obama was born in the state of Hawaii and as such, is a natural born citizen, regardless of citizenship status of his father” — would the US Supreme Court have authority to determine otherwise? I think not. That is, I think that whatever standard the US Supreme Court might apply, they would have to defer to the judgment of Congress in an area where the determination could be supported by reasonable argument.

    So the real issue is: did Congress have authority on January 8th to designate Obama as President-elect, with the implicit determination that he was qualified to hold office? I can’t imagine any rational argument that could be made to the contrary.

    At best, Tonchen is able to state a minority view legal argument (resorting to citing from the dissenting opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case) which, while rational, is hardly compelling.

  7. avatar
    jtx June 20, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    Dr. C:

    This entire line of yours is obviously an attempt to backstop your theory (which I might point out has nothing to do with a legal con firmation of ANYTHING).

    Your claims, while interesting, will certainly not hold up in a proper court of law – nor does it have any credence in common sense.

    I prefer to wait and see the evidence so that the facts are know without speculation and THEN we’ll see the legal issues involved and we’ll see what is determined based upon that law. Blogs like this are just personal opinion – and in your case an extremely slanted one. I would merely like to determine the truth in a rigorous fashion.

    Why, as presumably faithful Americans, don’t you join the millions who have concerns about presidential eligibility and request a legal determination of the matter … then if you’re right you can blow endlessly about how smart you all are???

  8. avatar
    jtx June 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    Some of the points you cite may be the very reason(s) SCOTUS has not yet been willing to hear such cases on merit. That does not, however, mean they cannot decide what the “nbc” term means – they certainly can.

    The example you cite about a Congressional “determination” that no matter the status of his father, the man could be declared to be a nbc. That is total nonsense! Such a declaration has no legal meaning at all and cannot possibly override the United States Constitution.

    Nor was there any “implicit determination” in certifying the election; only the results of the EC were read into the record and that has nothing at all to do with eligibility as is clear if you’d read the Constitution.

    There are other cases that will eventually be heard on merit and, when discovery comes about, it will be “Katy bar the door” I believe. As the old Chinese proverb goes … may you live in interesting times!

  9. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    JTX: Your claims, while interesting, will certainly not hold up in a proper court of law – nor does it have any credence in common sense.

    The facts are that the irony is that JTX’s musings will never make it to court while the Courts themselves have clearly supported Dr C’s position.

    A clear case of Cognitive Dissonance if you were to ask me..

  10. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    I prefer to wait and see the evidence so that the facts are know without speculation and THEN we’ll see the legal issues involved and we’ll see what is determined based upon that law.

    Now that’s funny…

  11. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Akin to saying, “Millions of Americans have doubts about the validity of the infield-fly rule,” so why not waste an endless amount of time, money, and energy on it?

  12. avatar
    jtx June 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    But Bob –

    There IS an issue involved and it is not a “consipracy” at all.

    The fact is that the Constitution requires a president (to be eligible) to be a nbc. That’s aq contractual obligation, you see, and the putative president has never fulfilled this point. NEVER!! (and please spare the nonsense about the COLB copy on his website, etc. from the Annenberg guys).

  13. avatar
    richCares June 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    the deluded jtx chimes in, he is the third member of the 3 stooges that visit Dr. C’s, for a free trip to NeverLand, who are the other 2?

  14. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    That you think there is an issue does not make it so. (And for you to be correct, it would be a conspiracy, as it would require a vast amount of people — Clinton, McCain, all the DNC and RNC pointy heads — to all agree to not pursue this “strategy”.)

    And where is this “contractual” obligation? As Berg has learned the hard way, he has no right to enforce the eligibity requirements.

    As for his COLB, it a valid, legal document from Hawaii, and there’s no competent evidence to suggest that digital version online differs from the original paper one.

  15. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    There are other cases that will eventually be heard on merit and, when discovery comes about, it will be “Katy bar the door” I believe. As the old Chinese proverb goes … may you live in interesting times!

    For them to be heard on merit, they will first have to show standing, judiciability etc. These interesting times may very well be far in our future if ever.
    The courts have spoken.

  16. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Seems the Congress who decides qualification disagrees. And the eligibility clause is not a contractual obligation, nor is it up to the president to prove his eligibility other than by providing his location of birth which is by all reliable evidence, Hawaii.

  17. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 20, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    One comment. In his last point on the Quo Warranto procedings, he states:

    A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):

    Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to be President, this Court has the power and the authority to remove you from office.”

    My question on this.

    1. If it is a civil action, versus a criminal one, wouldn’t the burden of proof be a preponderance of the evidence, not beyone a reasonable doubt as suggested in this paragraph?

    2. Isn’t the actual burden of proof on the accuser, and not the accused (Innocent until proven guilty, versus what they state #1 is).

    3. For it to operate under congressional authority, wouldn’t the congress have to approve it?

    4. Doesn’t the consitution state that the only way for a president to be removed from office is through impeachment (a procedure outlined in the constitution)? So, would the court actually have the power to remove him from office?

  18. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    1. Among that poster’s errors is misstating the burden of proof in a quo warranto. The burden of proof would be preponderance of the evidence.

    2. The petitioner would bear the initial burden in demonstrating that an order to show cause ought to issue. Once such an order was issued, only then would the burden switch to the respondent.

    3. Congress did approve of the relevant DC Codes.

    4. Donofrio’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, impeachment is the only way to remove the president, and Congress cannot delegate that job to the federal courts.

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 20, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    As Bob noted, Congress created the DC statute, but there is nothing in the statute itself that gives express or even implicit authority to be brought against a US President.

    Historically, quo warranto was an action to be brought on behalf of the chief executive (under British common law, the King) — and that is why the statute provides for an action to be brought by the US Attorney, which is part of the executive branch, operating under the direct authority of the President. Quo warranto is intended as a way of challenging the right to hold a lesser office or position, which could be elective of appointed.

    Neither the DC Court nor the US Supreme Court would have any power under the Constitution to remove a President from office.

  20. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    As Mario has stated, not withstanding Obama’s COLB and the one filed in the state of Hawaii, no coorborating evidence has be shown that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. (No hospital has come forward. No individual has come foward.) In fact, coorborating evidence suggest Obama was born in Kenya.(Sara Obama, Kenyan Ambassador) The birth certificate in itself is meaningless. We also do not know how the birth certificate is derived. Is the birth certificate based on a birth in a hospital or is the birth certificate based on affidavit from an individual, perhaps Stanley Ann Dunham. We don’t know. Dunham could have lied. If Obama was born in Kenya she could have lied to make him a US citizen. But she had no idea that Obama would one day grow up and become president making this an issue.

    I think it reasonable to suggest that no cooborating evidence exists to show that Obama was born in Hawaii other than a simple piece of paper.

  21. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    As Mario has stated, not withstanding Obama’s COLB and the one filed in the state of Hawaii, no coorborating evidence has be shown that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. (No hospital has come forward. No individual has come foward.) In fact, coorborating evidence suggest Obama was born in Kenya.(Sara Obama, Kenyan Ambassador)

    That is incorrect, there are two newspapers which have a birth announcement. Hospitals cannot release such information and I doubt any information would be available that goes back to 1961. There is in fact NO evidence that Obama was born in Kenya since in both cases the people denied such a statement explicitly.

    I think it reasonable to suggest that no cooborating evidence exists to show that Obama was born in Hawaii other than a simple piece of paper.

    And that ‘simple piece of paper’ is sufficient to establish his US birth and is admissible legal evidence.

    Reasonable?

  22. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 20, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    There is no affirmative obligation under the Constitution for a President to “prove” eligibility. Rather, the Constitution gives the US Congress, sitting in joint session, the power and obligation to determine who has qualified for the Office. Whatever “obligation” exists is fulfilled by Congress (not the President) when it designates the President-elect every 4 years.

    Since Congress met in joint session as required on January 8th… the matter of Obama’s eligibility was signed, sealed and delivered as of that date. It is not for bloggers or a court or Obama himself to determine – under the Constitution, it rests in the hands of Congress. If I recall correctly, Dick Cheney had the last word on it – see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQrs_5KOIRc

  23. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    Kenya is pretty sure and confident Obama was born in their country. They pretty much confirmed it the Day after the Election:

    Did you know that there are six pieces of evidence from Kenyan parliamentary proceedings (“PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES”, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 ), that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya ! I have looked over the Kenyan proceedings of the stated date and share portions here for your consideration. To assist you in identifying the pertinent portions, I have emphasized aspects:

    Quotation #1) Dr. Khalwale apparently spoke these words: “On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled. Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a KENYAN RULING the USA ? I humbly request! (Applause)”

    Quotation #2) “The Assistant Minister for Water and Irrigation (Mr. Kiunjuri): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you can see, people are really celebrating. However, I am wondering whether the Americans have not reported to work and yet it is their victory. I am also hoping that there will be no homecoming for Obama. If there is one, the Leader of Government Business should alert us in good time so that we can set up a committee to organize for HIS HOMECOMING. (Laughter)”

    Quotation #3) Ms. Odhiambo said: “On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is not on this issue. I stand on a point of order under Standing Order No.20 to seek leave for adjournment of the House to discuss the American presidential election results. (Applause) Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue.”

    Quotation #4) Mr. Deputy Speaker: “…The Chair has got some communication to make. As far as the interest and happiness regarding the elections that have just been concluded in the United States of America are concerned, this will put that to rest. COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT-ELECT BARRACK OBAMA Hon. Members, as you may be aware, the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America and the first African-American President in the history of that country, please join me in registering and sending this House’s congratulations to the President-elect Obama for overcoming great odds to emerge victorious.

    Quotation #5) What I have in mind is the famous Kennedy airlifts of the 1960s when many Kenyans were, due the friendship with the then Government and the late Tom Joseph Mboya, given the opportunity to travel to the United States of America as a result of [The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs] which we now have an African American of Kenyan origin being President-elect. This is momentous. At 4.00 o’clock this morning, Senator John McCain graciously conceded defeat. I was among the first Kenyans – as I know many Kenyans did not sleep but were following the outcome of those elections – to congratulate the President-elect.

    Quotation #6) Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must get out of that tradition where we vote for a person just because they come from a political party that is supported by our tribal kings and that is the party we have to go through. We have to come out of that and select people on the basis of merit and support them. That would be the basis for the many of the changes we would like to see both in this Parliament, Government and other institutions outside of politics, including education, agriculture and so on. Until we begin to respect merit as the basis for our identifying future leaders, it is going to be very impossible. It does not matter what kind of structures we have in place for an Obama to come out of the Kenyan environment. I beg to support.

    The Kenyan Ambassador also confirmed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

    To Kenyans, Barack Obama’s Jr. birthplace in a well-known attraction.

    http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 20, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Why, as presumably faithful Americans, don’t you join the millions who have concerns about presidential eligibility and request a legal determination of the matter

    Because, as loyal Americans, we prefer to stick with the process set forth in the US Constitution. The proper time and place to raise any concerns as to Obama’s eligibility was via the joint session of Congress on January 8th.

  25. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 20, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    Let’s not forget SCOTUS granted Joyce leave to file Amicus on behalf of AZ Elector Bill Anderson pushing the doctrine of res judicia loquitur.

    Res ipsa loquitur translates loosely as ‘the thing speaks for itself’. It refers to a inference of negligence theory; that the action that caused the harm couldn’t have happened without some type of negligence.

    Obama has successfully sealed his personal records, so he must be eligible to be POTUS because no one has successfully produced evidence he is not eligible. But, the fact he is hiding records normally produced by many Americans to verify identity is proof due diligence is required.

    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

  26. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Americans still are waiting for a some hospital nurse, doctor, staff worker or some other individual to confirm Obama was in fact born in the Hawaiin hospital he allegely says he was born in. So far, no one has come forward. I doubt that everyone would be dead after only 47 years.

  27. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    Yes, the fact that Obama has sealed his records and won’t release them cannot be reconciled. Obama is hiding something. The question is what?

    Obama knows about the birther movement and all of these lawsuits against but absolutely refuses to release his vault copy birth certificate.

    Obama could end it all by simply releasing his vault copy birth certificate.

    The fact that he hasn’t is very very troubling and cannot be dismissed.

  28. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Yes, the fact that Obama has sealed his records and won’t release them cannot be reconciled. Obama is hiding something. The question is what?

    Most records are ‘sealed’ by state and federal law. The fact that someone objects to releasing these documents has no relevance to either Obama’s natural born status.

    Obama does not have to release the vault copy as the only birth certificate Hawaii now releases is the COLB.

    It can be easily dismissed as irrelevant, speculative and as it is based on guilty till proven innocent, anti-constitutional

  29. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    Again you are expecting a nurse or doctor who remembers something that happened 47 years ago, would come forward, violate state and federal law, for what purpose?

    Your doubts are only overshadowed by your lack of evidence and your ignorance of existing evidence.
    As to Americans waiting, other than perhaps a few ill informed ones, you have provided no evidence that this is the case. In fact, it is again irrelevant to the simple fact that Obama’s official birth record shows him born on US soil.

    Nuff said

  30. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    Obama has successfully sealed his personal records, so he must be eligible to be POTUS because no one has successfully produced evidence he is not eligible. But, the fact he is hiding records normally produced by many Americans to verify identity is proof due diligence is required.

    Obama has in fact released his COLB which is sufficient to proof his natural born status.
    Why do you keep ignoring the facts in favor of your fiction?

  31. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    Oh and let’s not forget that Obama has not ‘sealed his records’ but rather that his records are sealed by the same laws that seals such records for you and me.

    Just for the sake of accuracy…

  32. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Not only are you quoting out of context, you are also not quoting the full record, which I intend to discuss soon.
    In fact, the Kenyans have not stated that he was born in Kenya.

    Why these lies?
    Pathetic really that you have to make up ‘facts’ to further your anti-constitutional position.

  33. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Pakistan knows Obama is Kenyan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TLf8_i08fg

  34. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    Love the hearsay. Do you call this evidence? THen you should surely accept the fact that an official Hawaiian birth record shows Obama born on US soil?

    Thanks for playing. But it seems rather interesting that you’d rather believe Pakistan hearsay over US official facts.

    Figures.

  35. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    not withstanding Obama’s COLB

    “Not withstanding” that it is legal document, sure. When going through customs, does the officer say, “Not withstanding this valid passport, can you prove you are a citizen?”

    no coorborating evidence has be shown that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

    None needed.

    No hospital has come forward.

    HIPAA.

    In fact, coorborating evidence suggest Obama was born in Kenya.(Sara Obama, Kenyan Ambassador)

    Neither of which said Obama was born in Kenya.

    The birth certificate in itself is meaningless.

    Other than being a valid, legal document, of course.

    We also do not know how the birth certificate is derived.

    Irrelevant. The State of Hawaii says he was born there. Full Faith and Credit Clause. QED.

    Dunham could have lied.

    Rank speculation is inadmissible in a court of law, and most other places.

    I think it reasonable to suggest that no cooborating evidence exists to show that Obama was born in Hawaii other than a simple piece of paper.

    I think your “analysis” demonstrates poor higher-brain functionality.

  36. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 20, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    Actually, the former administrator of the hospital has come forward, and said that he remembers Obama’s birth, just because of the unusual name of his mother. How many Stanleys gave birth at his hospital in his lifetime?

    Oh, that’s right, the Hospital Administrator is part of the conspiracy as well.

  37. avatar
    richCares June 20, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    Truth is not welcome in Birther circles plus they have been immunized against facts. They don’t realize this BC issue is over, Obama has been president for 6 months. So they babble on in a world that doesn’t exist. It’s a complete waste to try to have a reasonable argument with a Birther, they are locked into ignorance. Notice they keep repeating debunked talking points as if they are valid, weird isn’t it. No sense trying.

  38. avatar
    John June 20, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    If you want to hear a fabulous long interview with Mario and Charles, go here:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/06/20/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels

    Mario and Charles are fantastic. Charles and Mario are extremely intelligent and very knowledgable. They have a damn good lawsuit against Obama.

    Of all lawyers challenging Obama, Mario is the best.

  39. avatar
    misha June 20, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    I found the perfect place for Orly and Berg to move to – even better than Birfistan:

    http://www.eao.ru/eng/

    Let’s all wish them a bon voyage, and tell them never to come back – please!

  40. avatar
    richCares June 20, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Mario losing his faulty crap lawsuit will probably not change your mind, but it is a guaranteed loss! Remember this as you eat your “damn good lawsuit” words. (that’s a guarantee as well) go to Doc’s dockets and see how worthless your hero’s suit is.

  41. avatar
    NBC June 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Of all lawyers challenging Obama, Mario is the best.

    Now that’s not much of a standard really…

  42. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 20, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    WTF!!!! Is all I can say!

    What’s the website????

  43. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Of all lawyers challenging Obama, Mario is the best.

    Perhaps accurate, but certainly not saying much.

  44. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 20, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    Nevermind I found the site, it’s sort of Pakistan Recruitment study guide. Someone download the source page and inserted (Kenyan Born). It was pretty sloppy that they tried to use quotations marks(They forgot the right mark) to append (Kenyan Born).

    It says a lot about you using fake data to backup your claim.

    Here’s the website.

    http://www.cssforum.com.pk/off-topic-discussions/general-knowledge-quizzes-iq-tests/21285-fpsc-recruitment-tests.html

  45. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    Let’s not forget SCOTUS granted Joyce leave to file Amicus on behalf of AZ Elector Bill Anderson pushing the doctrine of res judicia loquitur.

    And let us not forget that SCOTUS then prompted denied cert. in that case.

    The granting of amicus does not mean in the slightest that SCOTUS found the argument meritorious, or even interesting.

  46. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 20, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Uh Let me clue you in to something. Any time you have a lawyer who has insulated himself so well in birthism as Mario has and is so afraid to debate his position you can be sure he knows his case is on quicksand.

    Look at the Countryfirst website, notice MommaE and Mtngoat61 has created a section strictly for Mario to post updates and commentary on his case. Why dones he need such cheerleading? Why is he taking advice from laymen? I wonder why?

    From what I can tell from his practice he was a injury lawyer. I don’t see much constitutional trial experience in his background.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    jtx: “This entire line of yours is obviously an attempt to backstop your theory”

    “Obviously” is sometimes used to replace “I have no evidence, so it must be obvious.”

    I don’t have concerns about presidential eligibility because I do my homework instead of listening to rumors.

  48. avatar
    richCares June 20, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    hey John, Puzo’s case date is June 28, please come back and tell us what you think of the dismissal that will surely occur. Mind if we laugh at you?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    In the case of Barack Obama, this term, I don’t see how the Supreme Court could be involved.

    A few years back a few states denied ballot access to Eldridge Cleaver because he was not eligible. A case went to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. I suppose such a case could be appealed to the Supreme Court next time around. But this qui tam, quo warranto, eenie, meenie, mienie, moe stuff is going nowhere.

  50. avatar
    nbc June 20, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    Ouch touche

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    John makes stuff up saying:

    1. No “coorborating [sic] evidence”. Birth announcement in newspaper. Duh.
    2. No hospital has come forward. Wrong. Kapi’olani Medical Center included Obama’s birth there as part of its Centennial celebration last January.
    3. The Sarah Obama tape was edited to make it say something it doesn’t say in the full version.
    4. The Birth Certificate is legal evidence.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Nothing in that long commentary says Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

  53. avatar
    misha June 20, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Yeah, post for everyone to see how the case turns out.

    I’m dying to know if you are successful. When it’s dimissed, I know you’ll write that the judge is part of the conspiracy. Yawn.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    Exactly what records did Obama “seal” and when did he do it, and through what process.

    Or did you just make that up?

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Dead or forgot. I personally cannot remember a single thing that happened 47 years ago.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    What records did Obama seal, when did he seal them, and through what process or action did he seal them?

    Or did you just make that up?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    As far as I know, whether Rodney West was an administrator at Kapi’olani medical center in 1961 is not publicly known. It is likely, but I’ve not seen the documentation.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    “Of all lawyers challenging Obama, Mario is the best.”

    That’s not saying very much, given the competition. But when Mario’s case gets dismissed in a few weeks, perhaps you will reconsider your “damn good” evaluation.

    I demolished Mario when he made his argument that Barack Obama was still a British citizen (with a little help from my friends). The out and out misrepresentations of fact in Apuzzo’s pleading are detailed on this web site. After some thought, Apuzzo’s case is really not much better than Berg’s. In fact, it’s the same stuff with a “natural born citizen” footnote thrown in.

  59. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    In California, the Secretary of State removed Cleaver from the ballot. Cleaver filed a writ in the California Supreme Court, which was denied. Cleaver then filed a writ in SCOTUS, which was also denied.

    Kreep (and others) used this as “proof” that the SoS can remove someone from the ballot.

    1. Silent denials are never legal precedent; they are proof of historical facts, but can’t be cited as binding precedent.

    2. The writs filed in SCOTUS (and Cal. Supremes) were discretionary writs. Sometimes, these courts allow erroneous decisions to stand because they raise errors not worth fixing.

    As for 2012, unless the opposition figures something out, it’ll be the same ole standing problem all over again.

  60. avatar
    Bob June 20, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    The government’s response is due then. Assuming the government does not request another extension, it’ll file a motion to dismiss (based on FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)). Apuzzo will have time to respond, etc.

    It’ll awhile still before this case is dismissed.

  61. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    The difference in that case is that the states refused to put Cleaver on the ballot — so Cleaver sued to assert his own rights to be on the ballot. There was no question of standing: clearly, the candidate who wants to be included on the ballot has *standing* to assert that right (whether or not he ultimately wins).

    So if a state secretary of state had refused to put Obama on the ballot, claiming he was not natural born — Obama clearly would have been able to bring a case to enforce his rights, and the court would have had jurisdiction to rule. But that didn’t happen.

    That’s what the whole “case or controversy” thing is about. The courts can’t rule in the absence of a case legitimately brought before them. Unchallenged candidates who are on the ballot are presumed by law to be qualified. In fact, historically there have been several US Senators who were elected and served despite being too young — but no one challenged their election at the time, hence no impediment to their service.

  62. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 21, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    That does not, however, mean they cannot decide what the “nbc” term means – they certainly can.

    They can only decide if the case is properly brought before them — it must be brought by a party with standing, in the context of a proceeding in which they have authority to rule.

    Here are the scenarios I can imagine where that could occur:

    1) If a presidential candidate is denied access to the ballot based on a claim that he is not a natural born citizen, that candidate could bring a state or federal action to force his placement on the ballot, prior to the election.

    2) An opposing candidate would have standing to bring a state court action to force removal of a presidential candidate, on a claim that he is not qualified – again prior to the election. A ruling by the state courts based on federal constitutional grounds could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

    3) A candidate could bring an action against his own party, prior to the nominating convention, to enforce his right to the nomination, or to try to prevent the party from nominating an opposing candidate, if there was a dispute over standards for eligibility. (In other words, Hillary Clinton probably could have brought a lawsuit last June to try to enjoin the Democratic party from nominating Obama, claiming he was ineligible).

    4) If a candidate for President has won the majority of the electoral college votes, but Congress refuses to certify him based on claimed lack of eligibility — that candidate could probably bring an action in the US Supreme Court to assert his rights.

    5) If an objection is raised to the eligibility of a Presidential candidate at the joint session of Congress, but Congress nonetheless certified that candidate — it is possible that the candidate for Vice President might have standing to challenge the Congressional determination.

    Perhaps there are other circumstances where the issue could be raised, but I can’t think of any.

  63. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 21, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    The example you cite about a Congressional “determination” that no matter the status of his father, the man could be declared to be a nbc. That is total nonsense! Such a declaration has no legal meaning at all and cannot possibly override the United States Constitution.

    There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that refers to the citizenship status of the parent, so of course either Congress or the Supreme Court has the power and authority to decide that factor to be irrelevant.

  64. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 21, 2009 at 12:28 am #

    Nor was there any “implicit determination” in certifying the electionn; only the results of the EC were read into the record

    Under the express terms of the Constitution, and in particular the 20th Amendment, Congress has the power to determine whether the President is qualified for office.

    Under statutory law, a specific procedure exists for the raising and determination of any challenge during the joint session of Congress.

    Because the 20th Amendment specifically sets forth procedures in the event the President-elect “shall have failed to qualify” – the ratification of the electoral college vote and designation of the Presidential-elect is in fact an implicit determination of qualification. There are only 2 possibilities – either the Presidential-elect is qualified, or he is not. If not, then he cannot be inaugurated, and Congress must designate the Vice-President (if qualified) to take office instead.

    Under principals of res judicata, if an issue can be properly raised in a proceeding where a determination can be made, but it is not — the issue is treated as if it had been made and determined in accordance with the outcome of the proceeding. If determination of an issue is necessary to the result of the proceeding, then whether or not it was expressly determined, it is deemed to have been determined — again in a manner consistent with the outcome.

    So you really are stuck with the fact that the Constitution gave the power of determining qualifications to Congress, and Congress has acted.

  65. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 21, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    What the hell is “res judicia loquitur”?

    Do you birthers really think that you can just make it all up as you go along? Just because it sounds like it might be latin, doesn’t make it legal.

  66. avatar
    brygenon June 21, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    jbx wrote:

    I prefer to wait and see the evidence so that the facts are know without speculation and THEN we’ll see the legal issues involved and we’ll see what is determined based upon that law.

    If you haven’t seen by now, it’s because you won’t open your eyes. Non only is Barack H. Obama eligible to be President — he is President.

  67. avatar
    misha June 21, 2009 at 3:36 am #

    What he meant was, Res ipsa loquitur.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit,profundum viditur.

    Never forget that.

  68. avatar
    brygenon June 21, 2009 at 4:05 am #

    John thinks,

    Mario and Charles are fantastic. Charles and Mario are extremely intelligent and very knowledgable. They have a damn good lawsuit against Obama.

    At least they’re smart enough to stop spouting “blood and soil” as they did in earlier interviews. Nothing else wins friends and influences people like the slogans of early twentieth century German racial nationalism.

    Their case is the same stuff courts have dismissed over and over, with some extra non-stater sprinkled on. They have the old problems of jurisdiction/standing and mootness, plus new defects of plaintiff immunity.

    I see at least four problems with their quo warranto action: They cannot bring quo warranto; the court does not hear quo warranto; quo warranto does not apply to the President; and President Obama’s warrant is immaculate.

    On the plus side, though Apuzzo repeats Berg’s lies, he doesn’t come off as quite as big a liar. He’s trying to play in a league nine levels to high, but still isn’t a Donofrio-class egomaniac. He’s not dealing with reality, but hasn’t gone quite as Screaming Yellow Zonkers as Taits.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    the thing speaks for itself

    A legal concept, important in many malpractice suits, describing a situation in which an injury occurred when the defendant was solely and exclusively in control and in which the injury would not have occurred had due care been exercised. Classic examples of res ipsa loquitur are a sponge left in the abdomen after abdominal surgery or the amputation of the wrong extremity.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    It has been suggested that a delegate to the party’s convention, and even possibly just a member of the party could bring the suit against the chairman of the convention to prevent an alleged ineligible candidate from being nominated, or certified as the party’s nominee. In 2008, Berg could have recruited a disgruntled Clinton delegate, for example, to bring such a suit.

  71. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 21, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    June 28 is a Sunday. I’d say you Anti-Constitutionalist are highly motivated.

  72. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 21, 2009 at 10:11 am #

    Sven – the date is calculated according to how many days are allowed – therefore, when a due date falls on the weekend then the actual date would be the following Monday – but the original date is still noted

  73. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 21, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    Doctrine of Res Judicia Loquitur … SCOTUS must speak to this issue because SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution.

    SvenMagnussen School of Law, Sum Cum Laud Class of 2008

  74. avatar
    richCares June 21, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    “SCOTUS must speak to this issue because SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution.”

    what issue sven?
    there is no issue here except in the mind of Birthers which does not matter.

  75. avatar
    jtx June 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    NBC:

    “US official facts”???? What in the world do you think those are? His photoshopped digital image that many O-borter fans point to as “fact”???

    I’m more than willing to have the issue (and yes, it is an issue since the Constitution specifies certain requirements for presidential eligibility – or did you perhaps miss that?) decided in a proper legal forum with actual rules of evidence. I know, let’s start with a legally verified copy of his long-form BC, eh???

    Then we can continue to other proofs that might or might not be necessary. Wouldn’t you like to know with certainty that you have an eligible chief exec rather that just “believing it”?? Or do you think the legal system is not trustworthy???

  76. avatar
    jtx June 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Doc:

    I’m sure your “expert” legal opinion is treasured – especially by all the O-borter fans who, like you, will never accept the SCOTUS opinion that will eventually result.

    No doubt it stems from your great depth and breadth of legal experience in trying ever so many cases in both lower and higher courts to include, of course, SCOTUS or (if you haven’t arrived in front of that esteemed body, perhaps now’s your time … eh???)

    As for “demolishing” anyone with this website (with or without help from “friends”), you’ve done the opposite if anything.

    The proof of the pudding will be the legal determinations as they make their way to SCOTUS – or perhaps you and your pals aren’t ready to accept their decision based on merits??

  77. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    Let’s start with a legally verified copy of his long-form BC

    It’s call the COLB

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

    As to the COLB

    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

    Two official statements about the COLB.
    So we have the COLB, two birth announcements, the Hawaiian DOH all confirming what we really already knew.

  78. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    I’m sure your “expert” legal opinion is treasured – especially by all the O-borter fans who, like you, will never accept the SCOTUS opinion that will eventually result.

    Seems JTX has already made up his mind. So much for his earlier claims.
    But the SCOTUS has already given opinions on these topics and anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

    Frustrating isn’t it when the facts are so far removed from your dreams?

  79. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    Doctrine of Res Judicia Loquitur … SCOTUS must speak to this issue because SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution.

    SvenMagnussen School of Law, Sum Cum Laud Class of 2008

    Hahaha. You’re funny. But in this case the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter because it is a political issue which per 20th amendment is left to Congress.
    I am sure you were both at the top and the bottom of your ‘class’.

    PS: its Summa Cum Laude

    ROTFL

  80. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    Anticonstitutional – Says he who wants a sitting president removed by the courts.

    Now that’s irony my dear friend

  81. avatar
    richCares June 21, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    jtx, please enlighten us as to what SCOTUS case are you referring to, so far all were dismissed. Is this just your deluded opinion or do you have reference to a solid case.

    note: why do you refuse to address this?

  82. avatar
    jtx June 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    brygenon:

    Most of the outlandish pontifications in your post are quite incorrect but the looney O-borter fans will probably love them.

    Your QW comments are way off base but you’ve not bothered to read the law apparently. You’re certainly welcome to spout more of the nonsense that this blog is notorious for, but it’s difficult to understand that someone who is – presumably – a law abiding American detests the idea of a proper legal determination under the laws of our country. In your own ways you are as (to borrow a phrase) “screaming Yellow Zonkers” as anyone could ever be.

    Is it perhaps that you’re afraid to find out that “your boy” is indeed not eligible? I’d think you’d want the legal backing of the laws of this country since that would greatly aid your “nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah …” comments on this blog.

    Oh, and BTW – there’s a difference between a case being “not heard” and “dismissed” since the latter would have to be considered on merits and none of the cases have been so considered but have been refused hearing on merits due to various procedural things.

    This will be an absorbing several upcoming months … just like the old Chinese saying about “… may you live in interesting times …”. We’ve never yet has an elected president found to be ineligible after assuming office but this certainly gives all indications of breaking that record.

  83. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Again you seem to live in a dream world devoid of facts and reason my dear friend.
    These ‘procedural reasons’ for rejecting the lawsuits are why lawsuits will never succeed as the plaintiffs lack standing, the case lacks judiciability.

    To claim that this blog is notorious for its nonsense is just hilarious, unless you are referring to your own ‘contributions’. Dr C’s contributions are incredibly well researched and factual. Which is why you refuse/are unable to argue against them. Instead you insist that the case will be heard, even though all indications suggest otherwise.

    Denial is part of the steps towards recovery. Good luck.

  84. avatar
    jtx June 21, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    richCares:

    Judge Schneider’s order specifies June 29, 2009 as the date in question.

  85. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    One day off.. That’s far more accurate than most of the claims spouted by JTX or Sven 😉

    So what are your predictions?
    I predict dismissal because of lack of standing and judiciability.

  86. avatar
    Bob June 21, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    Actually, the pudding in which you seek proof is the fact that Obama is the POTUS.

    But let’s compromise: you can spend the next four-to-eight years on the Internet, raising “hard questions” about “serious issues,” and Obama can continue to exercise power as POTUS.

  87. avatar
    Bob June 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    PS: its Summa Cum Laude

    I don’t know … the unintended homoerotic undertones of “Sum Cum Laud” are tres amusing.

  88. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    Fair enough…

  89. avatar
    Bob June 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    Your QW comments are way off base but you’ve not bothered to read the law apparently

    Oh, the irony.

  90. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 21, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    No, Sven used “res judicia loquitur” in the first paragraph, then “res ipsa loquitur” in the second of the same post — so he obviously knew the correct term… and is just thinking he can invent new ones (or perhaps picked it up from one of the psuedo-lawyers & scam artists prosecuting these lawsuits — its obvious that they go on blogs & internet radio spouting off a lot of nonsense to convince the gullible to donate money to them).

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    jtx: ” O-borter fans who, like you, will never accept the SCOTUS opinion that will eventually result”.

    I’m willing to accept the Supreme Court’s decision, but I am confident that we will not see one before the next election cycle. The question is whether you nObamas will accept the decision. Based on past behavior, I would think not.

    How about we make a pact. If Obama is removed from the presidency before the end of his term for eligibility reasons, I will make a groveling mea culpa here, and if not you will (no excuses).

  92. avatar
    HistorianDude June 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    You see, jtx… it is now late June of 2009. We have at this point a ten month paper trail of “‘expert’ legal opinions” both Birther and Obot. At last count there have been more than three dozen decisions reached by miscellaneous courts at all levels of the judiciary. In all that time and across all those decisions, Dr. Conspiracy’s predictions have been correct exactly 100% of the time. The Birther Lawyers (including Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Pidgeon, Hemmenway, Kreep et. al.) have combined been correct exactly 0% of the time.

    Certainly, by now you should be catching on that it is not an accident that the “great depth and breadth of legal experience” of this single layman has eclipsed in competence the entire Birther legal community.

    Obot or Birther, the objective truth is the same. Dr. Conspiracy should be listened to.

  93. avatar
    HistorianDude June 21, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Hmmmm. Okay, John. I read it twice, and since I cannot find it, I was hoping you’d help me out.

    Exactly where in that collection of quotations does a single Kenyan ever say that Obama was born in Kenya?

  94. avatar
    HistorianDude June 21, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    That’s we have birth certificates. So that nobody has to wait for witnesses to show up after 47 years.

  95. avatar
    HistorianDude June 21, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    In fact… Obama has not “sealed” a single record.

    Releasing the long form would also end exactly nothing, and as a Birther, you know that better than anybody.

  96. avatar
    HistorianDude June 21, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Why, as presumably faithful Americans, don’t you join the millions who have concerns about presidential eligibility …?

    “Millions” you say? Where?

    You are off by a factor of at least 10.

  97. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    I haven’t advocated Obama’s removal. I would like a Judicial Order stating the facts have been examined and Obama is eligible to be President. If he is found to be ineligible, then it will be up to the Congress to either ignore it or impeach.

    What is wrong with asking the court to examine the facts?

    I can play the motives game too. You don’t want the Court to examine the facts as to Obama’s eligibility because he will be found to be a usurper.

  98. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    What is wrong with asking the court to examine the facts?

    Lack of standing, issues of judiciability, constitutional separation of powers.

  99. avatar
    Heavy June 22, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    There he goes with the irony again. What’s ironic is your persistance in ignoring facts.

    This situation will be remedied. Either in a court of law (Highly unlikely) or in the court of public opinion. If you have not noticed, your side is losing ground rapidly. Must be that global warming thing.

  100. avatar
    brygenon June 23, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    SvenMagnussen wrote:

    SCOTUS must speak to this issue because SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution.

    Birthers failed to take a clue from previous court decisions, but today as SCOTUS dismissed Schneller v. Cortes they cited rule 39.8 in denying Schneller’s accompanying petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Rule 39.8 reads:

    If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    The problem is not that the appropriate authorities haven’t spoken to the issue. The problem is that the kooks do not listen.

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-9797.htm
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2007rulesofthecourt.pdf

  101. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 23, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    Actually, Orly’s husband may already know something about that place:
    http://www.kinoglaz.fr/u_fiche_film.php?num=322
    “Seekers of Happiness”, Soviet musical from 1936 about two women and two men coming from Palestine to settle in Birobijan. Only thing I remember from watching that was the strange sensation I got when hearing a lone woman voice singing the Russian version of a Yiddish song (The World is Great) and that everybody talked with the accent of … Odessa. Composer was the famous Isaac Dunayevsky – yes, the same guy who composed the Argentinian tango “Serdtse”. The least important part of the four parts was played by one “L. Taitz”.

  102. avatar
    misha June 23, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    “The least important part of the four parts was played by one “L. Taitz”.”

    Oh, how delicious! Remember, Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote, so Orly, Berg and the others are on the fringe. The Dynamic Duo is doing this because they think McSame and Sarah Sidekick would be better for Israel, and they think they can drive him out of office if they make enough noise.

  103. avatar
    Heavy June 23, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    Speaking of delicious!

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101889

  104. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 23, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    See answer to this article in the Orly Taitz section. Again, it is all on Taitz.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    How would you like your crow cooked?

  106. avatar
    Heavy June 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    RAW! I wonder how your messiah likes his goose cooked.

    It’s all about publicity, doc. The people are just starting to get their heads around this issue. Discontent and buyer’s remorse are setting in.

    The people will not be duped for long and THE ONE will be imprisoned…Or worse!

  107. avatar
    misha June 24, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    “THE ONE will be imprisoned…Or worse!”

    What is the worse? What is going to happen?

  108. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    Yes Heavy please inform us as to what you mean by ‘or worse’…

  109. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    If you have not noticed, your side is losing ground rapidly. Must be that global warming thing.

    You are now confusing your wishful thinking with the facts of global warming.

    Typical…

    Losing ground Translation: Having over 40+ lawsuits successfully dismissed due to lack of constitutional foundations.

    I see…

  110. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Read the Constitution. The punishment for treason is very clearly defined.

  111. avatar
    Bob June 24, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Read the Constitution. The punishment for treason is very clearly defined.

    Oh, the iro — forget it; too easy.

  112. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Treason? Now you do have an interesting perception of the ‘facts’. Pray do tell…

  113. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Yes, and they will continue to be dismissed until the people grow weary of the judiciary incompetence. Then it will get VERY interesting!

  114. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Yes, then everyone will go home.

    Translation: Judiciary incompetence: The courts following constitutional law.

    How ironic

  115. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Judiciary imcompetence: Judges afraid of THE ONE.

    How moronic.

  116. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    What judge is afraid of ‘the One’?

    As far as I can tell, the judges have refused lawsuits due to lack of constitutional foundations.
    Are you proposing that the judges violate the constitution?

  117. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Oh contrar! All I want is for the judges to ENFORCE the Constitution.

  118. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    Well, your wish has been granted as the judges area following the Constitution here.
    So what’s your obsession then?

  119. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Well thank you, Great Wizard!

  120. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    You’re welcome my dear friend. Always ready to point out the obvious facts

  121. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Heavy wrote:

    All I want is for the judges to ENFORCE the Constitution.

    That’s not their job.

    Under our Constitution, the courts have a very limited role. You want the JUDGES to become the “usurpers”… creating what I suppose could be called a “judocracy” — a government run ultimately by 9 non-elected officials with lifetime appointments.

  122. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    No. That’s what is happening right now.

  123. avatar
    Jack M. Moutrie July 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Am I to understand the birth Hospital and the signature of the attending physician is not required on the original birth certificate?

    Therefore how would anyone know where the the “Usurper” was actually born?

    Since Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution states the requirement to be eligible the person must be a natural-born citizen, where’s the proof?

    Since the courts don’t care, since the U.S. Congress don’t care, who the hell cares!!!!!

    I do, but then who am I, just some stupid Natural-born American taxpaying citizen who I find by the courts to have “no standing,”
    therefore should not care who are whom destroys my once great Republic…..

  124. avatar
    NBC July 3, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    I do, but then who am I, just some stupid Natural-born American taxpaying citizen who I find by the courts to have “no standing,”
    therefore should not care who are whom destroys my once great Republic

    You have standing to vote and petition the government but that’s it. The Constitution limits your standing to challenge a duly elected President because the Founders understood the disrupting consequences.

  125. avatar
    Gordon July 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    How does the name of a doctor, or the hospital of birth prove anything? Jimmy Carter was the first President even born in a hospital.

    http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/first-president-born-hospital.html

  126. avatar
    Bob July 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Therefore how would anyone know where the the “Usurper” was actually born?

    The COLB, certified by the State of Hawaii, says Obama was born in Honolulu. There’s your proof.

    End of story.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    Jack, no. A birth registration requires an attending signature (for attended births), or affidavits from others in the case of an unattended birth.

    The signed electronic (nowadays) or paper record is “registered” by the jurisdiction (back in 1961 in Obama’s case), and then an official of the jurisdiction signs any certified copies issued thereafter (in 2007 for Obama’s COLB) . It’s the certified copy that we commonly call a “birth certificate”.

    It’s like your driver’s license. You don’t show your answer sheet on the drivers test and your eye test when the cop pulls you over, just the license. In the case of a birth certificate, you show the certified copy (the “birth certificate”) issued by the jurisdiction not the paperwork from the hospital.

    Sure I care that Barack Obama is a human being and not a reptoid. It’s just that I don’t take the suggestion that he is one of the lizard people as credible, and neither did the Congress when they certified the election. Let me leave you with a popular phrase:

    Been there, done that.