I’ve lost track of the number of lawsuits filed by birther plaintiffs claiming Barack Obama shouldn’t be President. They lost them all, most being dismissed on Constitutional grounds with the courts concluding that the birthers don’t have standing to bring such suits. Contrary to the birther imagination, whose who support Obama’s eligibility have no objection to judicial review of birther claims, only wanting to insure that such review be without suspending the Constitutional restrictions on the federal courts.
Federal district judge R. Barklay Surrick in Pennsylvania provided us with an excellent education in the problems with birther lawsuits in his scholarly ruling in Berg v Obama et al. Likewise federal district judge David O. Carter in California examined in detail the various classes of defendants in the case of Barnett v Obama and why the courts could not try their case or address their generalized grievances.
This is not to say that no court will ever hear an Obama eligibility case, nor that the Supreme Court will not tell us what “natural born citizen” means. The lack of judicial review is largely due to the timing of the lawsuits (for example, Barnett v Obama – then Keyes v Obama — was filed just hours after Obama was inaugurated and Donofrio v Wells sought a ballot challenge virtually on the eve of the election).
Professor Charles Gordon, writing for the Maryland Law Review in 1968 anticipated the question of judicial review in his article: Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma. After discussing some of the unresolved questions about presidential eligibility (he took for granted the eligibility of those born citizens in the United States proper), he examined possible roads by which the courts might resolve those questions. Gordon explains the problem birthers are having:
Under the Constitution, those courts exercise judicial power which extends “to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” However, until an actual controversy develops there is no possibility of obtaining a ruling by the federal courts. Those courts have always interpreted their constitution mandate as precluding the rendering of advisory opinions… [internal footnotes omitted]
Gordon goes on to map out a scenario where the courts would have jurisdiction:
The election mechanisms established by the various states may provide the initial opportunity for obtaining a judicial ruling. Every state has an election board or officer to supervise the election process. Contests could develop at two stages in that process. In the first place, some states now provide for a presidential preference primary to select delegates to the national nominating conventions of the major political parties. Often, it is necessary to file petitions for delegates committed to a particular candidate. A state election board usually can pass on the eligibility of one who seeks to appear on the ballot. Its ruling for or against the qualifications of a particular candidate can be challenged in the state’s courts. The books are full of state cases involving disputes as to various aspects of primary elections. And in recent years the federal courts have underscored their interest in the federal constitutional aspects of state elections, even when they only concern party primaries. Indeed, a number of statutes implement the authority of federal courts to intervene in election disputes where deprivation of rights is alleged.
Since interpretation of the presidential qualification clause involves a federal constitutional question, such an issue would unquestionably wind up in the federal courts, either by an initial suit in such courts, by removal of actions commenced in state courts, or by Supreme Court review of a state court’s decision…. [internal footnotes omitted]
Gordon goes on to say that the earlier the challenge, the more likely it is that a court would be willing to intervene.
Of course birthers didn’t invent the two-citizen parent legal theory in time to bring a lawsuit based on that theory before the 2008 primaries. However, they are “loaded for bear” this time around. We can anticipate New Hampshire to be the first judicial battleground of the 2012 election cycle since Barack Obama has already been approved, over birther objections, to be on the ballot in New Hampshire.
“Be careful what you wish for” the aphorism says. That is certainly an apt warning for the birthers. If and when they get their day in court, they will surely lose.
Further reading:
- The Justiciabilty of Eligibility by Daniel P. Tokaji in the Michigan Law Review
Doc-As I am sure you are aware, a court did in fact consider the merits regarding Obama’s eligibility (Ankeny v. Gov Indiana). They looked at the nub of the 2-citizen parent argument and dismissed it quite forcefully. This court, the indiana Court of Appeals, was not, heretofore, known as one prone to actvisim or leaps in the dark. Their decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, whiich upheld it without arguments. Reading the ruling one does not come away with the sense that the judges
found it a close call. In fact, I would say the odds that any state court would rule differently are well below 1%.
The case could have been appealed to the US Supreme Court. As we all know, it was not. Since the Indiana decision was made examining the same US Constitution and US Supreme Court rulings that the US Supreme Court would consider, I would have to say that the odds of the SCOTUS ruling differently are similarly low.
Now, it is true that the Ankeny case did not consider the birth certificate and took as fact that the President was born in Hawaii, since those were the plaintiff’s arguments. However, given the full faith and credit and the improbabiility of the “Let’s go to Kenya to have a baby” scenario and the resulting suupposed conspiracy, I would have to say that the likelihood of a court ruling for the birthers on that basis is even lower than for the 2-citizen parent theory.
Now, it is true that the Ankeny case did not consider the birth certificate and took as fact that the President was born in Hawaii, since those were the plaintiff’s arguments. However, given the full faith and credit and the improbabiility of the “Let’s go to Kenya to have a baby” scenario and the resulting suupposed conspiracy, I would have to say that the likelihood of a court ruling for the birthers on that basis is even lower than for the 2-citizen parent theory.
Exactly. All the President has to do is get 50 certified/stamped copies of the COLB, and submit them to each state. Those are prima facie evidence of birth inside the United States. Attempting to challenge them is outstandingly stupid, although I’m sure the birthers would do it. But the counter is that it means that they or their favored candidates can’t “prove” they were born here in this country. If they were to somehow establish the precedent against “full faith and credit,” it means that New York doesn’t have to accept Texas’s documents as “proof” that Ron Paul or Rick Perry were born in Texas.
The two citizen parent notion is just about as dead in the water. In order for it to work, it would require the Supreme Court – and any lesser court – to suddenly ignore a line of court decisions stretching back almost two centuries. Somehow, I don’t think that any court is going to be inclined that way.
I think the plan is to knock Obama off the ballot in at least one state. Should Obama appeal to Federal courts, it is likely Obama would win. But birthers are looking for the headline – “Obama knocked off state ballot because of ineligiblity.” If such a headline however temporary it may be, comes to being, Obama is history regardless of the outcome that would follow should Obama appeal to courts (Assuming Obama wins.) Birthers are looking for that headline no matter how temporary it may be.
According to Wikipedia, Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA, not Texas. But then, they say Obama was born and raised in Hawaii, so what do they know?
The best hope for birthers is Sheriff Arpiao’s investigation and report. Assuming Arpaio’s report is what birthers are hoping for and that it is really released in February 2012, it will be an election killer for Obama. In addition, the report will represent the only authortative and investigative body that has researched the birther claims and arguments. This will be give birthers a new level heightened credibility which will greatly advance state ballot election challenges.
Good article about Abdul K. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, suing in federal court in Denver to get on Colorado’s ballot for the Office of the Presidency.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2011/12/01/a-birther-debate-with-a-twist-hits-colorado/2997/
Hassan recently asked for an FEC opinion on whether he could solicit and receive funds for his Presidential Campaign as a naturalized citizen and the FEC issued a favorable opinion.
The Colorado SoS refused to accept a Candidate Statement of Intent for President on the basis of Colorado statute at C.R.S. Subsection 1-4-303 declaring the SoS will not accept a filing of a Candidate Statement of Intent from Plaintiff because Plaintiff is not a natural born citizen.
EDITORIAL: The foreign-born candidate
FEC allows the ineligible to run for the nation’s highest office
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/9/the-foreign-born-candidate/
Mr. Hassan asserts, “Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, race and national origin are the only two classifications that are subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny (strict scrutiny),” he claims, “and almost every law (or probably every law) subject to strict scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last 60 years has been declared invalid.”
Craig v. US, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, commentary … no person has the right to be classified as a natural born citizen.
Colorado refused as Hasan has admitted he is a naturalized citizen. Whether they can do that, he may find out in the courts or they will rule on his question, whether a naturalized citizen can be President (or run for President). However, until a state tries to exclude the President because they think he is not eligible, it is unlikely it will get anywhere. It is just as likely that no state will exclude him, since, 1) he was already elected once, and 2) the birthers have no evidence that he was born anywhere but Hawaii, lost any citizenship at any time, was adopted by anybody, or that 2 citizen parents were ever required.
There is always the issue that the courts could find that a state cannot withhold a presidential candidate because the Constitution does not say who may run for President but only, who may become President. This sounds like an issue that only the Congress resolve at the time of the certification. If, then, the Congress would not certify because they felt it required 2 parents, then Obama could take it to the courts who might then rule on NBC. In the interim then, Biden might become President until the court ruled upon the definition of NBC (likely jus soli only), at which time, Obama would become President, again.
It seems that Hassan is trying to have a court say that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional. Interesting tactic. Basically, if I understand him correctly, he wants the court to use strict scrutiny to examine the NBC requirement. That is never going to happen. Strict scrutiny is used to determine if statutes are constitutional. The Constitution, by definition, is constitutional.
The only real issue that I can see regarding Hassan is whether states can prevent someone from running for President on the sole basis that they do not meet the constitutional requirements. True, he could never take office, but based on what the FEC said, it seems that he should be allowed to run. However, as election law is state law, I imagine that any state that wants to bar such ineligible candidates from the ballots would be free to do so. Especially since states can make their own rules about who can run for their own offices.
The State of Colorado requires a Presidential candidate to affirm their Natural born citizenship status by checking a box on paperwork and pay a fee to get on the Colorado ballot. Using strict scrutiny, Hassan is asserting the Colorado statute requiring a candidate for the Office of the Presidency to be a natural born citizen is unconstitutional (it discriminates against him because of his race and national origin).
Hassan asserted in his lawsuit that he willing and able to pay the fee, but he will not perjure himself and check the box indicating he is a natural born citizen to get on the Colorado ballot. Hassan filed in federal district court in Denver, CO.
In 2009, Steven Craig, appealed a dismissal of his case seeking to affirm his definition of a natural born citizen and to affirm his status as natural born citizen to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, CO. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and commented that no person has a right to the classification of natural born citizenship status.
The fix is in. It doesn’t matter where you were born or status of you’re parents at the time of your birth. If you didn’t obtain your U.S. citizenship through naturalization, then you’re eligible to be POTUS if you’re a resident 14 years and 35 years of age or older.
Nonsense. It certainly does matter where you were born if your parents are not citizens. If your parents are not citizens, and you are born outside of the United States, the only way to obtain U.S. citizenship is through naturalization.
In my opinion, a citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the location of birth, but I recognize that it is not a settled point. Anyone who is born in the United States and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President.
If you are a US Citizen AND you are NOT a NATURALIZED citizen, then you must be NBC.
There are simply only two types of US Citizens, as clearly stated in the 14th Amendment: natural BORN and naturalized.
Simple as that. That “fix” you are worried about is simply how our US laws work and are applied.
You want to talk about conspiracies, Obot? Put this in your pipe and smoke it.
The Democrat National Committee then filed fraudulent “Official Certification of Nomination”s for Barack Obama and Joe Biden in all 50 states — they knew Obama was ineligible from the get go.
The required language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.
However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of Obama and Biden.
Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, that those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.
This is the legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”
The reference to Obama’s constitutional eligibility is missing. It had been removed from the document sent to the states.
The bogus version is in the Election Commission files of all fifty state Election Commission offices, and state DNC headquarters, complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.
The documents are all here.
http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/DNCConspiracy.htm
Who you gonna believe? Cowboy hat, or your lying eyes?
You’re getting your birther lies confused. Birthers tend to claim that Hawaii alone received the DNC certification attesting to Obama being qualified under the Constitution, while the other 49 states got the certification that didn’t have this language. The claim is that Hawaii knew he wasn’t qualified, and the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to certify him as such. It is a known fact that the form the DNC submitted to Hawaii stated that he was legally qualified. But, since the birthers never showed us the forms the DNC submitted to the other 49 states, nor did they say whether the other 49 states had rules such as Hawaii’s, this is a claim based on simply what you wish had happened, rather than what you know happened.
Exactly. He wants a court to say that it is unconstitutional for the State of Colorado to follow the Constitution. That is never going to happen. Courts can and do interpret the Constitution, but no Court, not even the Supreme Court, can say that part of the Constitution is, itself, wrong.
But, suppose two sections of the Constitution contradict each other? This can and does happen in many areas. Congress’s power over interstate commerce may conflict with the rights of states and individuals in other sections. This will be argued in the case of heath care reform, for example. Hassan’s argument is that the natural born citizen clause conflicts with the 5th and 14th amendments. I think his case as regards the 14th is not so silly, since equal protection ought to mean equal protection. Given its later date, the 14th should predominate in a conflict with the original.
Whatever the legalitiies (and I am not a lawyer), there are philosophical and moral arguments against restrictions on the rights of individuals that are arbitrary and lack a solid foundation in the interests of the public or the nation. Pretend you were writing a Constitution today, could you come up with solid rationales for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, a bicameral legislature, 3 branches of government, etc? I would say yes. But what are the justifications for the natural born citizen clause in 2011? There is no data to suggest that naturalized citizens are unfit as a class for the presidency, to the extent that voters should be denied the opportunity to select one. Should the fear of a European royal taking power in 1788 be applied to an ordinary immigrant like Mr Hassan in 2011?
Bingo! Well said & that pretty much covers it, in response to Beckwith’s feckwit little tirade here. So there ya go, Beckwith. You stomp in here all full of hot air and no substance and your whole argument amounts to nothing more than a hollow and harmless fart. So back at you…put that in your pipe and smoke it. Now, off you go, back to your pathetic fantasies and meaningless charade…
Smoking is a filthy, disease causing obsession.
To answer your question, your particular birther b.s. was debunked long ago* and determined it is just more typical, desperate birther lies. So, we did talk about it.
What’s next? You have questions about travel to Pakistan?
Here’s your sign, birther Beckwith.
*Birthers attack DNC documents
by Dr. Conspiracy on SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 in FAKES AND FRAUDS, LOUNGE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/birthers-forge-ahead/
A valid hypothetical to ponder. I suppose, under a modern view of the concept of nationalism (from a positive aspect, not the negative connotation), one could view the distinction of having the ability to run for President as more of a special privilege offered to those lucky enough to have been born under that nation’s banner. When you have such a rare and unique job position as President, where only 1 person out of hundreds of millions even has the opportunity to hold that spot every four years, it doesn’t carry the same weight of needing to be a universal right that everyone is entitled to. Just offering one way in which our modern world could design, justify & accept such a qualification for unique office.
[to a bartender, while drinking]
Mulder: I’m the key figure in an ongoing government charade, the plot to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. It’s a global conspiracy, actually, with key players in the highest levels of power, that reaches down into the lives of every man, woman, and child on this planet, so, of course, no one believes me. I’m an annoyance to my superiors, a joke to my peers. They call me Spooky. Spooky Mulder, whose sister was abducted by aliens when he was just a kid and who now chases after little green men with a badge and a gun, shouting to the heavens or to anyone who will listen that the fix is in, that the sky is falling and when it hits it’s gonna be the shit-storm of all time.
Barmaid: [backs away] Well… I say that about does it, Spooky.
Mulder: [shakes his head with disbelief] Well… I guess you’re right. How much do I owe you for all these drinks?
Barmaid: 86 is your lucky number… Spooky.
Mulder: [beat] No. My lucky number is one.
Hey, Beckwith, I found one place you most certainly misquoted a Democratic Party document. You rendered it “Democrat party,” when in fact an official Democratic party document used the party’s actual name. Why are some Republicans like you so petty that they can’t bring themselves to call the opposition party by its real name, even to the extend of changing it in quoted matter? My English teachers from high school on drilled into me that that’s a no-no.
Certainly, holding the office of President is a privilege, not a right; however, it is a right conferrred by the people, and, in my opinion, they should have the freedom to make that choice unfettered by any restrictions that do not have a compelling justifiication. Of course any individual voter is free to vote based on their prejudices regarding race, religion, gender, place of birth, etc., but I have issues wiith codifying those into law and denying choice to other voters who feel diifferently.
I disagree, for different reasons.
First, as has probably already been pointed out, “equal protection” does not mean “grant everybody the same privileges”.
Second, it also doesn’t mean “treat everything as equal”. As I’ve learned about Germany’s Constitution, the key is that only that which is equal must be treated equally (though there’s a bit of inconsistency and handwaving about certain aspects, like why it’s constitutional that the law only punishes exhibitionism by male offenders, §183 I of the German Penal Code).
Which is why it’s constitutional you cannot appeal a ruling if the damage is less than 600 EUR etc.
Third, I don’t think that it’s obvious that in such conflicting cases (if, arguendo, this were one) the newer regulation takes precedence. On the contrary, many constitutional scholars consider the older regulation to be the basis (unless it is explicitly overruled/repealed) and any amendment is to be understood as limited by the previous definitions (at least in Germany that is the dominant school of thought).
“Hassan’s argument is that the natural born citizen clause conflicts with the 5th and 14th amendments. I think his case as regards the 14th is not so silly, since equal protection ought to mean equal protection. Given its later date, the 14th should predominate in a conflict with the original.”
I am a lawyer. Plaintiffs in the District of Columbia actually sued on grounds like this, arguing that denial of their right to vote for Senators and Representatives violated the equal protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause of the Constitution. They lost.
An inequality that is written into the Constitution itself cannot constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp. 2d 35, 65-68 (D.D.C.)(three-judge court), aff’d, 531 U.S. 941 (2000).
The equal voting requirement for the Senate itself constitutes a profound inequality, with the smallest state having the same vote as the largest. Other inequalities include the Electoral College, and, of course, the District Clause.
Doc wrote: “Of course birthers didn’t invent the two-citizen parent legal theory in time to bring a lawsuit based on that theory before the 2008 primaries. However, they are “loaded for bear” this time around.”
The birthers have much bigger problems, because this time around their opposition is also loaded for bear, and has heavy artillery to use against their popguns.
In 2008, there was little time to assess and probe their crank constitutional theories. But now there have been three years of harsh daylight. A lot of stones have been turned over and a lot of pasty white critters have scurried out.
This time around, the birthers face the long-form birth certificate as will as the COLB.
This time around it is known that both forms meet the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” and are binding under Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The birthers have lost over 80 cases. They failed even to appeal the only decision of the merits, Ankeny. Not a single law professor at an accredited law school has supported their crank definition of natural born.
This time around, the birthers face a comprehensive, 50-page CRS Report with over 220 footnotes completely exploding their dual citizenship and two-citizen parent theories.
Here is another link for the CRS Report:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
The birthers are going to experience full-frontal face plants on all their runs this Winter and Spring.
Somehow, I do not think every birther believe what they are saying. For some, If they can keep this alive as long as possible, they can reap monetary gain, and they will cry all the way to the bank. And if they oppose Obama, it’s a bonus to just keep alive a negative rumor about him.
A couple years ago when the first Vattelists emerged in earnest (back then Apuzzo/Donofrio were rather insignficant as every birther hunted that elusive birth certificate or whatever “embarrassing info” they thought they’d find in Obama’s documents), I wrote that their argument will never fly with the general public, simply because it’s too much legal mumbo-jumbo. You cannot convince a significant number of people that some Swiss philosopher is authoritative on the the meaning of words in the Constitution, or that some old SCOTUS cases said something which every legal expert says they don’t.
But of course that argument cuts both ways. If birther propaganda somehow succeeds in planting the two citizen theory in the public mind, no 50-page legal document will convince people otherwise, simply because they can’t and won’t dive into such complicated matters.
This is like “Obama is ineligible because the Higgs boson does (not) exist”. Once people have started accepting that, you can no longer argue with them about what a Higgs boson is and whether it exists or not.
And that pretty much sums up the gist of the birther strategy (at least of those few who actually know what they’re doing).
The only way to get the two citizen theory rolling is to have as many legal challenges and ballot challenges as possible – and to make sure they all fail for technical reasons.
Because that way, they think they have a chance that “Obama is being challegend because he doesn’t have two citizen parents” somehow subconsciously transforms into “Obama needs two citizen parents but doesn’t have them”.
If, on the other hand, one of their cases actually went to the point where SCOTUS decides “no, you don’t need two citizen parents”, they’re sunk, because a simple SCOTUS ruling is what people will understand and respect.
So this is just a different version of The Big Lie, called The Steady Drip.
I think you’re right. To a spiteful, paranoid bigot, the truth is a necessary casualty in their imaginary fight to make the world a place without differences.
I’ve watched every episode of Season’s 1 and 5 of the MacGyver television series.
I looked it up and about 70% of the federal cases falling under the umbrella of strict scrutiny for Judicial Review result in the law or policy found to be discriminatory. So, Hassan has a very good chance of prevailing in his lawsuit for ballot access.
As to Nobama’s birth certificate for proof of eligibility, there’s a problem. Obama’s long form BC has a date accepted and his short form has a date filed. Many other people born in Hawaii at the time have a date accepted on their long form and their short form BC. Consequently, it can be concluded Obama’s birth record contains an anomaly resulting the opening up of his complete birth record to identify changes, updates, edits, revisions and redacted data.
Once his adoption COLB becomes public, the people will demand to see his naturalization papers. Once his Certificate of Naturalization becomes public, his eligibility to hold office for President of the United States will be questioned.
You’d better get Mr. Smith to work right away on “finding” those papers.
“As to Nobama’s birth certificate for proof of eligibility, there’s a problem.”
It’s past time to ignore this mindless, drooling, pointless, delusional, trolling feckwit.
Ah, you must be referring to the adoption that never happened and the naturalization papers that don’t exist. I hate to break it to you but like all birther talking points, that lie has been debunked already. Better go back to WND so you can copy-and-paste some new ones.
Wow, for a second I thought Landrum was just an echo of Stapleton, until he stated the birth certificate would lead to the naturalization papers ….. Stapleton assured us the naturalization papers would undermine the birth certificate.
So many ways to win the game of birther blanket bingo! Is it like little league …. trophies for everyone?
Rickey, what’s your standpoint on the issue of they are also subject to the jurisdiction of another country at the time of their birth? Would you consider them to be a NBC of both countries?
In that the 2-citizen parent is an actual concept (whether or not is pertains to or is even relevant in this situation) would preclude the idea of it being ‘invented’. It’s sort of a silly argument against them. If you want to be taken seriously, then take their claims seriously as well. But to me, when you try to brush them off using such a fallacy, it weakens your standing.
I’m sure it would have nothing to do with the birthers actually forming and having their own opinion on the matter, irregardless of this site or the 50 page doc. Stating something over and over again, doesn’t necessarily make it true, but by the same token, it doesn’t make it false either. I think the majority of birthers made up their minds long ago – based on their gut feelings and common sense . The fact that this site still continues to exist even though Obama IS POTUS and continues to be POTUS speaks to your concern that hearts and minds are not being changed. It is those hearts and minds that go to the voting booth that have you believing this is a conspiracy or propaganda. It’s actually quite amusing in my opinion.
You obviously do not understand what “subject to the jurisdiction of” means. You cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of two countries at birth unless your mother gives birth while straddling the border of those countries. Obama was not born subject to the jurisdiction of Kenya or England because he was born in Hawaii.
Furthermore, another country’s claim on an individual’s citizenship has nothing – repeat, nothing – to do with United States citizenship. U.S. law controls, not the laws of other countries. Likewise, the United States has no control over what other countries do in regard to citizenship.
Not quite. The court commented that no person has a right to have his or her own made-up definition legally recognized by the courts, nor to be classified according to that imaginary definition. From the ruling:
Mr. Craig has no legally cognizable right to be deemed “the First Legally recognized ‘Natural Born American Citizen'” or “the Last” of them. R., Vol. I, Doc. 11 Attach. 1, at VII. Mr. Craig’s amended complaint does not describe any unlawful discrimination that he has suffered or will suffer due to the allegedly “extensive opportunities of immigrants and naturalized citizens [**8] to obtain, protect and preserve their status.” 2 Id. at IV. Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
To G:
If you have the interest, I look forward to you ripping apart Scott the Birther’s asinine fail of a post.
“Stating something over and over again, doesn’t necessarily make it true, but by the same token, it doesn’t make it false either. I think the majority of birthers made up their minds long ago – based on their gut feelings and common sense . The fact that this site still continues to exist even though Obama IS POTUS and continues to be POTUS speaks to your concern that hearts and minds are not being changed.”
Todd said “I looked it up and about 70% of the federal cases falling under the umbrella of strict scrutiny for Judicial Review result in the law or policy found to be discriminatory. So, Hassan has a very good chance of prevailing in his lawsuit for ballot access.”
Well, Todd, not one of those cases ever subjected a provision of the Constitution itself to strict scrutiny, or any other scrutiny, so all those cases are irrelevant. That case I cited was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court did not simply decline to review it or to deny certiorari. It affirmed the decision. So that is binding.
Hassan has a 100% certainty of losing his argument that a naturalized citizen is qualified for the Presidency.
Sally Hill, kindly reread my post and note that I was quoting Doc, and did not write those words myself. There were only wisps of the two-parent theory before 2008, so Doc was correct. I have dealt with it seriously, as have many others, in thousands of posts. The CRS Report takes it seriously. It has been thoroughly examined and found wanting.
Every one of the birther cases in 2012 will be lost by the birthers.
I have the feeling I’m addressing the concerns of a persistent troll, but …
The existence of this website has less to do, it seems to me, with the effort to change birther minds than it does with a fascination with conspiracy theories. It’s pretty common, in the comment sections, to acknowledge that NO amount of “proof” is likely to persuade a committed birther/”true believer” (see Erving Goffman). So, this site exists to monitor and appreciate the lengths to which true believers will go to ignore what the judiciary and the government have long confirmed: Barack Obama (and, in future, anyone like him) is eligible to be PotUS. Nor is it particularly important to change the minds of committed birthers, in that it’s unlikely the next election will hinge on the limited number of voters who are rabid birthers (vattelists/two-parentists, fake SSN-ists, etc.)
The two candidates who tried to appeal to birthers – Perry and Trump – have been shown to be non-viable candidates. One dropped out, of course, and the other said the equivalent of “I was just joking”. So, even for the Republican candidates “birtherism” is more or less played out.
I can’t speak for others who come here, but I’m here to see just how rococo birther thinking gets before – with the end of Obama’s presidency, whenever that comes – it fades into the realm of historical curiosity. I’m equally fascinated by the “truthers”, amongst whom there is a stream who believe the attack on the world trade center was faked by the American government and its 3,000 or so victims held in a bunker before being assassinated (by said American government). The sad thing is, no fiction writer on earth can make this stuff up. So, we’re forced to come to sites like this … *popcorn *
Yes, that follows my own thinking on the subject. However, I think it unlikely (although not impossible) that any state would deny Obama a place on the ballot, and a headline “Courts rule Obama eligible” would do a lot of damage to the image of the birthers.
Well said. Thanks.
You are wrong on two counts. First there is no “required language” for all 50 states. Individual states have different requirements. Second, the language affirming Obama’s eligibility was sent to Hawaii whereas you say it was “not delivered to a single state.”
I would think that you should know this without me telling you.
Former Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama might well have ruled against Obama.
Third, it is not the Democrat Party, it is Democratic Party. If the birthers can’t even get something so simple as the name of the party correct, they really shouldn’t be surprised when the rest of us ridicule them.
I don’t ask anyone to believe me. The information I present is either a logical argument (which stands or falls on its face) or sourced facts. Readers can believe my sources or not.
Agreed!
There is definitely a mix of the hard-core delusional, for whom these myths have become a “religion” and belief system and for those who do actually know better, but cynically want to prop up the myths for both profit and propaganda purposes.
There also remains a small segment of just low-information and gullible people susceptible to becoming confused by the propaganda and therefore becoming innocent, yet sincere dupes.
There also remain a bunch of folks who allow themselves to be ruled by their emotions and not logic and therefore use the cover of Birtherism as nothing but a simplistic bogeyman excuse and outlet for their frustrations. They don’t really truly believe it themselves, but it is simply easier for them to use it as a petty tool to lash out than to actually put in any effort to confront the complexities of life.
The latter 2 groups are “reachable”…but they also are the most susceptible to brainwashing.
They can only surround themselves with such BS and isolate themselves with only dealing with like-minded folks for so long before they risk also becoming so lost in their own bubble of repetitious psycho-babble that they lose their own sense of objective reality and spiral downward into becoming just like the hard core birthers themselves. That seems to be how true madness evolves.
Done!
Fake Scott Brown aka Sally Hill also tried pulling the same concern trolling claims on another current thread here, so I’ll direct you & her and others to read though my detailed response there, as it applies equally to her claims here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/judicial-review-of-obamas-eligibility/#comment-140673
I also thought Fazil Iskander did a marvelous job in his succinct reply on this topic and I echo and emphasize everything he’s already said.
I’ll add some additiional rebuttal here, focused on targeting the heart of what Sally Hill is really trying to pull (yet again):
To Sally Hill – In summary, you have shown that your motives are all about mere PROPAGANDA and NOT objective truth.
You are sadly limited to only seeing others and the world through the projection of your own limitations and petty behaviors.
This site is simply based on objective analysis and following the evidence. That leads to debunking false claims. It also leads to simply monitoring the mythical phenomenon of Birtherism while it still exists. Watching ludicrous delusions play out is sometimes entertaining and sometimes appalling, so such reactions naturally play out in the commentary.
However, your goals and the goals of us and this site are completely different and you seem incapable of grasping that simple truth:
Our purpose here is not to “persuade”, but to observe, inform and comment on the phenomenon and correct the record.
You’re goal is dishonest manipulation and deception for the futile purposes of hoping that you can sway an election.
We sincerely don’t care who you vote for. We have no need to “persuade” you to vote for Obama. Nor does Obama “need” your vote. Personal desires for or against his re-election are completely separate from the actual focus, purpose and goals of this site. Simple as that.
Simply put, anyone susceptible to buying into such flimsy bunk as birtherism is just using it as a shield and excuse to cover the simple truth that they had no intention of voting for Obama, regardless. Those votes didn’t go to him last time and no serious person would expect them to go to him this time either. They are already factored in, so your entire silly propaganda game is only preaching to the choir.
Your entire “agenda” is just sad and pathetic. Why can’t you just openly own up to what you are doing instead of hiding behind excuses?
Why is it so difficult for you to simply state that you have no intentions of voting for Obama under any circumstances and leave it at that? That is completely your right and we have no need whatsoever of trying to get you to vote differently.
Your problem is really with yourself. While we could care less how you vote, you are simply too petty and fragile to handle that others don’t conform to your personal desire. What really scares and bothers you is the reality that the majority of Americans *overwhelmingly* had a difference of opinion than you and selected him as our President. You are utterly fearful, because you know there is a good chance the country will make that same decision again.
What this really comes down to is that you have NO respect for the rights of others to also have the freedom of choice and you can’t handle a fair playing field, because an honest election process does NOT guarantee you the results you desire. Sorry, but your entire basis is nothing but the unreasonable and petulant demands of a selfish and spoiled entitlement mentality.
Sorry, but you are simply not entitled to get your rainbow-farting unicorn pony. You can throw tantrums and fits and demand one all you want. You can try to convince yourself and trick others into believing they exist all day long. Such juvenile efforts and attitudes will not turn those personal fantasies into reality, no matter how hard or often you shout and demand that the universe bends to your personal will.
I don’t think birthers have a plan outside of “let’s throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks” and since they have lost consistently, I think I’m right…….that’s their “plan.”
Thanks and well done!
Actually, it had to be invented because you birthers certainly never found the “two-citizen parent requirement” in a history book, civics text, or law book. In fact, even Jerome Corsi, with his PhD. in Political Science, never heard of it because he failed to mention it in his 2008 book, “The Obama Nation.” In fact, nobody heard of it before the fall of 2008. It is an “actual concept” in the same way the the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an actual concept. In other words, a figment of imagination.
A heretic be ye, Arrrrrrrr
Why are you apologizing all the time?
No, he is saying that part of original Constitution has been abrogated by the express terms of a Constitutional amendment. He is saying that because the 14th Amendment requires that natural born and naturalized citizens be treated equally under the law, then the “natural born” citizen clause was implicitly repealed with the adoption of the 14th amendment.
LOL!
And of course PA is a state that only issues an abstract birth certificate copy these days. I’ve seen a few examples, and they don’t list the city of birth or birth hospital/facility/building – just the county. Some don’t even list one or both parents. Not to mention that Newt Gingrich was also born in PA, and adopted to boot. His paperwork is going to be convoluted. If any of the birther bills ever gets passed, it’ll get interesting when Republican candidates have a hard time getting all the docs they need to satisfy various requirements, unless you have “friendly” Secretaries of State who will certify for candidates they agree with.
I specifically remember some of the birther bills seemed to anticipate Obama getting a Hawaii long form. Georgia’s bill that flailed and died has a provision requiring that a birth certificate to meet their requirements must have been some sort of image of the original, with the addresses of both parents, a signature by the doctor/midwife, and various other information categories that many states stopped collecting on birth certificates years ago. Hawaii’s long-form only listed the address of the mother. California for a while has allowed a certifier (generally a hospital administrator) to sign a birth certificate if the doctor isn’t available and doesn’t include the address of either parent.
Of course those who pushed the bill know that wouldn’t fly, even if the bill became law. However it would’ve added to the task of planting the misinformation “Obama doesn’t have all the papers the other candidates have” in the public mind.
Let me answer that my way (apart from what has already been said about being born “subject to two jurisdictions”):
The question is meaningless because it requires the other country to have the same definition of NBC as the US have.
US law does not control what another country considers an NBC (apart from the fact that I don’t know of any other country that makes such a distinction in its laws).
If Vanuatu considered every human being a natural born citizen of Vanuatu, that would be their own party, it wouldn’t have any influence on the meaning of NBC in the US or any other country.
You simply can’t get around the fact that that the “a (born) dual citizen cannot be an NBC” theory doesn’t work without giving every country in the world the power to make every single American ineligible for presidency. It’s logically impossible.
i must admit, this is something that i find myself doing when engaged in discourse with birthers and have just crapped on their birthday cake.
it sort of feels like the total opposite of what you recieve on birther sites – YOU LYING COMMIE AMERICA HATING OBOT, WHEN WE COME TO ARMS YOU´LL ALL BE LOCKED UP FOR TREASON WITH ALL THE OTHER ATHEIST SCUM!!.
besides, being civil in these discussions drives them more batshit than normal 😀
Italy has some rather generous citizenship laws for anyone who can document direct lineage with an Italian citizen. It’s been used by several Italian-Americans to become eligible for for international competition such as the Olympics or the World Baseball Classic. More than half of Argentina is of Italian ancestry and can claim Italian citizenship.
Wasn’t there talk that perhaps Rudy Giuliani could theoretically be deemed an Italian citizen?
That will NEVER happen!
Arpaio has NOTHING!
john: The best hope for birthers is Sheriff Arpiao’s investigation and report.
It’s amazing how something can be funny and sad at the same time.
Any . . . day . . . now.
Re: Impact of Arpaio report *eye-roll* *sigh*
Is anyone, anywhere, working on a master list of birther goalpost positions?
If it hasn’t already been done, I hereby dedicate “Promises, Promises” by Naked Eyes to the Birthers … from Everyone Else. Like a love/hate song from the entire non-birthin’ world! For those not familiar, lyrics are below ….
Naked Eyes
“Promises, Promises”
(Pete Byrne and Rob Fisher)
Never had a doubt
In the beginning
Never a doubt
Trusted too true
In the beginning
I loved you right through
Arm in arm we laughed like kids
At all the silly things we did
You made me promises, promises
Knowing I’d believe
Promises, promises
You knew you’d never keep
Second time around
I’m still believing
Words that you said
You said you’d always be here
In love forever
Still repeats in my head
You can’t finish what you start
If this is love it breaks my heart
You made me promises, promises
You knew you’d never keep
Promises, promises
Why do I believe
Arm in arm we laughed like kids
At all the silly things we did
You can’t finish what you start
If this is love it breaks my heart
You made me promises, promises
You knew you’d never keep
Promises, promises
Why do I believe
All of your promises
You knew you’d never keep
Promises, promises
Why do I believe
Promises
Promises
Promises
Promises
Promises
source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/n/nakedeyeslyrics/promisespromiseslyrics.html
And therein lies his failure. You cannot make a case that one part of the Constitution abrogates another without it specifically stating that. When the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, it said so, quite clearly. In any case, you couldn’t use the 14th as he seems to want to, since it says the States may not make any laws that deny citizens rights or immunities. Since these would be the rights under the Constitution, and the Constitution only gives to natural born citizens the right to serve as President, there is no conflict. If a state tried to say that only men, or only whites, or only Lutherans could appear on that state’s ballot for President, that would be a violation. But, as long as the states all comply with the Constitution, it would be impossible to try to make a case that they are in violation.
I’m not sure if it was in this argument or elsewhere that tried to make a comparison between this and the alleged conflict between the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. But that is a false argument, as there is no conflict there, either. The Court has ruled that Congress has the right to act under the Commerce Clause, so therefore it is not violating the rights of the states when it acts. Simply put, the Constitution cannot be in conflict with itself.
John said:
“The best hope for birthers is Sheriff Arpiao’s investigation and report. Assuming Arpaio’s report is what birthers are hoping for and that it is really released in February 2012, it will be an election killer for Obama. In addition, the report will represent the only authortative and investigative body that has researched the birther claims and arguments. This will be give birthers a new level heightened credibility which will greatly advance state ballot election challenges.”
For Sheriff Joe to prove that Obama was not born in the USA, he must prove not only that there is no Hawaii birth certificate, which we know that there is due not merely to the document itself but to the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii. But in addition to proving that, Sheriff Joe would have to provide a reasonable explanation, with investigative facts to back it up, that shows how Obama could have gotten from some other country to the USA in 1961 without either a US travel document or a record of his being admitted to the USA by the US INS.
The statement is true that the birthers certainly are hoping that Sheriff Joe will provide evidence. But it implies that Sheriff Joe CAN provide evidence, meaning evidence both to disprove the birth certificate and prove that Obama was born overseas. That seems virtually impossible. In fact, how can the sheriff even show how Obama got to the USA from a foreign country in 1961 without there being a travel document in the State Department records or a US INS record of Obama being admitted to the country?
So essentially what you’re saying is “birthers have no hope, whatsoever.”. I can certainly agree with that.
No, Hassan is asserting the Colorado statute requiring a POTUS candidate file a Statement of Candidacy with the Colorado SoS and checking a box on the statement affirming they are a Natural born citizen is unconstitutional. As a naturalized citizen, Hassan is prevented from ballot access in Colorado unless he is willing to perjure himself. A naturalized citizen, a well defined classification codified by the federal legislature, can only be prevented from being sworn-in as President of the United States because of his citizenship status.
i don’t mean to sound smart alecy but doesn’t the fact that you can’t keep track of the number of lawsuits sort of a harbinger for it not being over ? are there new lawsuit still being filed?
It is easier to keep track of lawsuits that the birthers have won — Zero.
It has been over for some time, but the birthers ignored the memo. However, this has provided us with years of entertainment value.
Frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time. Our courts are clogged with them.
Also, delusional zealots will continue to bang their heads fruitfully against a wall, because they are incapable of getting a clue.
So yes, we fully expect these futile attempts to continue and we have consistently said for a long time that we expect a significant uptick as the 2012 election approaches.
The point you seem to be missing is it that quantity DOES NOT equal quality. Failing 100 times or a 1000 times on the same issue is still FAILING.
The other key point is that someone could innocently argue that they don’t know how a court will rule on an issue the first few times it comes up…
That stops holding true once a number of cases on the same topic have been ruled upon…particularly when ALL of them are decided in the SAME direction.
So the result is clear. The extreme body of cases, evidence and history here show that this is 100% a lost cause for the Birthers.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
– Albert Einstein
FIFY
Pretty much like the fact that I can’t keep track of the number of turds flushed through the sewers doesn’t mean one of them could spontaneously transform into gold.
And who ever said “it’s over”? Birthers will continue their follies years after Obama’s second term has ended. Because once you’re deep enough down the rabbit hole, you’re stuck with it for life.
In my favourite forum, there’s a guy who’s been fighting his city officials for 21 years simply because he was too stubborn to apply for a permit to sell his paintings on the streets (he would’ve been given one, he just didn’t like that he “has to ask”). He’s lost all the way to the Supreme Court long ago, but he’s still coming around every 6 months and asks if someone can help him fight the (unappealable) court decisions. He also read the Supreme Court’s denial as actually confirming his interpretation. *sigh*
Aputzo’s Syndrome
Since that German painter is significantly older and significantly longer deluded, it’d have to be Rupp’s Disease. 😉
Good point.
I think for career birther’s like Mario and Orly, their life’s goal is to be remembered as the most guano psychotic bigot ever.
I’ll say this hopefully one last time. No matter how it is phrased, Hassan wants the court to say that Colorado’s statute is unconstitutional because it adheres to the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that naturalized citizens do not have the right to serve as President or Vice-President of the US. That is simply not a right they have. There’s no other way to say it. So the 14th Amendment doesn’t give them that right, and no state can give them that right, because that right is denied them by the Constitution itself. Period. End of story. So yes, the citizenship status of naturalized citizens prevents them from serving as President or VP, but that is not, nor can it be claimed to be, a violation of their rights. The rights of all citizens spring from the Constitution, and certain rights are spelled out therein. This is one that is clear as to who has the right, and who doesn’t.
Uriah Charles: “A naturalized citizen, a well defined classification codified by the federal legislature, can only be prevented from being sworn-in as President of the United States because of his citizenship status.”
So are you saying it follows that an 18 year old, or a natural born citizen who has not lived in the United States for 14 years, can go on all the ballots? That a person who has been elected President twice (like G.W.Bush) could be allowed on the ballot, only to be disqualified by the joint session under the 12th Amendment, or by the Chief Justice at the swearing in ceremony? Do the states have to allow 25 year olds to run for Senate, or 20 year olds to run for the House? Do persons who are not inhabitants of the State have to be put on its ballot for Senate and House?
This is getting ridiculous. The states do not have to go through the charade of printing ballots for constitutionally ineligible presidential candidates. A naturalized citizen is constitutionally ineligible, just like a two-term President. The states do not have to grant ballot access.
At any rate, this is not my personal legal opinion. It is the holding of a federal case that was affirmed by the Supreme Court, cited above. An inequality that is written into the Constitution itself cannot constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp. 2d 35, 65-68 (D.D.C.)(three-judge court), aff’d, 531 U.S. 941 (2000).
In practice ineligible candidates have appeared on the ballot in one state and have been excluded from the ballot in another. I don’t recall any case reaching the US Supreme Court based on this question. The Supreme Court of Hawaii did rule against Eldridge Cleaver who was too young, but Roger Colero (Socialist Workers Party – 2008), a naturalized citizen, appeared on the ballot in several states.
A state may allow it, but there is no legal basis to compel a state to put an ineligible candidate on its ballot. I should have clarified that while no ballot case has reached the Supreme Ct, it has rejected the argument that an equal protection claim can overturn a provision of the Constitution itself, so no equal protection case can force a state to put a naturalized or underage or nonresident presidential candidate on it’s ballot.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
– Albert Einstein
what about the lightbulb ?
then aren’t we all doing the same thing here ??
you guys needed some fresh red meat. it’s no fun arguing with yourself.
i’ll have some questions none of you can answer. if i can stay.
Ummmm….. noooo.
The light bulb was a concept that was scientifically sound even in theory, which required considerable experimental work to refine it to the point where it was commercially practical.
Birtherism is a nutcase conspiracy idea that has no basis in law, jurisprudence, or history, runs counter to every established precedence, objective evidence, and legal opinion, and has no basis in fact or logic.
Do you see the difference?
Please stay if you wish. We like birthers here. But please don’t confuse “not agreeing with you” with ” not able to answer”. I highly doubt you have anything which we haven’t heard and dealt with before. You certainly don’t have anything that would pass the logic or legal test.
We’ve discussed this before, and I agree with you. The Constitution only says that a person has to meet the qualifications of Article II, Section 1 in order to serve as President. It says nothing about having to be qualified in order to be a candidate for President. By the same token, the Constitution does not requires states to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot, nor does it prohibit states from removing ineligible candidates from the ballot.
Of course, states which do provide for removing ineligible candidates for Federal offices cannot impose eligibility requirements which are greater than those imposed by the Constitution, pursuant to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
Edison didn’t try the exact same failing filament experiment over, over and over again.
That would be more like birther stupidity. Your analogy is unsurprisingly asinine.
“i’ll have some questions none of you can answer. if i can stay.”
Here’s your answer ahead of time.
Who is we?
The 9th Circuit just ruled against Orly. The Birthers can now get their Supreme Court case by petitioning for cert.
All they need to do is to overturn years of rulings on standing and a hundred years of understanding of natural born citizenship.
Fake “Bernadine Ayers” can’t even spell the first name correctly. It’s Bernardine, not Bernadine. And as far as I can tell, the real Bernardine Dohrn has never used the married name Ayers.
Birthers fail on so many levels.
Thanks for the heads-up. Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76326540/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9th-CIRCUIT-AFFIRMED-FILED-OPINION
Yeah, we’ve been discussing it for awhile already under the Open Thread:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/the-occasional-open-thread-naughty-and-nice-edition/#comment-141004
Hopefully, Doc will put together a specific blog post for coverage on this particular ruling.
There is a simple term for what you are trying to pull here – PROJECTION.
Sorry, but we don’t create conspiracies. We only report, analyze and comment on them.
If there were no Birthers and their antics, we would not be reporting. All red meat is generated in the Birtherverse. It simply becomes fodder for discussion and deserving ridicule here as a result.
You seem to have difficulty understanding the simple concept of cause and effect.
You are free to post here. However, if you wish to be treated seriously and have an actual discussion, then try to present an actual question in a sincere manner without a tone that comes across as not really asking questions, but just trying to distract topics to irrelevant minutae in order to create a cloud of doubt or confusion that doesn’t really exist.
Everything you have said so far has deservedly invoked skepticism. You want to be treated seriously, earn respect by being earnest and not coming across like someone trying to pull the same con game we’ve seen endless times before.
You have yet to post a question that we haven’t heard or that we have been able to address. I’ll treat you fairly if you demonstrate that you can pose a fair question.
When will Americans wake up?
On or about March 2, 2010, it was revealed that Sarah P. Herlihy, an associate attorney specializing in litigation at the Chicago law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, which is a law firm with ties to Obama, published an essay in the Chicago-Kent Law review on February 22, 2006 entitled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle” that floated the idea of a “takeover” of our government by a foreign power. Herlihy’s essay was widely disseminated on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign as rumors surfaced that Obama and possibly McCain did not meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement laid out in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution:
Source:
Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?-Posted on The Post & EMail-By Sharon Rondeau-On March 2, 2010:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/02/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house/
On or about December 12, 2009, it was revealed in detail that there were foreign influences of George Soros during then Senator Obama’s 2008 Presidential Election Campaign, to include who covered up his Islamic background and the connections and players in the campaign of misinformation waged by numerous Obama supporters:
Source:
Who ran cover for Obama’s Islamic background? Tracing The Politics And The Money Behind Obama’s Campaign!’-Posted on Post & Email-by John Charlton-On December 12, 2009:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/12/look-who-ran-cover-for-obamas-islamic-background/
On or about April 24, 2010, it was revealed that members from all three branches of the Federal government, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. Additionally, National leaders are also aware that he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds:
Source:
DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office: The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president!’-Posted on CanadaFreePress.com-By JB Williams-On April 24, 2010:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221
On or about November 8, 2010, it was exposed that the White House had posted a congressional document on the internet that confirmed that no one, to include Congress, the states, or election officials bothered to check then Senator Obama’s eligibility to be our president.
Source:
Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted: There is no specific federal agency’ to review candidates for federal office!-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On November 8, 2010:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=225561
On or about June 12, 2011, it was revealed that there was overwhelming evidence that we in fact have a fraud and a usurper that resides in the people’s White House, despite the overt lack of journalistic investigating on the part of the American press. The new evidence indicates that the conspiracy to carry out that fraud was much broader than originally thought, which includes a forty-year story that requires a book, not a column, to tell because the evidence suggests that our President was being groomed from a very young age for the moment in history that would end American supremacy in the world, and usher in a new era of Global Marxist Governance.
Source:
The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!-Posted on The Post & Email-By JB Williams-On June 12, 2011:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/07/evidence-broadens-obama-natural-born-conspiracy/
On or about June 13, 2011, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Valley revealed that the “Certificate of Live Birth” that was released by the White House, on or about April 27, 2011, as “proof positive” of President Obama’s Hawaiian birth was a forgery, but that the FBI was covering the fraud and no one in Congress was willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a “black backlash,” if the failings of the nation’s first black president were revealed.
Source:
Ex-CIA: Forged document’ released as birth certificate!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 15, 2011:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=311433
On or about October 20, 2011, Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, published a report that revealed that 25 U.S. Supreme Court Opinions that defined “Natural Born Citizen” were sabotaged in the run up to the ’08 Presidential Election.
Source:
25 U.S. Supreme Court Opinions That Defined “Natural Born Citizen” Were Sabotaged In The Run Up To The ’08 Presidential Election!-Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On October 20, 2011:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/
On or about October 20, 2011, it was revealed that someone had been incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public by searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com, which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were both citizens, a definition that excludes President Obama from eligibility.
Source:
JustiaGate!-Posted on Examiner-By Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner-On October 20, 2011:
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate
On or about November 29, 2011, is was revealed that there are numerous state ballots with President Obama’s name that were facing legal challenges across the country. They are claiming that, while he is listed as the only Democratic candidate, he must be removed from the 2012 presidential primary election ballot over allegations of fraud in that “he does not meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause V concerning the natural born citizen status.”
Source:
Ballots with Obama’s name facing more legal challenges!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On November 29, 2011:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=372849#ixzz1gKfJA2bY
On or about November 30, 2011, it was revealed that the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the research arm of Congress, had launched a defense of President Obama’s presidential eligibility with a 50-page report that has been described as a “polemic aimed at convincing readers” Obama meets the requirements to be president.
Source:
Congressional staff gives Constitution new meaning: Researchers target eligibility,’ say native born’ really is natural born!’-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On November 30, 2011:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=373085
On or about November 30, 2011, it was also revealed that Jack Maskell, a legislative attorney with the Congressional Research Service (CRS), issued yet another in a series of reports on presidential eligibility that appears aimed at providing members of Congress with talking points to respond to constituents contending that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, along with redefining the eligibility clause by equating “native born” with the constitutional “natural born” citizen.
Source:
Congressional scholar’ shilling for Obama!-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On November 30, 2011:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977
On or about December 1, 2011, it was revealed that an Obama Presidential Eligibility Introductory Primer, which was initially published on or about June of 2009, has been recently revised and published. This primer reveals that President Obama has further substantiated his dual nationality, which he acquired at birth, when the White House released his supposedly new long-form birth certificate on or about April 27, 2011. The author does a meticulous job of introducing President Obama’s eligibility controversy, in a question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience and has supposedly double-checked the facts presented, along with citing their sources, and believes them to be correct.
Source:
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer!-Posted on PeoplesMag.net-By Stephen Tonchen-Revised on December 1, 2011:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
On or about December 7, 2011, it was revealed that there was a class action complaint that was recently filed against the National Democratic Party by the Liberty Legal Foundation (LLF) challenging President Obama’s eligibility. The allegations are that “he does not meet the minimum qualifications as set forth in Article II Section I Clause V concerning the natural born citizen status.”
The LLF’s lawsuit cites the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett, in which the court defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”
The LLF’s motion for preliminary injunction further states, “Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Mr. Obama can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore Mr. Obama cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of President and alleges that any representation by the Democratic Party that President Obama is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President would constitute “negligent misrepresentation or fraud.”
Source:
Liberty Legal Foundation serves DNC with Obama eligibility complaint!-Posted on Examiner-By Linda Bentley, Maricopa County Crime Examiner-On December 7, 2011:
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/liberty-legal-foundation-serves-dnc-with-obama-eligibility-complaint?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1ftSzDuaz
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!
Semper Fi!
What an utter load of made-up tabloid dreck!
Sorry pal, when all your sources are nothing but crank websites without credibility, then the joke is on you!
I hope Santa brought you more of that Tin Foil you seem to need… seems like you go through it at quite a clip!
Stay gullible there, comrade conspiracy nut, stay gullible!
When birthers stop putting them to sleep with the same insipid drek you posted.
I get the feeling that “Wero” in this case is just a short-cut way of saying Weirdo… 😉
It could also be a euphemism for “sock puppet” I suspect.
Or is it possibly a bizarre code for a paranoid, Islamophobic bigot and aging veteran who fears being enslaved by the NWO?
(excerpt) “As a proud American that happens to be a Hispanic who honorably served his country selflessly for twenty years, I am of the opinion that we have been experiencing a moral and spiritual crisis in America for some time now and are currently steamrolling into socialism and/or to come under Sharia Law and ultimately a one world government since the inauguration of President Obama. As a result, I believe that there is an urgent necessity for each of us to peacefully do what we must to help recover the truth about America’s Christian heritage and stop our country from becoming a Socialist nation and/or coming under Sharia Law and ultimately a one-world government before it is too late.”
“This transformation includes the destruction of our American sovereignty and capitalist system and the creation of a New World Order in which the U.S. plays a subservient role.”
“. . . dividing our country to the point of causing civil unrest and an uprising because this would allow the President to declare “Marshal Law””
(Penny Marshall, right? She’s crafty.)
Links from his freaky and laughable, little bit bucket:
(source) http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/disclaimer/
http://www.plaxo.com/profile/showPublic/weroinnm
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Kudos on your research & finds. Yet another bizarre zealot and conspiracy nut exposed!
…No wonder cranks like Harold Camping never run out of style…there are lots of delusional twits like WeroinNM willing to follow them off a cliff!
Possibly a made up contraction for war hero?
Or maybe it’s “Wants Everyone Right-wing Only”.
A clear example that reading Canada Free Press, WND and the rest rots the brain.
Is it just me, or does every crank who claims that Obama is planning to declare “marshal law” not know that it is spelled MARTIAL law? WeroInNM probably thinks that “martial law” refers to same-sex marriage.
ROTFLMAO!
I’m glad that I was able to start off your year with a laugh!
Uh, no it did not “float” that idea at all. You perhaps should read it.
Herlihy’s law review article began as a research paper in her third-year seminar on Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law, and she later revised it and submitted it for publication. As with all law review review articles, Herlihy’s thesis is stated in the introductory paragraphs. She proposed that the NBC clause is outdated in light of increased globalization, “and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.” She admitted, however, that Americans generally oppose amending the Constitutional to allow naturalized citizens to be elected to the Presidency because they rely on emotion rather than reason. She discusses some common misperceptions about cultural and economic globalization that, she argues, contribute to an irrational fear of letting go the NBC Clause.
Nothing — NOTHING — in the article even hints that she was arguing for a foreign takeover. If this is your reading of it, then you have a serious comprehension problem.
Georgetown:
I’m interested in an idea you cited from Herlihy’s article. You wrote, “She proposed that the NBC clause ‘. . . incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty.'”
I completely agree with her.
“When will Americans wake up?”
Something about time zones, caffeine, metabolism and circadian rhythms?
Check the backs of highway signs for coded answers.
I think the most asinine birtherism to date and stupefying lack of basic reading comprehension is the idiotic birther’s Orwellian misinterpretation of Executive Order 13489.
I think parentage is just as unreliable. I believe a 14 year residency/citizenship requirement would be adequate. If we do not know enough about a person after a two year campaign cycle we never will.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that birthers try to claim that two citizen parents ensures loyalty and patriotism?
Especially when you consider that, of all the people they brand as traitors, the vast majority will likely actually have two citizen parents, while one of the people they laud as their greatest patriot, Orly, has no citizen parent.
Irony meters need beware, the universe that birthers share.