THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[MonsterMark]

There is a very valid, constitutional argument here.

You got it Calabrio.

And I'm sure you are the only one besides myself that even looked into the issue and listened to the Plaintiff explain his case.

Forget about the birth certificate. It doesn't matter. In fact, the birth certificate issue I feel was manufactured as a means to cover up this issue from the very beginning.

It took a retired ex-lawyer playing poker for a living to one day hear of this controversy and say to himself, heh, that's not the issue. Got to love American ingenuity.

Why do you think this was finally docketed to be heard after the liberal Justice Souter dismissed it? This is probably one of the most important decisions these Justices will ever work on. I can't stand all the legalese crap but this I find quite fascinating.

And I heard another juicy tidbit that more Obamadrama is headed our way.

 

[Calabrio]

Time for some clarification here.
Both sides of this issue think they are right, when obviously only one can be.

Actually my concern is that it's going to fall into one of the murkier vague areas of the constitution.

Now, some question needs to be asked, and answered.
To date, has a proven, valid, birth certificate for Obama ever been presented to anyone in authority, that is qualified to prove it's authanticity?

For the sake of this lawsuit, it's not important, because his place of birth isn't a fundamental part of the argument. For that reason, the rest of your birth certificate question aren't of any importance. And frankly, if he didn't have a valid birth certificate, there's probably little doubt in anyones mind that one would be manufactured for him.

Officially, he's never had to present anything to anyone. He did post a certificate of birth online.

It would appear that until these questions are answered, no one wins this debate.

No, because those details are pertinent to the much more challenging and interesting argument that Donofrio has presented. A reminder, he's not BERG, he's not associated with Keynes. It is not about whether he was born in the U.S. or not. In fact, it presumes he was. My understanding of it is that it challenges the definition of "natural born citizen" and the requirements to be President.

I also think that if Obama has not presented the original for varification, he will be the loser in all of this.
If he has presented the original, then that should be sufficient for all.
Bob.

Again, this isn't about his birth certificate.
It's about the constitutional requirements of being President. And the more I read it, the more apparent it is that it needs to go before the Supreme Court.

 

[Calabrio]

Obamadrama?
If we're all lucky it'll just come out that Frank Marshall was his father and this court issue will be resolved.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, dream on Bryan - you're a married man....

Yep - Calabrio, it has to do with the whole immigration thing - and if babies born to 'non citizens', but on US soil are citizens - Yet, why did Donofiro bring up that whole part about the founding fathers and British fathers - it was very confusing, and it seemed like he was wanting to muddy the waters. It was absurd...

There have been some tiny rumblings in congress regarding this little point of law - I think maybe Dean has presented something, or has something wandering about in the way of a bill.

Everyone seems to think though that it wouldn't fly. You can't take away or alter someone's citizenship. If anything it would be grandfathered in.

The constitution is pretty clear however - the 14th just states...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, born is the first criteria, which Obama qualifies for... therefore he is a natural born citizen of the US - he doesn't even have to worry about the second part.

However the second part was a bit confusing - the 'naturalized' part - so US Code was added - the stuff I posted before.

There isn't any disqualification for anyone that is 'born' in the US. No odd little bit about your parents having to be US citizens or anything like that - the code is very clear on that.

And, what type of 'citizen' would Obama be if he wasn't a 'natural born citizen'. I believe dual citizenship is a subset of that.

Frankly, are Mexican Anchor babies eligible to be the President, born of foreign alien parents, but birthed on American soil.

Frankly, yes...

So, unless the Court is will to over turn or change the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of people living in this country (maybe millions), it is doubtful that they would rule in Donofiro's favor.

Don't forget to send money - soon - remember I believe everyone would like this whole Obama thing taken care of before the electoral college meets in a few weeks, then we could petition them to elect Hillary

 

[Calabrio]

Yep - Calabrio, it has to do with the whole immigration thing - and if babies born to 'non citizens', but on US soil are citizens -

But are they natural born citizens or natural citizens.

Yet, why did Donofiro bring up that whole part about the founding fathers and British fathers - it was very confusing, and it seemed like he was wanting to muddy the waters. It was absurd...

Because that was to demonstrate the importance of having natural born citizens, born of citizen parents.


....and I'm pressed for time, so to I can't get to the specifics in the rest of you post that deserves response. I'm adding this point just to make it known that I'm not ignoring.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Perhaps I'M a bit dense here but, I must have missed something along the way.
I stll, after listening to that broadcast, don't know what the hell he is trying too do.
Is he trying to alter the constitution or make certain points of it more understandable?
What is his arguement?
What I got out of it was, the framers of the constitution wanted to ensure that if one , or more of them wanted to be president, they included in the constitution a clause allowing them too, even though they were no natural born citizens but, that clause only applied to them, and not someone years ahead in the future.
Do I have it right so far?
So what is this guy's claim about?
What specifically is he putting before the Surpreme court?
From what I have read of the 14th amendment, it would appear those people born on U.S. soil, are natural born citizens , which is a requirement to be president.
What is this dude asking the court too do?
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

Do I have it right so far? Yep
So what is this guy's claim about? Obama is not 300 years old
What specifically is he putting before the Surpreme court? He is argiung that Obama fits the exact profile that the framers of the Constitution were trying to disqualify due to 'loyalty' issues based on divided citizenship.
From what I have read of the 14th amendment, it would appear those people born on U.S. soil, are natural born citizens , which is a requirement to be president. Wrong
What is this dude asking the court too do? Originally to have the 3 candidates tossed and stop the election. Same as now, albeit, after the fact but doesn't change the facts. Bob.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, some of your answer is clear, and some a bit vague.
Now, this claus for the framers was put into the constitution.
Was it ever removed?
Is it still part of the constitution?
Is this what this complainent wants from the SC, to have that clause explained in more depth, or removed entirely?
In the case of the two other presidential candidates, how do they fit into the mix?
Mc Cain I understand, he was born in Panama.
You answered that natural born citizen is not a requirement to be president.
I beg to differ withyou on that one.
So assuming the SC rules in favor of the plaintiff, what can we expect from that decision?
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

Now, this clause for the framers was put into the constitution.
Was it ever removed? No, it is there and still in force.
Is it still part of the constitution? Yes
Is this what this complainent wants from the SC, to have that clause explained in more depth, or removed entirely? Yes, to have the meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen' determined based on the original intent of the framers. Not some new interpretation by today's justices (ie: legislating from the bench)

In the case of the two other presidential candidates, how do they fit into the mix?
Mc Cain I understand, he was born in Panama. The other guy is a convicted felon.
You answered that natural born citizen is not a requirement to be president.
I beg to differ withyou on that one. I am arguing that natural born citizen IS the requirement so I don't know where you got that from me.
So assuming the SC rules in favor of the plaintiff, what can we expect from that decision? Our Constitution will have survived it's toughest test and there will be a lot of pissed off people that will incorrectly think that the election was again stolen from them. This is the narrative the media will want people to believe and they will hammer it home. They will place the blame on the RNC and the GOP and divide this nation along political and racial lines. It will get very ugly but I think it will be necessary to endure.
Bob.

...

 

[dinkaTHEdon]

what i dont get, and i know this isnt as 'important', but its most def. important to USA, why is the gov. of california some chewbaca guy who came over here with little to no english, made a bunch of corny movies, then decided 'i wanna be a political figure', so people fought for him to be gov., then after that happened, chewbaca xxxxed up cali, and even after all that peoples was still considering him for president. why is it when a white guy from another country with no political or law experience along with movie popularity praised to go into office.

BUT then!!! when an african-american (i dont give a xxxx what anybody says, he is african-american, his dad was in africa, not taliban country) who study'd law at harvard, and came from the ground up to make something of himself (thats what america is about right? which is why we got mexicans, cubans, asians illegally getting into this country, because it is the land of opportunity) all of a sudden this 'natural born citizen' sh!t comes up. come on!! i seriously think that this color thing has gone wayyyyy too far.

im not politically inclined, i never want to be, but i think a view at a different angle should always be accepted, this has happened before and nobody made it this big of a deal until a african american was elected into office

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Originally Posted by Bob Hubbard
Now, this clause for the framers was put into the constitution.
Was it ever removed? No, it is there and still in force.
Is it still part of the constitution? Yes
Is this what this complainent wants from the SC, to have that clause explained in more depth, or removed entirely? Yes, to have the meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen' determined based on the original intent of the framers. Not some new interpretation by today's justices (ie: legislating from the bench)

In the case of the two other presidential candidates, how do they fit into the mix?
Mc Cain I understand, he was born in Panama. The other guy is a convicted felon.
You answered that natural born citizen is not a requirement to be president.
I beg to differ withyou on that one. I am arguing that natural born citizen IS the requirement so I don't know where you got that from me.
So assuming the SC rules in favor of the plaintiff, what can we expect from that decision? Our Constitution will have survived it's toughest test and there will be a lot of pissed off people that will incorrectly think that the election was again stolen from them. This is the narrative the media will want people to believe and they will hammer it home. They will place the blame on the RNC and the GOP and divide this nation along political and racial lines. It will get very ugly but I think it will be necessary to endure.
Bob.

Bob, don't let Brian's spin confuse you. All these kooks are doing is trying to re-define what is written in the constitution to fit their argument so they can hide their hate behind it.

If you read Brian's posts (and Berg's and Donofrio's arguments), you can't tell if they are working the "...citizen, at the time of the adoption of this constitution......" angle, or the "he's not a natural born citizen" because they claim he was NOT born on US soil.

He was BORN in Hawaii, the birth certificate was issued by the state of Hawaii, it is CERTIFIED by the state of Hawaii, there is NO DISPUTING it's authenticity. Thus, he is a natural born citizen of the USA and is constitutionally qualified to be president of the USA. End of story. All the other crap about dual citizenship and "attacks on the constitution" :runaway: is deception spun by the fringe right.

And if you don't believe that, please donate to our cause. (Nice logo Fox!)

 

[MonsterMark]

this has happened before and nobody made it this big of a deal until a african american was elected into office

Welcome newbie...

I'll make it easy for you...
Please cite for us where this has happened before for President of the United States. Thanks

 

[MonsterMark]

He was BORN in Hawaii, the birth certificate was issued by the state of Hawaii, it is CERTIFIED by the state of Hawaii, there is NO DISPUTING it's authenticity. Thus, he is a natural born citizen of the USA and is constitutionally qualified to be president of the USA. End of story. All the other crap about dual citizenship and "attacks on the constitution" :runaway: is deception spun by the fringe right.

Quite being such a dumbass Johnny. Please.

1) The State of Hawaii has only supposedly issued a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB for short).

2) The authenticity of this COLB is in dispute.

3) The State of Hawaii has verified they do have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE on file.

4) The State of Hawaii has NOT verified ANY of the INFORMATION on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE they claim to have in their possession.

5) You do not have to have been born in Hawaii to be issued a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.HTM

[§338-17.8] "Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

Johnny, you don't know what his birth certificate says because no one has ever seen it.






Johnny, you are by far and away the biggest troller on the Internet. Anybody, check his profile and go back several years into his posts. The pattern is there for all to see.

I don't give a rats behind about Obama, nor McCain for that matter. They can both be disqualified to my equal pleasure. With this Country slipping into the rat hole, the Constitution is our last defense and I am here to defend it. Period.

 

[dinkaTHEdon]

supporters of Schwarzenegger are hoping to amend the Constitution so that he can run for President of the United States.[27] Indeed, in The Simpsons Movie, Schwarzenegger is portrayed as the President and in the Sylvester Stallone movie Demolition Man, it is revealed there was an amendment to the constitution that allowed him to become President.

just searched it, popped up on wiki...i remember people supporting this chewbaca bastard to become president, boy you think an african american in office would be bad, try thinkin of someone who cant speak enough english to deal with our countries problems

im at work, 4-midnight, so i might type things and not proof read over sh!t, but i mean supporters are trying to AMEND the constitution to make this guy eligible for president

 

[MonsterMark]

im at work, 4-midnight, so i might type things and not proof read over sh!t, but i mean supporters are trying to AMEND the constitution to make this guy eligible for president

Last I checked Arnold wasn't running for President. Care to comment about the guy who is?

 

[MonsterMark]

For those of you who have an interest in what is happening to this Country, and how Obama plays a role, watch this video.

About 11 minutes in is about the time you should start freaking out with the similarities going on now.

Soviet Deception: Demoralization of the West


The "useful idiots", what a better way to describe Obama supporters.

 

[dinkaTHEdon]

im not a big fan of any of the canidates that were running, so dont think im a supporter of any president right now, if i had things my way, id move to europe and smoke weed for the rest of my life, LOL

who gives whos running right now, for what i see USA is gonna turn into a 3rd world country no matter what happens, the country has what a gazillion dollars in debt that we owe other countries, and we havent even decided how to pay that down, we just keep borrowing and borrowing, no president is gonna get us outta this shi!thole we are in, its gonna take about 10 presidental terms before anything pops up as 'improving' in this country


and i never said he DID run for it, im saying he was thinking about it and people were actually considering molding the constitution to enable him to run for it

 

[MonsterMark]

In the Soviet video...

The 5 stages

1. Demoralize the West (complete -Europe has already surrendered. See lack of Iraq involvement).
Brainwashing and creating a Welfare State (Marxism)

2. Take over the thought process:
Schools (liberal education, young Obama supporters that only know hope and change),
Businesses (government handouts),
Media (MSM bias),
Talking heads (National TV personalities),
Politicians (Lefties, Moderates and RINOs).

3. De-stabilization of nation in 2-5 years.
Economy (already under way),
Foreign Relations (meet unconditionally with our enemies),
Defense (Slash the military in half and build a civilian national security force).

4. A 6 week Crisis. (Obamadrama over his Eligibility to rule)

5. “normalization” period. (To Come)

 

[foxpaws]

It is good to have excellent resource just a phone call away...

From the 'Cyclopedia of American Government' 1914 - by Albert Hart...

The Fourteenth Amendment as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (190 U.S. 649), 1898 provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race members of which they are by law excluded from naturalization are natural-born citizens.

Other judgement held within US vs Ark...

Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

 

[Calabrio]

I'd like that to resolve the issue, but a quick investigation of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has only served to confuse things.

The source you're using is implying that this case has resolved an issue of "natural born citizen"ship.
The 14th amendment only says "citizen."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...upct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

So this does not resolve the issue.

And "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." implies that there is a distinction between a citizen and a natural-born citizen as well.

My cursory reading of the Won Kim Ark decision leads me to believe that they found him to be a citizen, not a natural-born citizen.

 

[turborich]

what i dont get, and i know this isnt as 'important', but its most def. important to USA, why is the gov. of california some chewbaca guy who came over here with little to no english, made a bunch of corny movies, then decided 'i wanna be a political figure', so people fought for him to be gov., then after that happened, chewbaca xxxxed up cali, and even after all that peoples was still considering him for president. why is it when a white guy from another country with no political or law experience along with movie popularity praised to go into office.

BUT then!!! when an african-american (i dont give a xxxx what anybody says, he is african-american, his dad was in africa, not taliban country) who study'd law at harvard, and came from the ground up to make something of himself (thats what america is about right? which is why we got mexicans, cubans, asians illegally getting into this country, because it is the land of opportunity) all of a sudden this 'natural born citizen' sh!t comes up. come on!! i seriously think that this color thing has gone wayyyyy too far.

im not politically inclined, i never want to be, but i think a view at a different angle should always be accepted, this has happened before and nobody made it this big of a deal until a african american was elected into office

You are a fool and a complete idiot. This has nothing to do with color & everything to do with our constitution.

 

[dinkaTHEdon]

nothing with color? LOL okayyyyy, i bet if the guy was white there'd be no investigation...righhhhtttttttt

i understand that if you strip down to the basics of the claim, its a debate on weather he is natural born, or dual citizenship (note that i didnt read through every word, when i get to work this is the only internet access i have)...but i bet if McCain won, and had a french father, nobody would say anything

but this is all hypothetical situations, whats going on now is what counts, and because this country is gonna be going down the drain no matter who is in office, once we become a communist country ill kill myself, id rather burn in hell than be on earth when that happens

oh and turborich, thank you for wasting your time to type 2 sentences with no opinion, at least i got a opinion based on what i believe from my own eyes, not what 'sources' are telling me.

oh an in case anybody tries to be a smart@$$ with the "believing with my own eyes" sentence that i typed..it means if i dont see it or hear it personally, i dont believe it, PERIOD, never have, never will

 

[Calabrio]

nothing with color? LOL okayyyyy, i bet if the guy was white there'd be no investigation...righhhhtttttttt

That would actually be correct, because this lawsuit was ALSO challenging the eligibility of John McCain as well.

Race has absolutely nothing to do with. Infact, politics has nothing to do with this either because it challenged the nominees of BOTH parties.

i understand that if you strip down to the basics of the claim, its a debate on weather he is natural born, or dual citizenship (note that i didnt read through every word, when i get to work this is the only internet access i have)...but i bet if McCain won, and had a french father, nobody would say anything

To repeat, this lawsuit INCLUDED McCain in it as well, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

but this is all hypothetical situations, whats going on now is what counts, and because this country is gonna be going down the drain no matter who is in office, once we become a communist country ill kill myself, id rather burn in hell than be on earth when that happens

Maybe you could just educate yourself, get involved, and prevent it from happening?

 

[foxpaws]

calabrio - I think you are either a natural 'born' citizen or one of many types of naturalized citizen. If you are 'born' on US Soil you are automatically a natural born citizen - there aren't two cases of citizenship when you are born here. Different types of citizens arise out of being born outside the United States.

 

[MonsterMark]

*** UPDATE ***
SCOTUS Case might be moving faster than anyone thinks.

US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.

We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.

My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.


The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.

What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):

"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)


It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.