THE Obama lawsuit to follow

If they refuse to hear it then they are making a ruling without making an official ruling about an exception to the constitution.

Do you have any clue how the SCOTUS works?! They have not refused or accepted to hear the case yet. It is scheduled, and has yet to go to a meeting with the 9 justices. If four of them think the case should be heard, it goes to a hearing.

All of you keep harping on the fact that nothing has been done in the SCOTUS as if that actually means something. That only shows how utterly ignorant you truely are. It hasn't had the chance to go anywhere!

How about you stay silent and leave your ignorance in question instead of opening your mouth and leaving no doubt about your ignorance. :rolleyes:
 
The problem with zealots is; you can never change their minds. They believe so stongly in what ever it is, thet they are blinded to the truth. It is a waste of time to try to change them.
The issue here is that the Republicans are sore losers. Along with the racist pigs out there are still happy to malign our future president. No matter what LIES thay have to tell, or fake videos they post on You Tube.
All you
AB's
KKK
Neo Nazi's
and Republicans,
the world is changing

News flash: Earth is found to be round, not flat.


By the standard you have laid out, the only "zealot" here is you. You verbally attack someone when you have no clue about what you are talking about. You clearly don't care about weather or not there is any truth in what you say, you just accept it on faith, and call anything that challenges your view a "lie". You are a petty, ignorant and intolerant person, that much is clear in what you said.

It is highly insulting that you group Republicans with Neo-Nazi and the KKK, as well as highly ignorant. The Nazi were a basically an egalitarian leftist group, and the KKK has historically been a democrat leaning group. Hell, there is even a former member of the KKK who is the longest serving member in the Senate as well as presidential pro tempore and not only voted against, but filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His name is Robert Byrd. He is a democrat from West Virginia.
 
If you are running for an office that constitutionally requires you be born naturally, then they have every right to demand to see proof if there is anything questionable about your birth. If you can't or won't provide it, then you should not be allowed to run for that office.

Well, shag - I actually believe it is the individual states' Secretary of State who have the right to demand to see proof (i.e. birth certificate in this case). You can sue the state if you believe that the Secretary of State hasn't verified that the candidate is eligible. But, as an individual citizen you don't have a right to see the birth certificate... You might have the right to sue to see it - I think that is what Berg tried - When I ran for office there was no way I would have ponied up the old birth certificate to just any dillweed that asked for it - are you kidding?:p In my case it was the county clerk that asked for it... along with proof of length of residency.
 
Do you have any clue how the SCOTUS works?! They have not refused or accepted to hear the case yet. It is scheduled, and has yet to go to a meeting with the 9 justices. If four of them think the case should be heard, it goes to a hearing.

All of you keep harping on the fact that nothing has been done in the SCOTUS as if that actually means something. That only shows how utterly ignorant you truely are. It hasn't had the chance to go anywhere!

How about you stay silent and leave your ignorance in question instead of opening your mouth and leaving no doubt about your ignorance. :rolleyes:

Somehow you missed the "If" at the beginning of my statement.
"If" SCOTUS declines to give this a hearing before the innaugeration it's dead.:)
 
Well, shag - I actually believe it is the individual states' Secretary of State who have the right to demand to see proof (i.e. birth certificate in this case). You can sue the state if you believe that the Secretary of State hasn't verified that the candidate is eligible. But, as an individual citizen you don't have a right to see the birth certificate... You might have the right to sue to see it - I think that is what Berg tried - When I ran for office there was no way I would have ponied up the old birth certificate to just any dillweed that asked for it - are you kidding?:p In my case it was the county clerk that asked for it... along with proof of length of residency.
And the elephant in the room is...

Did you pony it up or did you file a bunch of motions?
 
And the elephant in the room is...

Did you pony it up or did you file a bunch of motions?

We're supposed to say to Obama: Pretty Please with sugar on top!

All these liberals here that were trashing Bush over the Constitution. 'He's taking away our rights.' 'He's spying on us'.

LMAO. None of them give a damn about the Constitution or their rights unless they get something out of it. Jokers.
 
Did you pony it up or did you file a bunch of motions?

I just gave it to the county clerk - they are the only ones who needed to see it (the requirement to get my name on the ballot). Just like in Obama's case the various Secretaries of State are the only ones who need to see it. I followed the rules... just like Obama has.

I wouldn't have given to the rather odd man that lived down the street from me if he demanded to see it - no way. I gave it to the proper 'authorities' in my case.

I think you can sort of compare it to your drivers license - you showed DMV your birth certificate to get your drivers license, so therefore, the store clerk asks for your driver license - but won't ask for your birth certificate because one followed the other... - Obama proved to the various secretaries of state that he was a natural born citizen, they put his name on their state ballots, so therefore you don't ask to see it - because the people who needed to have approved his eligibility.

Would you just show your birth certificate to anyone who asked, when you had already shown it to the DMV? The 16 year old kid that is at the gas station, he might ask to see your drivers license to match it to your credit card. Would you feel comfortable if he also demanded to see your birth certificate? I don't think so - I really do think this part comes down to precedent.

As I said - I wish Obama would - but I can understand him not doing it. He followed procedure (I assume - his name was on the ballot in all 50 states). Your secretary of state approved his eligibility - so, go sue your secretary of state if you don't believe them... (I think that is what the Donofrio lawsuit is about... maybe...)

Plus, his campaign has shown it to a couple of fact finding organizations - which is above and beyond what is required.
 
Soetoro divorce papers reveal Obama was adopted

Orly Taitz wrote:

We just got Soetoro divorce papers. Those show that the couple has 2 children, which means that Mr. Soetoro adopted BO and the school record, showing him as Barry Soetoro is correct. In his State bar application he stated that he never had any other names, he committed perjury, since he made the statement under oath. I believe that the application to be a candidate on the ballot was made under oath also and there is an ample evidence of perjury. Maybe an investigation can be started by a local DA or police or sheriff (starting from bottom up) . I called a former LA assistant DA. Maybe you know smbd in law enforcement, their investigation can give us more info, then the courts.Does anybody know anybody in law enforcement that will be willing to help?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the Divorce action shows Barry listed as a child of Lolo's.

Divorce was initiated on 8-20-1980.
Case Terminated on 11-26-1988.

So one could insinuate that Obama traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport and one could also insinuate he may have used his foreign status to obtain school loans. Oh, and that he purjured himself on several applications for President and the Selective Service by stating he never had another name. Interesting. Got it.
 
Notice how the spaghetti plate has lots and lots of leads - all of which cannot be followed up. There must always be one more lead left to chase.

Babies-Collection-Spaghetti-Head-82310.jpg
 
I just gave it to the country clerk - they are the only ones who need to see it.

Obviously foxpaws is oblivious to the FACT that Obama claims to have posted his "ORIGINAL" Birth Certificate on his website months ago. So much for privacy.

foxpaws, you started out strong here on the site but you have really gone downhill after gulping down glass after glass of the Obamanade.:rolleyes: You put me in the tin-foil hat crowd. I won't do you the discourtesy of telling you what crowd I would place you in.
 
I didn't mention the web site posting of the birth certificate again - although I had typed it and deleted it. Your people just keep saying how easy it is to phony up something on a website, so why mention it again...

This is classic conspiracy theory stuff - almost a case study. It will be fun to see it play out.

And, yes Bryan, what crowd would you put me in - I would love to know...
 
thanks - it's dirty blonde - but, wow...
The perfect time to add this -my favorite - since I am one and own one!!!

Two blondes were in a parking lot trying to unlock the door of their car with a coat hanger.

First Blonde:
"I can't seem to get this door unlocked!

Second Blonde:
"Well you better hurry up. It's starting to rain and the top is down!"

You should start a blonde joke thread - I adore them...
 
Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday

Justices will decide whether to consider the case

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story
By James Janega

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.

Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."

The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application for an injunction and hasn't scheduled a conference on other aspects of the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard—and not all of those ultimately were successful.

________________________________________________________________

From today's Chicago Tribune.
I guess we'll know soon enough how this goes.
 
I want to see this resolved quickly.
It will be incredibly destructive to the conservative movement if energy and attention continues to be directed at this issue. Even without considering the resources it'll consume, it just makes it too easy for Democrats to label ALL the political opposition as kooks.
 
Leave it to 04SCTLS to post an error riddled article as his info.:( Figures.

But the sheeple will bite the misinformation hook line and sinker.
 
I want to see this resolved quickly.
It will be incredibly destructive to the conservative movement if energy and attention continues to be directed at this issue. Even without considering the resources it'll consume, it just makes it too easy for Democrats to label ALL the political opposition as kooks.

You mean that ALL political opposition aren't kooks? ;)

It would make it ever so much simpler if they were. :)

However - Cal is right - unfortunately this does take away from other issues. And if the right is perceived as focusing on this - and it ends up being just dust in the wind - then it downgrades the right's credibility by moderate, middle thinkers. Whether the Republicans are behind it or not - that is going to be the perception.

It could be once again why the Republican party isn't placing any focus on this - I am sure they have probably done a lot of due diligence on this matter themselves.
 
Full Page Ad in the Chicago Tribune Today.
Not a peep from the MSM.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...r-Nov-2008.pdf
__________________




Leave it to 04SCTLS to post an error riddled article as his info.:( Figures.

But the sheeple will bite the misinformation hook line and sinker.

You said not a peep from the MSM.
This was in the Chicago Tribune, the same paper that carried the ad.
I haven't seen anything else in the MSM, have you?
I still think SCOTUS will choose not take this up but will be surprized though not particularly upset if they do.
 
From today's "Hot Air" conservative blog
______________________________________

The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/04/the-sadly-obligatory-scotus-birth-certificate-post/

posted at 10:20 am on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly


The Chicago Tribune briefly revives the Obama-birth-certificate kerfuffle in an update today, if only to throw more cold water on it. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court confabs over whether to grant a review to Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after having it rejected in district and appellate courts:
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.​

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.​

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells. …​

The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.​
The latest buzz surrounds the decision by Clarence Thomas to circulate the appeal petition to the entire court after David Souter rejected it immediately. That really doesn’t mean much, as the Tribune explains. Of the 842 petitions circulated in that manner, only 60 got a spot on the court calendar, and not all of those succeeded. Thomas may have been interested in the technical aspects of the suit rather than the merits, or perhaps it was a slow week.
It does, however, make it news, no matter how much some of us wish it would go away. The state of Hawaii has repeatedly insisted that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii, as the Certificate of Live Birth states. The COLB would get any Hawaii native an American passport with no questions asked, even without the official endorsement of the Republican governor and her Department of Health. There is even a contemporaneous birth announcement in a local paper confirming it.
I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it — absolutely none — has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama’s stepfather renounced Obama’s birthright citizenship, which he didn’t have the power to do anyway. It’s a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can’t kill the conspiracy theories. It can only kill the lawsuits, which is what they will almost certainly do tomorrow when they meet.
Update: From October 31:
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.​

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”​

Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.​

“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.​

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

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

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)​
If so, this is an even dumber argument than first thought. The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President? Since when does “natural born” refer to the parents of citizens? Natural born means the person at question was born in US territory, and it always has. Immigration-enforcement activists have been trying to change that definition to eliminate the “anchor babies” issue.
Also, adoption only changes the parentage on the birth certificate, not the place, date, or time of birth. I’ve done an adoption myself and can personally attest to that fact. If Obama had been adopted by Mr. Soetero, Hawaii would only have changed the father’s name on the record — and since Barack Obama Sr has been listed on the birth certificate, it appears that Mr. Soetero didn’t adopt Obama anyway.

Update III: As a rebuttal to Update 1, this from the comments:
The paper lied on purpose. The HI Dept of health went of its way to say everything but that. They do have his original birth certificate, but from where?​
The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii. The State of California only keeps birth certificates from births in California, Minnesota only keeps those from births in Minnesota, and so on. They don’t store information on births outside of their state. Why would they bother to do that? Use some common sense.

Update IV: The Honolulu Advertiser reported on the Dept. of Health statement on November 1 in a little more detail:
State Health Department employees continue to be barraged by requests from people demanding to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, including some who have called the department’s registrar of vital statistics at home — in the middle of the night.​

“This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”​

So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama’s birth certificate and found it to be valid.​

Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?​

“I hope so,” Fukino said. “We need to get some work done.”​

Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu — and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.​

Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.​

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” Fukino said in the statement. “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. … No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”​
I guess they’ll have to wait a little longer to get any work done.
______________________________________________

This will be finished tomorrow and that will be that.
 
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
and Wrong

I sent Ed Morrisey a blistering email this moring telling him to get his head out of his a$$.

Just another pussy afraid the Obama minions are going to riot.

Update II shows Ed has no clue what the framers said when they differentiated citizen from natural born citizen.
Update III is completely bunk. ANYONE can claim a birth in Hawaii as long as they affirm they were residents of the State at least a year prior to the birth.
Update IV is sooooo old that it is a joke to write the Nov 1 date on there to make it sound like it just happened.

Excellent proof I guess that even some (as in very few, but a couple) of 'conservatives' can be idiots and ill-informed.
 
Conclusion:
If so, this is an even dumber argument than first thought. The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President? Since when does “natural born” refer to the parents of citizens? Natural born means the person at question was born in US territory, and it always has. Immigration-enforcement activists have been trying to change that definition to eliminate the “anchor babies” issue.

Drawn from this...
Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.
Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

His conclusion in no way follows the premise given. Morrisey is rather obviously talking out of his @$$.

He either clearly does not understand (or refuses to understand) the concept of a grandfather clause, or he seems to think (or is purposely distorting it) that the argument against Obama being eligible for president hinges on the notion that, "The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President". That is a blantant oversimplification and mischaracterization of the argument being made, and he is smart enough and informed enough to know that.

The other stuff is irrelevant to proving or disproving weather Obama is a natural born citizen (under the legal definition) and eligible to be president.

The more Morrisey talks on this, the more he shows his lack of any honesty or intellectual integrity on this issue. Regardless of the outcome, he has shown that he has no credibility here.

Frankly, hotair is hurting it's credibility by keeping him on.
 
...just to clarify an earlier point I made.
If the court does rule against it, or choses to pass over it, then it will be a waste of time, resources, and PR to to continue to harp on it. IF nothing comes of it tomorrow, there's virtually no chance anything will happen in the future.

And, let's not kid ourselves, do you think there are five justices who'd be brave enough, willing to decide that Obama couldn't be President? Souter? Stevens? Kennedy? I doubt it. And you can be confident that Ginsberg and Breyer will support Obama, regardless.
 
Conclusion:


Drawn from this...


His conclusion in no way follows the premise given. Morrisey is rather obviously talking out of his @$$.

He either clearly does not understand (or refuses to understand) the concept of a grandfather clause, or he seems to think (or is purposely distorting it) that the argument against Obama being eligible for president hinges on the notion that, "The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President". That is a blantant oversimplification and mischaracterization of the argument being made, and he is smart enough and informed enough to know that.

The other stuff is irrelevant to proving or disproving weather Obama is a natural born citizen (under the legal definition) and eligible to be president.

The more Morrisey talks on this, the more he shows his lack of any honesty or intellectual integrity on this issue. Regardless of the outcome, he has shown that he has no credibility here.

Frankly, hotair is hurting it's credibility by keeping him on.
Ed Morrissey is a nice guy, so he's pandering to the mainstream by trying to distance himself from the so-called "kooks" who want Obama to produce his freaking birth cert.

I have not disagreed with Ed on many things, and I check the blog daily. But this is one area where he's wrong.
 
Souter? Stevens? Kennedy? I doubt it. And you can be confident that Ginsberg and Breyer will support Obama, regardless.

Kennedy is the wild card no doubt.

So tell me this, how "f"'d up is our Country when the very people responsible for defending our Constitution and our rights are as political as the rest of us?

We have lost as a nation . There is no longer right and wrong. All there is is political ideology. The Supreme Court has become the O.J. court. Nothing more, IMHO. They will NOT do what is right and just. Pretty sad to have to admit that, eh?

How pathetic that all of us can predict the outcome of a case before it is determined based on the ideology of the justices. Exactly the opposite of what the Justice Department is supposed to be about.
 

Members online

Back
Top