Obama citizenship at SCOTUS tomorrow

Wonder if this will prove Obama is not holding back on information that is important to America.

Some amazingly pathetic losers, we have in the Rank Republicans and their lip-sticked pit bulls. It's Gingrich and Graham, all over again !! If we can't beat them at the polls, we'll use our legal system to negate 65,000,000 votes !! Yet, it's not alright for the average citizen to try to find honest remedies there. The courts are only for the rich, famous and powerful !! Leave America alone, you morons !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Interesting that this author implies that the court should consider its popular support more than upholding the Constitution.

There are 3 eligibility requirements in the Constitution for President of the United States, and they are not that difficult to understand. 1) you must be 35, 2) you must be a natural-born citizen, and 3) you must have lived on US soil for at least 14 years.

If Obama is a natural-born citizen, he can show his original birth certificate, and this goes away. If Obama is not a natural-born citizen, the Dem Senate picks a president, the Dems still get their party and the White House, and this still goes away. What's the big deal about learning the truth? It's win-win for Dems regardless... I don't see why they are all up in arms about this issue.

The justices should NEVER be swayed by public opinion because that is not their job. They are to weigh matters based upon the Constitution and Case Law only. This idea of a pro-active Supreme Court is dangerous and unconstitutional.

>>It has since regained its stature in the public's eyes.
<<<

The current scotus is a nation disgrace.

The Republican parties role in forming this group is an act of treason.

As with many things in Washington, leaks happen. Sooner or later, there will be a leak regarding Mr. Obama's "birth certificate" (rather than the "certificate of Live Birth"). Better to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the American people now, than have a government suddenly be found illegitimate mid term. Indeed, other nations have taken to the streets, and have removed their governing bodies for far less than this sort of constitutional crisis. Mr. Obama has it within his simple and convenient power to end concerns over his qualification to serve as POTUS, by simply producing or authorizing the release of his birth certificate for public scrutiny. The fact that he has not done so raises questions as to his ability to "connect" with America's Citizens, and should disqualify him to serve as POTUS on these grounds alone.

A "child" cannot renounce their citizenship nor can a parent renounce the citizenship of their child. Only an adult can renounce their own. This is a factual error in the story above.

"the court can read polls. And it can read election results too." I hope they can also read the constitution, or does that not apply to Obama?

The whole point of Supreme Court Justices having lifetime appointments is so that they can operate without regard to popular and political opinion.

Can I ask a question? Have any other presedential candidates birth certificates been asked for? Such as Hillary Clinton or John McCain? And if not, why not? Thanks if anyone can help. Not an attack, just a simple question.

"It has since regained its stature in the public's eyes."

It has?

I am sory that you view this as a politcal thing rather than an issue with the Constitution of our country.

Don F:
Phil Berg IS a Deomcrat. This needs to be viewed simply as a constitutional issue and not a political or (and apparently in your case) emotional one.
It is a matter of fact where Barack was born. It is a matter of fact what the constituion requires. Rational thought will lead any observer to the same conclusion. One must produce the required documentation for much lesser transactions than assuming the office of POTUS. Let us as a people dispense with this nonsense. Let us see the birth certificate.

Ironically McCain had to get senate approval to make him a natural citizen since he was NOT born on US soil yet not a single Republican acknowledges this fact. It is public record and was approved this year as an HR. Look it up-

Obama has already provided a birth certificate and has even scanned the original and published it online. This whole case was nothing more than a mudslinging rouse by the Republican party to add to the scare tatic.

There is a club called the "Flat Earth Society" . Or those folks who think the moon land happened in a film studio. I think they could spend quality time there.

Dear, Don Fitzgerald of Chicago you misted the point about what if Obama in not a citizen. You also blame the republican for this issue. You are WRONG again. The reason for this suite is from the Independent Party. I have family members fighting in these two wars. One of my family member share your last name. I am so glad he is smarter than you on this subject. He at least does his home work before typing in stupid stuff. It goes to show you any idiot with a keyboard can be seen by the world!

John Gately

P.S. I love free speech and the law of the land. IF President-Elect is not a US Citizen, then he can not serve, its the LAW

What I find most interesting in this are the vehement comments people make towards those who seek the truth. I also find it interesting that those who spew these comments also assume that the defenders of the constitution are "obviously Republicans."

This issue is not about Democrats or Republicans. This is about if we should ignore our own constitution or not.

If we DO in fact ignore our constitution, I would like someone from China to run for the next election. Obama spent half a billion dollars for his campaign. I would love to see a similar amount of money return to the United States. We need it for all of the bail outs.

And since the Hawaii Dept. of Health statement that the live birth certificate that Obama posted during the summer is legitimate and that they have the original birth certificate on file is not sufficient to the conspiracy wingnuts, we'll just keep hearing this garbage forever.

This is just more insanity like the old John Birch Society claim that Eisenhower was a communist. You'll never be able to satisfy these loonies, so why humor them?

Hey people, what on earth are you thinking? Here is a copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, Island of Oahu.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

When are you going to accept reality?

Where were all these "Constituion Fundamentalists" when people were questioning McCain's natural born citizenship? McCain was born in Panama before the US took control. The land in Panama where McCain was born was only leased by the US at the time of his birth. McCain may not legally be a natural born citizen, so isn't this really a race or partisan issue when McCain supporters are questioning Obama's citizenship? And isn't it really just a facade when they say, "It's about the Constitution and fairness, not about race or party"?

To Don F. The suits were filed well prior to the election, before we knew who won. Your "pathetic losers" comment just shows your ingorance.

Of the dozens of articles I've read on this topic, this one is the best. Mr. James actually presented the facts of the issue, along with helpful information regarding SCOTUS, without inserting irrelevant opinions about what he wants, or thinks should happen. Thank you Mr. James. You're a rare author in this mire. Maybe more commentors will follow your lead.

Before the election Obama said he would release the original birth certificate (not the certificate of birth-which just states a birth took place). He also said he would release his college papers etc. What happened.? Can't he be honest and show all the documents or do they not agree with what he has been telling us. This is not a racist issue - nor a party issue the citizens of the US have a right to know the answers. Seems to me the longer he procrastinates the more suspicious this all becomes. If he doesn't have anything to hide just present the requested documents. A birth certificate lists hospital, witnesses, country, doctor etc. Where are they Obama? Do you want to start your presidency with these issues still unanswered? I just received a birth certificate from France that is more than 100 years old and it has all this information on it. If France can prove it why can't Obama?

It is just ridiculous that some bratty people won't accept facts. One day I hope people who file frivolous lawsuits will be penalized

Lisa, you have a valid question. The answer is that the RNC, DNC or any other party running for office is to vet their choice.

The problem here is that President-Elect only provided the DNC with a Live Birth Cert (not signed by anyone) also at the time he was born, Hawaii gave 2 type of birth certs. (1st you where born on the USA. 2nd Live birth cert, you could get this up to 1 year of age. You did not need to prove the birth took place in Hawaii.)

President-Elect has refused to allow anyone to review is Birth Cert in Hawaii. He has hire three law firms to defend him on this suite.

This could end today is President-Elect would order Hawaii to release the Birth Cert.

I find that most people that have nothing to hide will give you anything you need to prove your wrong!

John Gately

For "Don" and the rest of the kool-aid drinking conspiracy theorists, Philip J. Berg, mentioned above as originally bringing the suit, is not a Republican but rather a Democrat, a former member of the PA State Democratic Committee.

ObamaNews (aka The Swamp) would not mention that fact. And the conspiracy theorists aren't interested in such "inconvenient truths".

John McCain's was, because his "natural born" status was also in question.

What I find amazing is that people think the certificate, bearing the Hawaii state seal and all, somehow is not sufficient evidence. The document that a Hawaii resident needs to get a passport is the green one like Obama's, NOT the hospital-issued original. I know, because my husband tried to get a passport with his Hawaii original, and the State Department wouldn't accept it. He had to present the green duplicate.

And yet that's not enough evidence of his Hawaii's birth to satisfy the doubters.

It's interesting that some commenters easily forgive one party for trying to litigate presidential election results, yet see this constitutional question as an act of treason. The fact he won't produce the birth certificate tells me he has something to hide.

Actually, Obama has had his birth certificate made public, and it's on the web. I saw a copy of it yesterday in a Chicago Tribune article.

What is wrong with you people? A "Certificate of Live Birth" IS A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. My birth certificate is titled "Certificate of Live Birth," and I am a US citizen, born on US soil. Good grief.

Lisa,
Yes, other candidates were asked to produce their birth certificates as well - and they complied. The only candidate who did not was Obama. He eventually produced a copy of a Certification of Live Birth (not a valid Birth Certificate) and posted the copied on the internet. Obama has guards stationed in Hawaii - where his "original birth certificate" is sealed in a vault.
The Supreme Court Justices have the power to demand to see the original and put the questions surrounding Obama's eligibility to rest.

Barack is being extremely secretive about his life. All his records are being "sealed" and yet - no MSM is questioning these actions. The COLB online may be valid - but does not prove where he was actually born, since his parent(s) could have simply registered his birth in Honolulu - without proof or witness's. The people need to contact the Secretary of State (SOS) for each state and demand that they verify BHO's natural born status by looking at all his records, such as his real - long form BC, his passport information, his parent’s passport information. The SOS is responsible for validation of BHO's eligibility. The Electoral College and SOS - could demand this proof before the votes are cast on Dec 15. IF BHO does not provide proof of eligibility he could be prevented from becoming president. At this point this has to be a grass roots effort to block Obama from becoming president.

My goodness people, have just a little intelligence. This is typical Republican stuff. When they lose an election they try to tie the hands of the person that won, by producing one issue after another, that requires a response, while the people's work goes undone. If he bends to Republican wants on this bogus issue, then he will have set precedent for the future of his administration, which will be hard to break. The result is that the American people will lose because the POTUS will be tied up answering any thing that the Republicans can think of. Haven't you all seen this before, good grief. Obama is way too smart for this. If there had been a real issue here, it would have boiled to the surface long ago. You guys need to think just a little.

Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii (and no one has offered any convincing evidence that it's fake). The state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii. The Honolulu Advertiser printed his birth notice in 1961.
If there were real consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits, none of this garbage would have gotten all the way to the Supreme Court.

The case originally asked for both McCain's and Obama's natural born citizenship to be proved. Therefore, it's not about Democrat or Republican - it's about Constitutional law. How can a President of the United States swear to uphold the Constitution if he is violating it himself? Is it too much to ask for a certified copy of the legal birth certificate that shows which hospital he was born in? (not the certificate of live birth that Obama released - there is a difference between the two)

Why doesn't he want his school records released? Why does Obama refuse to release the proof required? What does he have to hide?

Posted by: Duke | December 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Duke-

Where do you get that this is "typical Republican stuff"...?

The original lawsuit was filed by a DEM in August-prior to Obama's nomination or POTUS election- Berg was attempting to keep Obama off the DEM ticket for nomination..

You should take your own .." You guys need to think just a little.".. advice..

From the Chicago Tribune:
•The birth form released by Obama was "an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited" live birth form, Schulz says.

Last summer, Obama's campaign presented a digital copy of his certificate of live birth. After critics questioned its authenticity, staff at FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said they had seen, held and examined the actual birth certificate.

•"Hawaiian officials will not confirm" that Obama was born in their state, Schulz says.

Initially, Hawaiian officials said that privacy laws prevented them from releasing a copy or confirming that Obama's copy was authentic. But in late October as questions persisted, Hawaii's health director and head of vital statistics reviewed Obama's birth certificate in the department's vault and vouched for its authenticity.

•Schulz says that legal affidavits state Obama was born in Kenya.

The affidavits that Schulz refers to are filings by the Obama critics themselves in the court cases challenging Obama's citizenship.

•Obama's paternal grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended Obama's birth in Kenya, Schulz says.

The group's Web site posted what it says is a transcript of a long-distance phone conversation in Swahili and English from late October between a questioner in the United States and Sarah Hussein Obama, in her Kenyan home. The translator said he was one of two interpreters conducting the interview in a crowded hut during a celebration, over a speaker phone that dropped the call three times. A copy of the recording was not provided by Schulz.

• Schulz says that "U.S. law in effect in 1961 [the year of Obama's birth] denied citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age."

If a child is born in the United States—as Hawaiian officials state that Obama was—that child is a U.S. citizen regardless of his or her parents' nationalities. If born to an American parent outside the U.S., the law at the time would require the U.S. citizen parent to be at least 19, which Obama's mother was not. The provisions of this law were subsequently loosened and made retroactive for government employees serving abroad and their families. It appears that this would not apply to Obama's mother. The matter would seem to be academic: Hawaiian officials vouch for Obama's birth certificate.

•Schulz says that in 1965, Obama's mother relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and Obama had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

U.S. law lists the specific acts and formal procedures necessary to relinquish U.S. nationality. The statute requires the acts be performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing one's nationality. In many instances, one must be 18 to renounce one's citizenship. Obama moved to Indonesia in 1968 and moved back to Hawaii while still in grade school. There is no indication that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Schulz supports his argument with a reproduced Indonesian school document that states Obama's citizenship at that time as "Indonesian." But the same document also lists Obama's birthplace as " Honolulu, Hawaii."

Duke,
The Republican did not file this suite. It was the Independent Party of America
(Alan Keys)

You are the one that needs to think! Stop blaming Republican for everything!

John Gately

JM,

Thanks for putting up the suite. I was going to offer the full copy if anyone wants the pdf!

John Gately

Wonder if this will prove Obama is not holding back on information that is important to America.

Posted by: Inky | December 4, 2008 10:23 AM

Inky, this plus God Almighty Himself making a special proclamation to you personally, on Main Street at high noon, wouldn't prove anything to you. We both know you'll still decide there's some OTHER conspiracy that has to be investigated for you -- like maybe deciding that the Supreme Court isn't really the LEGITIMATE Supreme Court but a hologram, or exact duplicates of the justices MASQUERADING as the real thing, and you'll need proof of that, too. Why don't you just plain admit it's nothing but sour grapes?

What worries more even more than this debate is that this type of blog posting gets far more comments than almost any other subject (and this must be the 3rd or 4th time for this subject). It concerns me that people not only don't have the intelligence to figure this out, but have the nothing better to do either.

Obama has already said that he wasn't born in the United States, but on the planet Krypton.

Are extra-terrestrials constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency? Can he be a natural-born citizen if his Earth mother was a U.S. citizen, even if he was born on another planet?

We don't care if Obama was born in Kenya, or Bethlehem, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, or the planet Mars. We still need Barack Obama as President in these times.

Leo Donofrio claims there are errors in the story that and is trying to set the record straight on his blog site. "The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote,

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. "

Read more at his site. There are links for much more information.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Just show us the birth certificate and get it over with.....Simple answer to a simple question.

Wonder if this will prove Obama is not holding back on information that is important to America.

Posted by: Inky | December 4, 2008 10:23 AM

Inky, this plus God Almighty Himself making a special proclamation to you personally, on Main Street at high noon, wouldn't prove anything to you. We both know you'll still decide there's some OTHER conspiracy that has to be investigated for you -- like maybe deciding that the Supreme Court isn't really the LEGITIMATE Supreme Court but a hologram, or exact duplicates of the justices MASQUERADING as the real thing, and you'll need proof of that, too. Why don't you just plain admit it's nothing but sour grapes?

Posted by: Op109 | December 4, 2008 12:53 PM Just curious you don't sound too American.

We don't care if Obama was born in Kenya, or Bethlehem, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, or the planet Mars. We still need Barack Obama as President in these times.

Posted by: jasperjava | December 4, 2008 1:49 PM

This kind of logic explains why a little more than half of the country was willing to vote for a candidate that promised everything to everybody- The candidate Obama was a concept, we elected hope, change and are willing to ignore the rules and laws set to get them...

Taking your empty headed, wide eyed adoration of Obama to it's logical conclusion- why don't we also suspend the 2 term limit rule for presidency... this way we could make Obama prez for as long as it takes! ( whatever "it" is)

Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait for them has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers.

And that is also why the Republican Party, despite the recent failure of McCarthyism, is likely to keep moving rightward, appeasing its more extreme elements and stoking their grievances for some time to come. There may be assorted intellectuals and ideologues in the party, maybe even a few centrists, but there is no longer an intellectual or even ideological wing. The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Palin. It's in the genes.

I think they're starting to lose it, the recent elections have delivered a clear repudiation to just about everything they stand for, particularly that monumental waste of time and energy known as the Culture War and Small Gov Conservatism. Unfortunately they seem to have built their entire existence (Obama birth certificate) out of stoking the flames of that dimming fire of insanity.
.

In whose eyes have they regained their status??? That they are even considering this idiocy underlines their political bias and lack of judgment.

Lee, that's a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth, not the original. Check out factcheck's website on this. Buried in the middle of the article, they acknowledge this is a "shortened" form of a BC. The original contains additional info and has never been disclosed. What else does it say? No one knows. Probably nothing of significance, but I think it is strange that Obama would fight to keep it sealed. Just release a copy of the original and put this story to bed. There is not real privacy claim here because (1) all the info that would be on it (DOB, POB, parents, etc.) is supposedly already public, and (2) it's not like Obama is some kind of private citizen; he is the POTUS elect and if there is any ambiguity about his basic qualifications to serve, he should err on the side of disclosure.

Posted by: Herding the Republican elephant off stage | December 4, 2008 2:28 PM

If the country is not center/center right ...

How do you explain Obamas radical move from left to center after securing the nomination?

Might be anecdotal but, How do you explain the 0 for 30 success rate, (when put to voters as a stand alone issue), for legalizing gay marriage?

The republicans lost the election( opposed to Dems Winning) because they basically abandoned most key conservative (center/center -right) beliefs..ex. limited spending, a real immigration policy and limited government...

Keep in mind- 6-8 weeks before the election, McCain ( the least conservative nominee) had a lead in the polls after the Palin selection. The final straw was the financial melt down that pushed many undecided center right people to either not vote or hold their nose and vote Obama..

Don't think that Obamas victory was anything other than a "well we have to elect somebody" win.. the proof is in his sudden "pragmatic" view on everything from what to do with taxes to the Iraq war..

...
Posted by: heartburn | December 4, 2008 2:58 PM
...

What shift? President-elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet.
If you're wondering why no one is listening to you it's because we've heard it all before from Repubs like you and you've failed to deliver anything other than complete and utter failure time and again. Your party has been given a chance to succeed over and over again and you've always failed in a spectacular way. For the last two decades, the Republicans have steadily purged themselves of all moderates, of anyone who did not toe the party line, of anyone who did not support the party leaders with every fiber of their being. Under leaders like DeLay and a dozen other of the top far-right powerbrokers, apostasy was ruthlessly punished. Moderates were primaried out, the religiously or socially tolerant were excoriated, the legislatively balanced were forced from their positions -- all in service to a supposed permanent ideological governance, one that valued ideological purity over all else. Over knowledge, over experience, over common sense, over the very fabric of the law -- the ideology of hard-right conservatism trumped it all. Toe the line, and you were granted jobs in the administration, or positions of leadership in Iraq, or plum committee assignments. Voice disapproval -- you were nothing. You woke up the next morning to a White House Press Secretary declaring that you were a disgruntled brat, one with emotional or mental impairments that were responsible for your pitiable desertion.

After twenty years of purging, all the Republicans have left is that hard-right extreme. They shoved everyone else out willingly: it seems hardly surprising that now, faced with the fruits of it all, they are finding that all constituencies of the nation that they sought to condemn, belittle or purge are no longer interested in supporting them now.

I have no particular interest in them learning this lesson, of course. As far as I am concerned the last thirty years have proven modern conservatism to be not just ill conceived, but paranoid, divisive, willfully incompetent, obtusely premised, and in sum utterly valueless to the nation -- a waste of political oxygen. Something to be burned at the stake, and the ashes scattered, never to be heard from again.

But I expect they will, in the next years, at least try to retool their party into one that at least pretends to be more tolerant of, well, anyone not fully immersed in the notion that Ayn Rand and James Dobson rule the universe. The coming bloodshed between the two factions -- conservative true believers who can look at the last eight years and see absolutely nothing worth doing differently, nothing but a smashing but sadly misunderstood success, versus those that truly wish to temper the party in an effort to regain at least some semblance of their former power -- will, no doubt, be a glorious thing to behold.
.

Would all those wishing to continue this folly care to post a you were right when this is over?

Posted by: Herding the Republican elephant off stage | December 4, 2008 3:13 PM

What shift?

How 'bout his ardent criticism of the FISA legislation, followed by his strategic vote in support of the bill?

Or his moving from the " clinging to their guns and religon" stance to then supporting the second amendment..?

Or his epiphany on NAFTA and free trade after he secured the nomination?

Bill R,

Right or wrong, I will be willing post on these items.

1. Republican did not force this issue. The Independent Party of America did.

2. A die hard Democrate first filed the law suite.

3. Anyone how hide things has a reason too!

4. To be President you must follow all U.S. laws.

5. To be President you must have the following.

"Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

...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 neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

John Gately

....
Posted by: heartburn | December 4, 2008 3:36 PM
...

Wrong again. You don't have the slightest idea how President-elect Obama is going to govern and you don't care because it doesn't fit into your ideological blinders of a world view. People did care. Obama ran on an explicitly progressive platform, and Americans responded enthusiastically, flocking to his campaign in mind-numbing numbers — rallies topping 100,000 people, 12 million on his e-mail list, a staggering 3.1 million donors. Republicans frantically screamed, "Liberal!" and America responded with a "Right on!" and pulled the lever for the guy. Is that what a "center-right" nation does?

Does a "center-right" nation take a 30-seat Republican advantage in the House and turn it into an 80-seat Democratic advantage in just two election cycles? Does it take a 10-seat Republican advantage in the Senate and turn it into a near-filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the same time frame?

But nothing disproves the "center-right nation" fiction more clearly than the campaign Republicans just ran.

They spent the bulk of the election ranting about "celebrities," "tire gauges," "Rev. Wright" and "William Ayers," then capped it all off with the silly "Joe the Plumber" nonsense. Fear-mongering isn’t a hallmark of a party confident that its agenda is squarely in the American mainstream. Rather, it’s a sign of insecurity — that it can’t win votes by running on substance.

Yet substance was all the voting public wanted this cycle, and they proved it by electing the "liberal." i.e. Barack Obama.
.

Several points:

a) Under Hawaiian law, the certificate of live birth with the clerk's stamp on it is "for all purposes" the same as the original birth certificate. The whole purpose of this statute, HRS 338-13(b), is that people who have a particular status don't have to prove their status beyond showing the state certification. So, on this point, Obama is standing on a right granted to him by Hawaiian state law and intended to be used in just this kind of situation.

b) The notion that, if Obama had "just turned over the original document" that would have saved him money on lawyers or ended this lawsuit is ridiculous. The lawsuit wasn't filed to get the original document, it was filed to get him off the ballot. Turning over the original document would have just given the plaintiffs more stuff to argue about. It's a losing strategy to engage in voluntary discovery when you have a valid motion to dismiss.

c) Saying that standing is a technicality but the constitution is really important is ridiculous as well. Standing to sue in Federal court is a doctrine that is compelled by Article III of the Constitution. The biggest proponents of tough standing rules are "strict constructionist" judges. In fact, it's a point that's so central to our judicial system that it cannot be waived. So people who argue that being a natural citizen is critical but standing is a technicality are either ignorant or hypocrites.

d) In any lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. Here, the plaintiffs are those who say that Obama is not qualified for the Presidency. The only thing they have to go on is a bunch of speculation about "well, his mother worked for the State Department." I have yet to hear even one single genuine FACT that would even suggest that he was born outside the United States.

e) Finally, even if his mother took him to Indonesia and "gave up" his citizenship --which there's zero evidence that she did -- he would still be a United States citizen and would remain one unless he, after becoming an adult, also agreed to give him his citizenship.

In short, this whole controversy is a bagatelle if there ever was one.

John Gately,

Thanks for quoting the Constitution but regardless of whether or not the claim is valid on the part of Philip Berg, it still does not clear his biggest legal obstacle.

Berg v. Obama, as a civil suit, requires that Berg demonstrate "legal standing" to file the suit. What does this mean?

1. Berg must demonstrate that he, personally, has been "injured"...that some wrong has occurred to him.
2. Berg must demonstrate that the "injury" is the result of Obama's actions.
3. Berg must demonstrate that a positive outcome will alleviate the "injury".

So, what does this mean for Berg v. Obama?

A lower court dismissed the case because Berg failed to demonstrate "legal standing". As with past cases, Berg, as a voter, has not been "injured" by an ineligible candidate being listed on the ballot. If Berg truly believed that Obama was not eligible all he need do is vote for another candidate or write a candidate in on the ballot.

Looking for past precedent? Check out Hollander v. McCain which was filed back during the primaries and dismissed for the same reason.

Friday conference of the SCOTUS is on DONOFRIO's case. STOP MISLEADING THE PUBLIC. It is not BERG's. Please read Donofrio's blog: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Thanks.

Hello all,

I am done with this! People need to do their home work and then they will see that there is legal standing. If anyone would like to read the full complaint I would be happy to email it or Google this.

(final_writ_keyes_v_bowen)

I voted for McCain and a straight Republican ticket.

This issue is not a Republican attempt to STEAL the White House.

The Independent Party of America bought this suite and was first bought by a Democrat.

So everyone stop with the HATE and lets see what the court has to say!

We will find out if they will hear the case soon.

John Gately

With this last bit of craziness about Obama's birth certificate we are seeing the peak of a complete psychological break down from the rightwing lunitic fringe, formally known as the Republican party.

There are 3 eligibility requirements in the Constitution for President of the United States, and they are not that difficult to understand. 1) you must be 35, 2) you must be a natural-born citizen, and 3) you must have lived on US soil for at least 14 years.
Posted by: Mark R
-
You missed one, Mark. The constitution also says that the president and vice-president can't be residents of the same state. Both Bush and Cheney were residents of Texas. None of the loonies challenging Obama raised a peep in 2000.

Pete,

Thank for the info, I already know all about Berg's Case. I like they way you handle your post. You state fact and that is a great thing!

I agree with Berg's case getting kicked.

The case was refiled with someone with standing.

Case file:
final_writ_keyes_v_bowen

Pete, I wish you the best. I truly like someone who has information to backup his claim.

John Gately

P.S. How many Attorney are posting here?

Posted by: Herding the Republican elephant off stage | December 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Did you read my post? Where do I predict the way Obama will govern, and I do you know what I care about? I have only addressed his campaign strategy..

How do you explain McCain even being close to Obama given that;

---The current admin and his party were very unpopular..

---Obama outspent McCain 5:1 in battleground states..

---McCain's stance on issues was center, center/left on many things, with the only exception possibly only his support of the surge..
He was left of center on;
opposing the Bush tax cuts, he led the lame brained immigration reform that almost passed until voters actually paid attentin to what the bill was saying and his McCain/Feingold bill was an attack on free speech.

and to top it all off- there was an unprecedented meltdown in the financial markets within weeks of the election?

---the RNC fielded, possibly the worst candidate in decades, a candidate that stood for none of the core values that conservative republicans value..
----
That Obama won by roughly the same margin Bush won in '04 ought to scare the DEM party out of their wits..

This might explain the bug-eyed psycho hatred directed at Palin- she represents all of the things that could cause the messiah to be a single term prez..

...
Posted by: heartburn | December 4, 2008 4:51 PM
....

I think we're done here for the day, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on an ideologe. Republicans prefer media outlets whose bias is toward dumb. Faux News leaps to mind of course, but there is also the "New York Post," "The Washington Times," the editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal," the "Pittsburg Tribune-Review," William Kristol of "The New York Times" of all places, and AM blowhard radio. Republican supporters all.

Any of these entities, given the choice, will take dumb over smart every time. Rush Limbaugh defended his title as the Prince of Dumb the other day by claiming that Barack Obama had caused the current economic mess.

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh said on his radio show.

That’s dumber than even William Kristol would go.

The GOP could start lurching back to smart in an effort to win back voters but it seems to be going the other way. They’re already talking up Sarah the Blunder Woman for president in 2012. Many smart conservatives – George Will, Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, Chuck Hagel – are or already have, jumped ship.

Republican "leaders" will have to be content to win the dumbed down talking point games with their deadender followers rather than elections from now on. They can’t afford to lose any more true believers or their won't be anyone left in the party.
.

Posted by: Bruce Y | December 4, 2008 4:43 PM

BruceY- that is not what the constitution says- the 12th Amendment say that the electors cannot vote for a prez and vice prez that are both from the electors state..and your wrong their were "loonies" that challenged the Bush/Cheney ticket for this reason in '04..court challenges to this were denied.

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

'''The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;...."

You need a certified copy of your birth certificate to get a driver's license. You need a certified copy of your birth certificate to play little league baseball. Is is too much to ask for a certified copy of the birth certificate of someone who is going to be President of the United States? He already has that copy, because he needed it to get his passport, too!

The only outrage here is Mr. Obama's attitude in this matter.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
Posted by: heartburn
-
OK, so that means the Bush Cheney ticket loses Texas's electoral votes. Gore should legally have been president. Instead we get handed the big lie that Cheney was a resident of Wyoming. Remember that hunting accident? Cheney had a resident hunting license. Fact!

I discuss some of the Tribune's lies here:

http://24ahead.com/sara-olkon-james-janega-chicago-tribune-obama-certificate

Make sure and see the summary for a detailed discussion of exactly why the Tribune is lying.

All the whiny liberals blaming the GOP for this. Hey, why don't you meat pies hold your elected leader to the same rules my son must follow to get a freaking driver's license? But noooooooooooooo. You want special considerations for the anointed one. Typical double-standard unconstitutional BS. Obama is flaunting the law, plain and simple!

Thats the difference between liberal idiots and institutional scholars, we believe in the rule of law and the constitution and liberals believe in polls (selective ones at best). This whole entire case could have been dismissed in a second if obama (the fraud) would just release his birth certificate abd end this all. He can't and he won't. The scumbag has been fighting it all the way !!!

Sorry. Children are incapable of renouncing US Citizenship. They must be adult and must make the renunciation knowingly and willingly.

The craziest thing about the birth certificate issue is that it is mostly pushed by the same nutty Republicans who, for years, have believed in the Clinton death list and spread rumors that the Clinton family offed Vince Foster. In short, they think Bill and Hillary killed dozens of people, but don’t think they were ruthless enough to exploit the birth certificate issue during the Democratic primary.

Actually, I think this is the last gasp of those bonehead Repugs who cannot imagine a black man as president. They have to invent all kinds of reasons why he is not actually legitimate. This intersects with the nutjob Repugs who have Clinton Derangement Syndrome and were claiming that Obama offed his Grandmother before the election to generate sympathy.

Why did the Republican Party spend $millions and $millions on a campaign when the Democratic opponent supposedly didn't fill one of the two criteria for being president?"

When are the Repugs going to learn that the main reason they have been blown out in two straight elections is because they live in an alternate universe where delusions consistently trump facts and reality?
.

score:

elephant herder: 5

poor little heartburn: 0

" the peak of a complete psychological break down from the rightwing lunitic fringe, formally known as the Republican party."

There is no peak wingnut. Wingnuttery is in endless supply on this blog and on rightwing blogs all across the land. Even the ones in Hawaii, I'm sure, but they don't count because they can't see Russia from their houses.

No one in these comments, and not the reporter of this article is accurately explaing about Donofrio's case.

1. It was begun in October when Donofrio saw 3 names listed for POTUS, who were not eligible, per the Constitution.: Celero, McCain and Obama.
2. The case made it to the Supreme Court on Nov. 03, the day before the general election.
3. The case has NOTHING to do with Obama's birth certificate.
4. The case alleges that Obama is not a "natural born citizen", because he had dual citizenship at birth.

Fair and accurate reporting would be in telling the public the FACTS about the case.

The case Donofrio vs Wells has nothing to do with Obama's birth certificate or place of birth. The case includes that Obama was a British citizen at birth. Check Obama;s website or factcheck.org on his British citizenry at birth.

"We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable". --Alexander Solzhenitsyn

What is the truth? So many people are spending precious time pointing at him or her, republicans, democrats, -independents, polka-dotted purple people eaters, etc....In doing so the finger pointers are only hiding and delaying the truth. This is not a bi-partisan issue. There are laws in the U. S. Constitution stating the requirements to be the president of the U.S. The president must be a natural born citizen. The only document Obama has produced has been proven to be false by four different forgery experts. He has defiantly ignored requests for further documentation. He and his staff have made fun of those seeking the truth, as have his supporters. The mass media is so afraid of getting "kicked off the plane" they won't report what is known to be the truth. A huge error has been made in the election of a non natural born citizen. The man may not even be a U.S. citizen: a fake certificate of live birth, a forged draft registration, etc...
The only absolute truth at this moment is that the man who is to be president refuses to tell the truth and show the truth. Before having to give up his law license, he was a constitutional lawyer.......he knows what the laws regarding president are. Barack Obama created this mess. If you want to point fingers.............he is the one to point at. Those that are seeking the truth.....who are seeking to uphold the laws of the constitution are Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Independents, Black, White, Jew, Christian, Muslim, male, female, straight, gay, lesbian, right-wingers, left-wingers, liberals,,,shall I go on. We are a unified group of Americans.

As is so often the case with these things, groups have taken two ideas and tried to combine them into something they'd find useful to their cause.

The SCOTUS does NOT determine the eligibility of candidates. The state election boards do. In the case of Obama they have already determined that he has the right to be placed on the ballot. Case closed. It's a state's Rights issue.

Now, if someone had challenged that non-citizens SHOULD be able to run for the office of president, then the SCOTUS would say, "We're sorry but no, you can't. The Constitution says no".

The issue of validating elections is what each state election board does, not the SCOTUS.

And this is the lamest hail Mary play I've ever seen.

As a Liberal Democrat I must say I'm thrilled that a significant section of the GOP base is spending so much time, money, and energy on this tin foil hat nonsense. I can only hope they continue to file court cases and mount petition campaigns for the next eight years, while life in the real world moves on without them.

What was released and has been shown many times was a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. What the people want to see is a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth. There is a HUGE difference in the two. A Certification of Live Birth only gives basic info and is for vital statistical purposes only. In most cases this document would not be good enough to get a passport, driver’s license, enlist in the military, or various other things we all need to do in our lives.

A Certificate of Birth is what most all of us have and shows detailed information such as what hospital you were born in, attending physician, parents names and occupation, etc, etc.

At the following link, you will see that the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth in which is the one Mr. Obama presented (and the one that has also been proven to be fake) is on the left. The CERTIFICATE of Live Birth is what the people want to see. Whats so hard with producing that document? ALL of this would go away and it would be the end of it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/SSrfxldwhuI/AAAAAAAALMQ/ga339VEByNs/s1600-h/2BObirth.jpg

Posted by: Bruce Y | December 4, 2008 8:15 PM

Lie?

Cheney was raised in Wyoming, was a congressman from Wyoming and owns a home in Wyoming...True- he lived in Texas but he did "legally" change residences prior to being elected.

He changed his residence by registering to vote and getting a Wtoming drivers liscence prior to ( or as a condition of) joining the Bush ticket.

Your logic says that the prez and VP can never inhabit the same state w/o being excluded by article 12... which doesn't make sense.

It also didn't make sense to any judge that reviewed it-

I believe that the same will apply to any legal challenge to Obama's place of birth- but Obama is sure not making it any easier by not providing his birth cert..

We can't trust our current President to honor the Constitution. Why would we trust the Supreme Court to honor it?

score:

elephant herder: 5

poor little heartburn: 0

Posted by: crud | December 5, 2008 12:23 AM

Crud- what are you counting? All the elephant man has been able to do is say that since Obama has won that the country is therfore NOT center left- when I have provided facts and specific examples of Obama moving from the pre nominated hard left candidate tot he post nominated "pragmatic", center seeking candidate-

Or are you counting average # of paragraphs required for the elephant boy to make relatively simple points?

These sort of stories as 'relayed' and expounded upon as having some basis in fact are an incitement and are of a type of propaganda that might trigger a psychotic type of extreme fanatic to "Save The Nation" by some foul deed .....

If and were that to happen then the 'blood' in the streets of America would beggar the imagination of the evil right wing bigots who perpetuate this sort of folly.

Enough already all of you ... The President elect is Barack Hussein Obama ... an American citizen of better moral character and fibre than has been seen in a century.

The constitution says that as long as one parent is a natural born citizen, their child is a natural born citizen. Case closed. Barack's mother was a natural-born US citizen. Why is this even being discussed?

He can't release his signed, witnessed birth certificate because he doesn't have one. He was born in Kenya to his Kenyan father.

hey - just produce the original. Thats all - embossed seal, paper dated, etc...

Why wont he produce it? Seriously. I dont care about a scanned copy - that is easy to fake, I could make one of those up in Photoshop in 20 minutes and then scan it and then email it across the globe.

The original copy - shown to the Supreme Court Justices and validated by experts.

He wants to be President and we have not seen paper one official about him - no college transcripts, no birth certificate - nothing.

Produce it - the fact that he wont leads me to believe he is hiding something.

HELLO???!!!???

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE -- NOT political. It is FAR from the comparison of Bush/Gore! DUH!

The man is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. A CITIZEN -- maybe...

The Supreme Court is not scheduled to decide Obama’s Citizenship, but his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the US.
The US Constitution states “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”. Obama is not qualified to hold the office of the President of the US because he is NOT a natural born Citizen according to the Constitution. Whether he was born in Hawaii or not, his biological father was from Kenya, giving Obama dual citizenship (and loyalties) at birth, which, according to the framers of the Constitution, who didn't even consider themselves "natural born Citizens" (being born on US soil by two parents who were Both born on US soil). Obama is no doubt a US Citizen, even a born Citizen, but NOT a natural born Citizen, according to the US Constitution.
It is the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Laws of the US Constitution. No one can deny that Obama's father was not born on US soil and no one can deny that Obama is not 200+ years old (born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). These facts alone disqualify Obama to hold the office of the President of the United States of America.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The Supreme Court is obligated, by sworn oath, to administer justice without respect to persons; and the framers of the Constitution were very clear regarding who is eligible to hold the highest office in the US. This cannot be taken lightly or ignored. If we ignore this, why follow any Constitutional Law? Think of the butterfly effect – disregard this law and eventually the whole Constitution will be ignored and anything goes in America. There is no compromising just to keep the masses happy.
If we do not abide by Constitutional Law, then how is our country, which has always been based on upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution at all cost, ever to survive?

I actually love this pro and con dialogue being presented. It actually made me review this case and see what is out there, and not just look at what is displayed on every liberal or conservative blog. it will be interesting to see what the Scotus decides. neither side will be happy thats for sure. I just cant believe that our elected president simply produce his vault copy of the birth certificate and simply end this instead of spending what i have read as much as $500,000 to defend its release. I did find some interesting facts.
the certificate displayed can be gained from either a birth in hawaii, or to register a birth from outside of hawaii. It does not list a hospital or attending doctor (appears family and his book states he was born in 3 seperate locations). I believe what has been posted is real. but its not adequate to show citizenship now that i have researched it.
Obama traveled to Pakistan while in college while it was a no travel country like cuba has been. would have been illegal on a US passport from what i have read. Attending an indonesian school required you to be an Indonesian citizen. Being born to an American mother did not automatically gain him natural birth unless she was 16 or older and in the US for at least two years, which with what i have read she was not? I have to say i am swayed to believe the case needs to be heard to settle what could be a simple solution or a disaster if true. I intend to stand by our president no matter the outcome, but i sure hope this is resolved so we do not have a Bush stole an election (perhaps did?) scenario all over again...

Yo, Stacy, Cinda, Stars&Stripes.

I read what you said. Then I looked in my files at the birth records I have for my family. For my son, I have a certificate that has the doctor's name on it and the hospital. For my daughter, I have one that looks very similar to the one posted on the internet for Obama, (except it's from Washington State). So listen closely.....BOTH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AS PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR THE PURPOSES OF ISSUING A UNITED STATES PASSPORT.

There is no forgery. There is no fakery going on. THERE ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DEAL WITH OBAMA BEING PRESIDENT. IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON! OR LEAVE.

I support the constitution of the United States. This isn't a constitutional issue it's a mental health issue. Just watch. Anything the Supreme Court does, short of ruling that Obama isn't eligible to be president will be called a conspiracy or subversion of the court.

he needs to present a officical birth certificate with raised seal.
his own paternal grandmother has stated he was born in Kenya she was there for his birth.
he is not above the law.
and when is he going to show us this "change" he promised
his "new " cabinet is just Clintons old cronies...
If he wants to spout change ..how about some new blood in the cabinet as well.
Picking Clintons cabinet members just shows his inexpierence and not readiness for the highest job in the land.

The race is African??? In 1961, there were exactly 3 race classifications on real Birth Certificates. Negrooid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. No exceptions.

And where is the sequential certificate number on this piece of toilet paper?

Who made up this crap certificate?

The rank Republicans can not get over the fact that America rejected, yes, I said, rejected, their lies, their distortions and their character-assassinations. America has spoken loud and clear, President-elect Obama, former Senator from the great state of Illinois, is our next President. The Grahams, the Gingriches, the Barrs and the rest of that gang that couldn't shoot straight, the Clinton Impeachers and their ilk, should try to live up to their own PR and at least act like Americans. The nation has spoken and President-elect Obama is our new leader !! It is a new day in this great nation of ours, America.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

To all the idiots out there who need it spelled out to them:

The "Certification of Live Birth" is what Hawaii issues to citizens who need a record of their birth. That is what Barack obtained to prove his natural-born citizenship. The form clearly states that he was born in the state of Hawaii. The state does not release long form certs anymnore; those stay in the vault but can be verified, as was Barack;s.

Some conspiracy nuts found a provision on a state website regarding "native Hawaiian" status (an entirely separate issue), which does distinguish between the two forms. Nonetheless, the site states that both are legitimate forms of ID.

Stacey:

Certification vs, Certificate?? Now it's really getting picky.

For everyone who says that there is a difference between a Certificate of Birth and a Birth Certicate - if you were born in Cook County, look at your "Birth Centificate". It says Certifcate of Live Birth - NOT Birth Certificate. They are one and the same.

Every competent attorney who knows the true place of birth of Barack Hussein Obama knows that he is constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency of the United States of America. The most mysterious aspect of this case is, how was this kept secret for so long?

The rule of law is grater than popular government.
http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1446

The international civil and political rights organization known as AXJ has been looking into this matter via AXJ-USA, AXJ-UK, AXJ-KENYA and AXJ-INDONESIA and the facts about the British Nationality of Mr. OBAMA's father is weighing heavily on the Supreme Court's decision. The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution (1787) specifically stated that only a "natural born" US citizen could legally occupy the Office of the President and after the US Revolutionary War (1776-1783) never again a non American Born citizen. Tough call but the US Constitution must be upheld. www.axjus.com

The Donofrio case is a lot of ridiculousness over nothing. His conceit about natural born citizen is a ruse to attempt to hide his bias in technical details. The Constitution mentions "natural born citizens", being 35 years old, and being a resident of the U.S. for 14 years as qualifications for POTUS.

All of jigging in the world will not change the fact that a child born within the United States IS "natural born" (Hawaii was a state in 1961). The talk about his father being Kenyan or his mother not being 19 years old is a red herring. There exists no such law. There is no other way to interpret the constitutional phrase "natural born" other than to say it means born within the borders of the United States.

Mr. Donofrio also faces a tough argument on the standing issue. As a civil litigant he must show damage, typically economic or at the least, something curable by injunctive relief by the courts. As stated above, his standing argument is weak. He could have remedied the issue of candidates not being natural born by simply voting for someone who was. There is no Constitutional requirement to be able to select candidates from particular political parties. None. If the slate of presidential candidates includes duds who voters believe are not qualified for office, they can remedy that situation by simply voting for among the candidates who voters believe are qualified to serve.

I CAN think of persons who do have standing to challenge Obama (or McCain--born outside the U.S. in the Panama Canal Zone). They are called Secretaries of State. And none of the 50 secretaries of state or the Supervisor of Elections in the various states have filed such a frivolous lawsuit. Donofrio lacks standing and driving up the discussion of this subject only legitimizes foolishness.

I just want to know what Obama is hiding. Why seal all the records if there's nothing to hide?

The chalenge should have been settled long before the election. The democratic party and main stream media should be VERY ashamed of themselves. Obama could have easily put and end to all of this himself if he had only let Hawaii release his vault copy birth certificate. They brought this on themselves. The Constitution must be followed period.

Let him be president of Kenya. I can smell a fake a mile away and Øbama is a fraud of world-class proportions.

What the angry Democrats on this site seem to miss is that not one suite other than Alan Keyes was filed by a Republican. The case being reviewed today was filed by a registered Independent and Berg is a Hillary supporter.

I suspect that this is "Clintonian", in that Hillary gets the presidency and the Republicans take the public blame.

It is interesting what “Pravda” had to say about it:

http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/106778-Amazing_Obama-0

Article 2 is spelled out clearly in the U.S. Constitution. Obama needs to produce hard documentation that he was born in the United States. Why is he reluctant to produce that? General rule of thumb: if someone is reluctant to produce necessary information, then that person is typically hiding something. Produce the Certificate of Live Birth, Obama! Over 70 million people are viewing this issue right now, so it is very important. Also, I totally disagree about the Supreme Court having to decided on the 2000 election, as if it left egg on the Supreme Court's face. On the contrary, the fool with egg on his face turned out to be Al Gore, not the Justices'.

Lie?
Cheney was raised in Wyoming, was a congressman from Wyoming and owns a home in Wyoming...True- he lived in Texas but he did "legally" change residences prior to being elected.
Posted by: heartburn
-
That just makes it a paper lie. He lived and worked in Texas. His driver's license and every other document he signed was as a Texas resident. Fact!

Obama has a legal Hawaiin document, so there. Same thing. So stop this nonsense.

Here is why it is being discussed. Every law passed while a usurper is in office doesn't matter. That's just the first reason.

Read this and then tell me if none of this matters and we should accept this fraud as POTUS.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/stand-by-me/#comments

Over the last 40 years, I have taken an interest and voted in our presidential elections. My vote has never been determined or influenced by party, but rather by individual candidate values and ideas. My first husband and I owned a business which I maintained after his passing. We were keenly aware of the importance of integrity and honesty in our business dealings. When we interviewed individuals for employment, we were mandated by law to require two documents showing proof of citizenship. Needless to say that the issue of President Elect Barack Obama’s questionable fulfillment of the requirements to serve as the President of the United States, has been an issue which is very unsettling to me. I have followed closely the suit by Philip Berg and the other suits being filed in 11 states, and am curious as to why the documents are not being presented. It is such an easy solution to such a huge question. I have seen a copy of the birth certificate and it has raised even more doubt about it’s authenticity. To me, as it should be to you, the hesitance to cooperate on the part of the candidate, the DNC and those whose responsibility lies in the vetting process, raises the question as to whether the document and his citizenship are verifiable.

It is my understanding that each state has a process to insure that each Presidential candidate presented to the state for election is vetted and deemed eligible. I am not a politician, and therefore do not know how all of this works, but it seems to me that at this very moment, there is a lot of vetting in progress to ensure that Hilary Clinton is eligible for the Secretary of State for President Elect Obama’s cabinet. Did Barack Obama go through the same process, and if so, what documentation and evidence was required?

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution sets the requirements for his eligibility. If the document can be provided and proven beyond doubt to be official, then my concerns will be put to rest.

I am aware that everything we read on the internet is not to be believed, but there is some pretty convincing evidence that the document on factcheck.org is a forgery.
Also, just a bit of information, the only respondent for the law suit which is on the docket and is being presented today is Gregory Garre. He is an attorney representing the Solicitor General's office, which is a federal agency. We, the taxpayer, are paying for the defense of a suit which could be settled quickly if Barack Obama would release his documentation for verification.

Obama's paternal grandmother could not have spoken on that tape, surely! Maybe the paternal step grand mother.
What happens if the supreme court decides that he is qualified to be president? Do we commit suicide or what do we do next? We are running out of time, think fast.

There is so much disinformation on this blog, and abundant posts that have absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Today Donofrio vs Wells is being conferenced by SCOTUS, and Ken-in-AR nicely summarizes the case.

Wells is the SOS of NJ, and it was her responsibility (along with the 49 other SOS's jobs to validate the eligibility of the candidates to be placed on the state ballots. This simply was not done by ANY of the SOS's as they assumed this had been done by the DNC in the case of Obarfma.

Additionally, the DNC utterly failed to vet their candidate, as well as Nancy Pelosi when she "confirmed the eligibility" of the DNC's pick before their convention.

But Obama's (lack of) natural-born citizenship status was something that had never been called into question by the DNC, or the SOS'.

To my knowledge, Philip Berg, a lifelong DEMOCRAT, was the first to do so, but his case was tossed by a lower court due to "lack of standing." Since then, there have been at least 17 cases filed against various states, and mostly against the SOS's of particular states. At least 5 of these have made it before the SCOTUS for conferencing.

Philip Berg's case has now been changed to a class action lawsuit, as the lower court has stated that the electors alone have the necessary standing to bring this case before the courts. The electors have a Constitutional requirement to uphold the Constitution in making sure that a candidate is legally eligible to gain office.

Interestingly enough, I believe that the Law does not prohibit ineligible candidates from running for office, though the 20th amendment provides instruction for such a case occurring, after the fact.

To be an eligible candidate for POTUS, there are only three qualifications given by the Constitution:

1. A person must be at least 35 years old.

2. A person must have lived in the US for at least 14 years.

3. A person must be a natural born citizen of the US.

However, nowhere does the US Constitution define what a "natural born citizen" is. But we can surmise what it is through what the framers originally wrote, and later repealed. (naturalization acts of 1790, and 1795)

From what I understand, there are basically three types of US citizens, and I will attempt to define each one.

The naturalized citizen: This type of citizen was once a citizen of another country, and was born to parents who were US citizens and they themselves were not born on American soil.

The native born citizen: Citizenship of this type comes about through either having been born on US soil, (such as an illegal immigrant might do by having an "anchor baby") though neither parent is a US citizen. A native born citizen might also be one who was born overseas to one or more US citizens. To my understanding, this is at most what Obarfma may claim to be, if in fact, he was born in Hawaii. If he was born anywhere other than on US soil, he would not be a native born citizen at all. His mother was too young to confer her citizenship upon her child, and his father was Kenyan. At the time of NObama's birth, he was a British citizen, and then in 1963, a Kenyan citizen.

Obarfma still has strong family ties to Kenya, and illegally campaigned and raised money for his cousin, Ralia Odinga's presidential bid in Kenya. (It is Constitutionally illegal for an elected official to campaign on behalf of a foreigner running for office, but that didn't stop Obama from doing that in 2006-2007.) I digress...

The best understanding I have of a natural-born citizen is one who has two US citizens as parents, and was born on US soil. Such a person has no other encumbrances and cannot be claimed by any other nation at the time of birth as a citizen of a foreign nation. This seems to exclude all US citizens who would have dual citizenship at ANY time of their life. This is in essence Donofrio's case.

There are many other fringe issues in Obama's case, such as his Indonesian citizenship, through which it seems he used his Indonesian passport at the age of 20 to fly to Pakistan, because one could not enter that nation on a US passport at the time.

His (fraudulent) "CERTIFICATION of live birth" is also a fringe issue. It is not a birth CERTIFICATE and was provided only if Hawaii could not find the original birth certificate, and the state of Hawaii could provide these documents to its citizens for up to a year after the child's birth. This simply does not prove where anyone was born. In addition, the COLB that Obarfma posted on his website was altered, making it null and void, anyway that you look at it. But, again, these are side issues.

In John McCain's case, though he was born in Panama to two US citizens serving in the military, he has already been declared by Congress that he is in fact, a natural-born citizen.

Finally, in Obarfma's case, he has paid over $800,000.00 to in legal fees to prevent a $10-20 document from coming to light, and has had all his other records sealed as well. WHAT IS HE HIDING????

He is a Constitutional lawyer, and he knows the fraudulent nature of his run towards the Presidency. He has thumbed his nose at the US Constitution before, and continues to do so now in his bid to become the next POTUS. Instead of the Oval office, this man, along with others, deserves prison time.

There is a lot of discussion about who has standing. I personally believe that anyone who is going to be governed has standing. But there is also a suit by Alan Keyes in California, who ran against Obama. He does have standing and that suit is in progress. Correct me is I am wrong.

I just want to add, that I wrote a letter to our Senator from Florida. He responded and said that Obama was vetted at the polls. There is a very serious misconception about who should determine each candidates eligibility. It should not be deemed the voter's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the nominating party and the Secretary of each state. As a voter, we should be presented with a valid candidate. It seems there is a lot of "buck" passing going on.

Talk about Pathetic right wingers, You lefties seem to believe the US Constitution is not even relevant and some parts of the Constitution are not even constitutional.
the only problem with the vast left wing is by the time they realize their own error it is to late to turn back.
I am ashamed of the lack of integrity the left has. and all the while thinking you are wise you have become fools.

For me, and others, the question is this,

WHAT IS THIS PERSON HIDING?

Lois, you are correct that Alan Keyes has standing, as he was a candidate "who can show injury" because it obviously affected him personally.

I also agree that voting for someone is quite a different matter than the vetting process. The sheeple may or may not make informed decisions, and when the MSM refuses to report the news, but instead create the news, we are all in trouble.

Scoreboard:
----------
Elephant Herder - 44
heartburn - 0

You lefties seem to believe the US Constitution is not even relevant and some parts of the Constitution are not even constitutional.
Posted by: Bobby Charles 1 Texas | December 5, 2008 1:10 PM

Hey Bobby,
Since when do you nuttty Wingnuts care about the constitution? Your village idiot from Texas Prez has just spenst the last 8 years destroying it while you were cheering him on?

I am simply resigned to the fact that once again a double standard is being applied to a Democrat.

Dick Cheney was not constitutionally allowed to be Vice President becuase he lived in Texas as did Bush and the constitution prohibits both the President and Vice president from coming from the same state.

This was obvious and it was pointed out. In response Cheney simply changed his residence after the fact to claim Wyoming where he had a vacation home he rarely visited.

The constitution was simply ignored and no one did a thing.

My guess is that the Right Wing Republican establishment is behind all this nonsense to scare up votes in future elections. Just like the Left Wing Democratic establishment tried to declare that Bush’s election was illegitimate 8 years ago.
These days it seems like no matter who gets elected the extreme wing of the opposition party will attempt to derail their legitimate election by any means necessary.

Bruce Y Try more research!
The Constitution also prohibits electors from voting for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state as themselves.In the case of former Wyoming congressman Dick Cheney had moved to Texas to serve as CEO of Halliburton Company, but reclaimed residency at his Wyoming home before accepting the 2000 Republican nomination for Vice President, alongside presidential nominee and Texas governor George W. Bush.

it's hilarious to hear the party of lawyers complain that republicans are trying to use the courts to hijack an election. this is the party that gave us the florida recount and that, today, is trying to win the senate election in minnesota via the court system. oh well, i guess as long as democrats are filing the lawsuits, it's ok.

I am a foreign born national and a citizen of both Ireland and England. During the course of my life I had to apply to the Irish Government for a COPY of my Certificate of Live Birth. They keep the original rcords in a Register. There is no such thing as an original Birth Certificate. They are all copies made from the Register.
The Register used to be a book. Now it is a computer hard drive, hopefully with network back ups.
Why would the State of Hawaii produce a forged document? Answer, they would not. If the the State of Hawaii states that Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii and issues a certificate of such, then I believe Mr. Obama is a US citizen. How many of you believe that the State of Hawaii would issue a bogus certificate of birth?

I wonder if any of the people questioning Obama's Birth Certificate has worked or even seen a Birth Cert from a State other than their own.

I work in healthcare and many states issue a certification of birth. There are currently two types: Live and Still.

That STATES are responsible for issuance of birth certificates (or registrations in some states).

A word to the right. He won. Lose the sour grapes.

Some of you people have your tinfoil hats on a wee bit snug...

In the end, whether you will admit it to yourselves or not, this just a "clever" piece of racism. If Obama was white you would never think of challenging him in this way. You cannot accept the fact a black man won the election.

As for Thomas I would assume that the reason he accepted the docket was that he was miffed over Obama stating he would not have nominated Thomas for the Court. We all know how small minded and petty Thomas is capable of being.

Obama's refusal to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate is nothing short of gross stupidity. By doing so he simply convinces reasonable people that he is both dumb, and has something devastating to hide. The refusal taints his presidency before it even starts. I can foresee endless litigation seeking to nullify his every act on the grounds he is a usurper. It will be a gridlocking mess. Obama's refusal to put the controversy to rest is incomprehensible.

The former Irishman is incorrect on some of his points. Firstly, in 1961 Hawaii was filing paper "Long form" birth certificates. These gave all manner of information such as the name of the hospital, attending physician, fathers name and occupations, the infant's length and weight, etc, etc.. That's why they called it long form. What the Obama people published on line is a certificate which in no way is proof of the place of birth. It is a document for the registration of a birth, frequently used to register births at home not attended by a physician or births outside of the state, for example, aboard ship. Obama's trying to foist this off as proof of birth in Hawaii is in and of itself very troubling. As if this wasn't enough to fuel suspicion, add this to the flame... no Hawaiian hospital has any record of Obama's birth. The birth notice in the newspaper is one of those where someone phones in to provide a birth notice. For example, someone who gets off an airplane with a 2 week old infant. With these fact in existence, Obama's presidency will have a dark cloud over it from day one. The smell of this will only get worse as it festers. If Obama is in fact eligible to serve, he must release his long form birth certificate and put an end to this, as it is nothing less than the seeds of a Constitutional crisis. Moreover, Obama's willingness to inflict such a crisis on the nation is sheer arrogance and unworthy.

12.5.08 @ 8:20 p.m. CST

I have been reading through these comments and many others as this issue has been fought impotently all around, until now.

What I don't see here is anyone claiming that he understands WHY the US Constitution requires that the president of the United States IS a native-born citizen. And when it comes to the Constitution, the justices of the US Supreme Court, by law, must side with the Constitution. And so, this is the reason (if you think I am a racist, you are nutso, since I lived many years in the same liberal neighborhood where Obama has his house: Hyde Park-Kenwood for many, many years, where racism just doesn't have a place) that there is an issue over this discrepency and why it would be better all around if Obama simply were to produce a certified copy of his actual birth CERTIFICATE and not a scanned copy of a "certification of live birth," which doesn't even name the doctor that delivered him.

The reason that the president of our country is required to be native born, here, is so that there is no question raised as to a division of his/her loyalty to our country. Period.

Here's a different way to understand it: the president takes the oath of office professing that he/she will uphold the Constitution (the greatest document for fair government ever written in the history of mankind). Well, if in the Constitution, it is written that s/he must be native born and is not, then how can he/she swear to uphold it? Does that make any sense?

Mr. Obama might have been put up as the Democrat's patsy, i.e., that this all comes out in the wash so that the largely WHITE democrats will control not only congress, but throw this election in order that they keep their power with a WHITE democratic president.

Woe be it to our country if Mr. Obama is NOT a native-born citizen and he takes the oath of office of President. If there is doubt, it will lead to a country divided and perhaps to revolt or civil war, which will make us appear weak and will open us up again to terrorism. If we are attacked again, as we were on 9-11, who might then point the finger of blame straight at Obama since there are people that will say that because he is Muslim, he sided with terrorists from the Middle East!

What a can of worms!

So, this new president-elect of the United States SHOULD prove his legitimate right to sit as president!

You should think of the potential repurcussions to our people as a whole should the one that takes the seat in the oval office has a seed of doubt following him as to his Constitutional requirements to be the President. It's very important.

By the way, I do not agree that the Constitution should be bent for any reason at all unless by amendment to it. It's so good that you do not want it to go away for one person. Where where are your brains? Think of what you could lose--your very liberty and freedom to even talk on a site like this--should the Constitutional rights granted to you and to Mr. Obama get chipped away. Is not the Patriot Act enough for you?

Quick! Where is the original long form of the Constitution?

And where is the certified copy of same??

Also, where is Lincoln's original birth certificate???

Why doesn't Obama do us all a favor and simply request the state of Hawaii to release his actual birth certificate that they have on file rather than the cert of live birth (which isn't the same as a birth certificate)?

We're obviously all here reading this story because we're interested in it. Well then - let's all help get to the bottom of this mystery. We can do so, by not only discussing it here, but emailing him and anyone we can think of in national elected office. The Obama transition team's email form is at http://change.gov/page/content/contact/

It should be no big deal for him to produce the actual birth certificate and end this drama.

He's got nothing to hide. Right?

I was just visiting Seattle for the 2nd time since my birth. I was at the library doing some research for my father, looking through the archives of the Seattle Times. Specifically April 1958 editions. There I found my unofficial birth date recorded there. My point is that most major papers record births and deaths as a public service. This might lead to the truth of this matter. More fuel for the fire, maybe. May just be the water that put that fire out. I don't think that type of conspiracy would lead the Hawaiian newspaper editors to go back and rewrite history and modify the Aug 4th, 1961 edition. My disclaimer, I own stock in Obama as a vote recorded yea. Moreover, I am a stanch believer in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have high hopes that the right President can and will return our Country back to follow the advise and wisdom of our founding fathers and further advance us to be better for our children and grandchildren. Will he/she please step forward now.

TO: Herding the Republican elephant off stage

I have so enjoyed your writing and eloquence. It's a rare sight to see in the blog world.

And I might add, it is high time we reclaim the word "liberal." Our country was founded on liberal ideals.

The President of the United States of America must pass the most in-depth and rigid examination to receive a National Security Clearance. How can Mr. Obama receive the highest National Security Clearance without showing his credentials?? Including an actual real Birth Certificate! WHY is Mr. Obama hiding his paperwork?? Can the Supreme Court override the National Security Clearance?? I don't think so! This matter is a long way from being over if Mr. Obama continues on his current path. WHAT IS HE HIDING?? We will know soon and I suspect that his actual birth certificate will reveal much more than just where he was born!!

The Short Form birth certificate for the Pres. Elect clearly notes the island of birth (Oahu), which makes comments like "[the short form ] is a certificate which in no way is proof of the place of birth" proof of a lie or an inability to pay attention to details.

The End.

The issue is that Obama Sr. was a British subject therefore Obama Jr. was born a British subject by means of dual citizenship. The Framers were clear in their qualification requirements as Natural Born Citizen with the exception of those born before the drafting of the Constitution, which is a grandfather clause allowing the Framers eligibility to hold office of POTUS. Obama, by virtue of dual citizenship is not a natural born citizen as referenced in the Constitution - Neither is John McCain. SRS 511, which conferred natural born citizen status upon McCain is not worth the paper is is written on. The Senate does not have the authority to draft resolutions that are contradictory to the constitution or supersede the Constitution. The case has merit. The only question is... Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution or bend to the will of the people

Roger, you must have magical powers! You can tell by reading each post, what color skin the poster has? Amazing talent. Might want to rethink your own views on the subject of racism. Just because someone questions Obama.............doesn't mean that person has white skin. You sure you want to play the race card here?

Roger, you must have magical powers! You can tell by reading each post, what color skin the poster has? Amazing talent. Might want to rethink your own views on the subject of racism. Just because someone questions Obama.............doesn't mean that person has white skin. You sure you want to play the race card here?

Just admit it, you're all vexed because a black man will be running things, when you'd rather him run to the fields and pick your cotton.
GET OVER IT. The birth certificate debate is hogwash. Obama doesn't have to PROVE anything to you people. He's already been vetted and had to show his records before entering the Senate. I don't HONESTLY believe that the DNC would be so foolish as to allow further disenfranchisement of the public by pulling a fast one of that magnitude. Do you really think its a case of affirmative action, by any means necessary? What's done is done. Like or lump it.

This is delicious: The Liberals scream bloody murder anytime a Republican wins legitimately. Yet when they present a flawed candidate who is found out, the Libs cry foul.
That being said, the enemies of our nation(Libs) have naught to fear: The Godless 9 will not hear the case and the usurper will be free to destroy the country. Hope you fools enjoy the Kool-aid.
(I promise to respect the monkey just as you respected the shrub)

We don't care if Obama was born in Kenya, or Bethlehem, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, or the planet Mars. We still need Barack Obama as President in these times.

Posted by: jasperjava | December 4, 2008 1:49 PM

Please, jasperjava, other than proving himself to be the greatest infomercialist of all time, right up there with Kevin Trudeau, can you please tell me any of Obama's history and track record that speak to his ability to govern in these perilous times?

So for, he has ripped off Hillary Clinton for pretty much everything, and he has coopted the Bill Clinton administration lock, stock and barrel.

Obama has propagated a myth of many, many small donors. The fact is that his small donor base is exactly the same percentage (though larger) as Bush and the recent Dem candidates for POTUS.

He has capitalized on the supreme failure of the Bush administration, and the discerning (snark) American electorate has chosen him precisely because they were vulnerable to his snake oil at this difficult time in our history.

As a resident of his state, I can tell you his impact as a senator was non-existent. Even in the state house, he rode the coattails of the Senator-maker, Emil Jones. his whole career has been based on people wanting to help him. IF he is POTUS, please God, I hope people will still want to help him.

Without the BHO "persona," he might be back teaching his constitutional law class at U of C.

His lies, half-truths, fantasies, and obfuscations will come back to haunt this presidency, and ultimately our country. Any sane person would want these issues dealt with before he takes office. If they turn out to be without merit, so be it, and godspeed, Barack.

But no man is above the law, and right now he is behaving as though the office of POTUS is his regardless of whether he iis constitutionally qualified by virtue of birth or citizenship issues.

These are simple matters to clear up, and the fact that he is choosing not to confront and defuse them is mind-boggling, suggesting consciousness of guilt.

Anyone remember or know of Pong? The very first television video game? Simulates ping-pong with a simple blip ricocheting against one of two opposing little bars that only move up/down in a line? Back and forth, with no free movement where one wins by getting the "ball" past the opponent.
Folks, keep focusing on ALL THE WRONG THINGS all the while the illegal Federal Reserve just profited 47 MILLION DOLLARS in the hour it will take you to read this. All the while the illegal IRS has imprisoned and daily continues to imprison thousands of people while confiscating millions of their dollars when the 16th Amendment was NEVER RATIFIED by the necessary 36 states at its inception...but I digress.
*Fact: The law of Indonesia in the 60's held that students COULD NOT possess dual citizenship, and further, since the ENTIRE NATION practiced the Muslim faith (yeah, Indonesia, largest Muslim nation on Earth), one HAD TO BE a Muslim to attend school.
*Fact: Indonesian students in the 60's had to either be citizens or adopted by or acknowledged by a citizen or naturalized citizen of Indonesia (think LoLo Saetoro).
Q:Why did Saetoro/Obama say he was NEVER a practitioner of the Muslim faith, when school records CLEARLY SHOW BY HIS OWN HAND that he both attended school AND was Muslim?
*Fact: Records show that Barack Obama (name on the passport read Barry Saetoro) made a trip to Pakistan in the early 1980's. At that time Pakistan was at war, and U.S. citizens weren't allowed inside the country; Indonesians were.
Q: If he was/is American, then why was "Barack Obama" allowed to enter/leave Pakistan?
Opinion: He is hiding his birth certificate because its revelation is incriminating. The Globalists sired him years ago, so none of this matters...they've already minted coins in his likeness! Minted en masse in this day and age of gold scarcity...
*Fact: Even though the Constitution trumps ALL, the Legal System, like the Monetary System is a human invention, that, as evidenced by American history, has the sole purpose of existing for further, future reinvention at the WHIM of those in Control.
Opinion: Any of you who think that Obama or any singular person is in charge of this monstrosity called mob rule, ahem, I mean Democracy, is poorly in command of your faculties. He will take office. He has gone on record to say that he will not repeal the Patriot Act. He will rehire the collaterally damaged folks to nice cubicled government jobs that will, like Peter said in Office Space, "...make you work just hard enough NOT to get fired!" He will slip the blade in slowly...
Challenge:
Show me the word Democracy in the Constitution. SHOW ME THE LAW that requires U.S. Citizens to pay the Federal Income Tax. Show me the definition of the word Income in the Holy IRS Codebook. 300 thousand dollars to the person who can do these three things. Go on. I dare ya!
Show me where the Senate gets off by REWORDING the original bailout plan which is, by the way UNCONSTITUTIONAL (think Article I Section 7).
Read the Grace Commission Report. Reagan set it up in '82-84. If you want to truly know where your tax dollars go, go read it.
Speaking of reading, you can read online copies or scans all the live-long but you can't transfer the raised or puffy, state seal that is MANDATORY for true attestment of a live birth. Read the Constitution. Not just once, but over and over until you know it better than your own name, because it is Our Birth Certificate.

There is no point getting worked up - Obama will be president - and the market will rally. Truth just doesn't matter that much anymore. After the 9/11, the Neocon wars, global warming and the Wall Street bailouts - the "Truth", as the Federal Court recently observed, is now too vague a concept to be of much concern to the powers that be. Also noted by the court: a citizen does not have any standing in such matters anyway. Any more questions?

Let the Supreme Court dodge the responsibility of defending The Constitution from an "usurper."

Let these old men piss off millions of gun owning Patriots and see what happens when they find out an illegal alien is in occupation of the White House.

If The Supreme Court fails to defend The Constitution, the government is completely rogue and true "change" will have to come from the barrel of the gun.

Let the Supreme Court dodge the responsibility of defending The Constitution from an "usurper."

Let these old men piss off millions of gun owning Patriots and see what happens when they find out an illegal alien is in occupation of the White House.

If The Supreme Court fails to defend The Constitution, the government is completely rogue and true "change" will have to come from the barrel of the gun.

John McCain provided all necessary paperwork to prove his natural-born status. .

Obama, on the other hand, refuses to release an original, long-form, vault, birth certificate. He also keeps his school records sealed.

The fault of this controversy lies upon Obama. He could end it by just releasing all needed info. It would cost about $15. Instead, he spends thousands and thousands of dollars to dodge lawsuits.

What is he hiding?

The Constitution is far more important than Obama.

The POTUS must be natural-born, with no divided allegiance.

THE REAL QUESTION!!

In front of The Supreme court is ONLY about whether Mr. Obama was/is a BRITISH citizen. Mr. Donofrio accepts that he was born in Hawiia but thay since his father was a citizen of Kenya and Kenya was under the laws of The UK at that time it makes Mr. Obama a Brtish citizen and or a dual citizen of the U.S.
Please read Donofrio's blog.
He disputes most all of the right wing yapping 'cuz' they have it all wrong as do most everyone on this board.

Here here to all those smacking down the nonsense on this topic. If I may just weigh in for a moment on this dual citizen issue, as a int’l lawyer i can say with some certainty that (a) no one can give up their citizenship until they are old enough (i.e. 18) thus the idea that Obama ever did when he was in Indonesia, etc., is nonsense. That is simply the law, rather expressly so. (b) There is no dispute the white woman from kansas was, uh, a US citizen, right? So then Obama was born a US Citizen. Therefore (c) a minimum the US recognized Obama as a US Citizen, even if this white woman from kansas in what, the 50’s flew to kenya to give birth (gimmie a break). If another country desires to also grant citizenship to a a US citizen at birth, whoopie…as a legal matter the US law cannot be amended or altered simply because another country has decided you also a citizen. As an andecdote - all persons with at least one GRANDPARENT that was born in Ireland is, at birth an irish citizen. I know, I was born to a woman born of two us citizens from brooklyn and a father born of two us citzens from detriot…my maternal Grandfather came to elis island at 16…i registered my birth at the Irish consulat when i was 38 years old and got an Irish passport (according to Irish law I was ALWAYS a citizen, just needed to register my birth)….so I was in fact a dual citizen for 38 years under the law of ireland and the US…The point i am making here is that the dual citizenship argument simply shows the flat out ignorance of those asserting same. On the issue of “naturally borne” it has to come down to whether Obama was born in Haiwaii or was not, period. The argument appears to be “prove to me you don’t beat your wife.” its offensive. i applaud Obama’s approach as it ha brought lots of nuts out from under their rocks. If the representations of the Secretary of State of Hawaii is not sufficient then move to another country. I trully hope this Supreme Court takes the case and smacks this down once and for all. Holding vigils? gimmie a break

@Lisa

Yes, McCain's citizenship was also challenged, since he was born in Panama. He provided full documentation to the US Senate, which affirmed his citizenship. Both his parents were US Citizens, he was born on a US Military base, and at the time Panama Canal Zone was administered by the US.

uh, McCain was not born on a military base, actually, but in the canal zone at a private hospital...part of the reason they went ahead and did a non binding resolution that he was eligible to be president...a resolution Obama voted for. Them's the facts, not that i care, but really people trying to promote these arguments should really be embarrased by now, no?

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American woman. He was elected president on November 4, 2008. If you don't like it, work for your preferred alternate party/candidate in 2012. Personally, I'm happy to see all you wing nuts wasting your energy on this BS. I'm busy organizing to keep my electeds moving toward the progressive (i.e., critically thinking) end of the spectrum.

Culturally, Obama is about as American as they come. Unless you have to be an anti-intellectual idiot to be an American. Fortunately, notwithstanding many years of stupidity in the White House and Congress and a general dumbing down of our society, we are not completely there yet.

It is incredible to me that so many people are still stewing and churning these inane non issues on the blogs. Do a google for "planetary carrying capacity" or "global warming" and find some reality to truly be upset about. And then maybe do something other than post this crap. Get a life.

Ok try and follow this story.
On Tuesday, April 24 at 10:00, the Senate Committee on Judiciary meeting takes up a number of bills, one of which is a resolution introduced April 10th, S.Res. 511, recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Now, Obama helped write this and co sponsored it, Can I ask Why he would help John?

The resolution was introduced by Senator McCaskill (R-MO), and has 5 co-sponsors. McCaskill is a Democrat, and the co-sponsors may also surprise you:

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Obama, Barack [IL]
Sen Webb, Jim [VA]
The text of the bill is as follows:

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Obama, by his own admission, read his books, his father was a Kenyan by birth, died a Kenyan; and was always a Kenyan.

Therefore, his birth could at best could only have bestowed US Citizenship on him; that is if his mother had the capacity to do so, because of her age at the time of his birth to make that happen; it would not have mattered where he was born, whether he was born in Hawaii, Canada, or Kenya, in the case of Kenya and Canada she would have been required to record the birth with the US Embassy or Consulate to make it effective.

Assuming he is a US Citizen by birth, or naturalized, let consider the rest of this issue.

The crux of this matter lies in the United States Constitution, and the Magna Carta (law of nations), where it is spelled out in Article II of our constitution. Article I Section 8 gives congress the right to determine naturalization of applicant for US Citizenship; but, specifically excludes congress from determining who is a “Natural Born Citizen” the being left intact as the framers had intended.

When I look at this issue I use the analogy that my father was born of parents, one a US Citizen and the other an Italian Immigrant, and not naturalized until after my father’s birth; therefore my father was a US Citizen at birth because his mother was a US Citizen and had the capacity to bestow citizenship, but my dad was not a “Natural Born Citizen” by birth because of his father was a un-naturalized immigrant and therefore dad could never have been president or vice president of the United States. Following on with that analogy when I, and my brother, were born both of us were “Natural Born Citizens” because both of our parents were US Citizens at the times of our births; therefore either one of us could be president or vice president of the United States; as long as we met the age requirement.

I watch as Obama, continues to hide all of his vital statistics and has spent over a Million Dollars to date to keep them sealed; and this is on top of the many lawsuits which have been filed against him wanting to see his long form birth certificate, which is not the one posted on the internet and the subject of much controversy because it has been deemed a forgery by document specialists who have no ax to grind in this matter other than to see justice done.

I use the average man legal approach to rationalizing issues and when I see smoke, I am pretty convinced there is more to the issue than what has been presented.

In this case there is not only the “Natural Born Citizen” issue, but also many other issues that eventually will come out. This man is an interloper and usurper of the 1st degree; and you heard it hear first.

US Attorney Taylor, of the US Attorney’s Office in DC resigned this weekend; Taylor has been sitting on Quo Warranto which should already been served on Obama two months ago; the attorney who filed the Quo Warranto has now re-filed with interim US Attorney Phillips, I believe, let’s see how long he sits on his desk before it is served, if ever.

Too much cover up and complicity in the nation’s capital.

You can factcheck, snopes, and twitter this to death they have nothing unless they are willing to support their assumption under the penalty of perjury; which I would always be willing to do if I were presenting evidence.

I am amazed that 11% of the country believes this garbage and tries to act like the majority is behind them. YOU LOST IN '09. YOU ARE LOST IN 2010. 11% Is not the majority, even in home skooling. Bush/cheney pissed on the constitution, and the scotus HAS NOT regained its stature in the eyes of America.