Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Chicagoist ^ | December 5, 2008

[ckilmer]

December 5, 2008

Supreme Court Silent on Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit

The Supreme Court made no announcement today whether or not it will hear Donofrio v. Wells, the lawsuit challenging the election based on Barack Obama's release - or alleged lack thereof - of his official birth certificate and his citizenship status. (The court did decide to hear two cases, one of which is the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, an Al Qaeda combatant seized on American soil.) Of course, there's no guarantee the Court will ever actually issue any statement on the Obama case since it was simply petitioned to the court and, along with hundreds of other cases, could be dismissed without any comment at all. But as Frank James, over at The Swamp, says, "the lack of an announcement doesn't mean the court definitely won't hear Donofrio." So either we will or we won't. Hmm.

Meanwhile, our comrades at our sister site DCist scoped out a protest held by supporters of the Donofrio cause at the Supreme Court this morning led by Roger Bredow, who claims Obama has duel citizenship.

The Supreme Court will announce whether it will actually consider the Obama lawsuit as early as today and as late as Monday. If (as expected) the Court tosses the suit, Bredow will start challenging Obama's legitimacy based on "foreign money that went into his campaign." Other protestors said they'd start contacting members of the Electoral College. Steve Brindle, who drove down from Pennsylvania, said he'd called his senators yesterday.

"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Brindle. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."

Of course, only 15 to 20 people showed so...yeah.

Either way, nothing will ever outweigh the rage we felt this morning when we read that Obama has allegedly chosen a Zune over an iPod. We're whipping up a petition as we speak and expect a protest very, very soon.

Photo by Dave Weigel courtesy of our pals at DCist

[hoosiermama]

Yes but, Would DNA testing be required to determine paternity? Even in BO’s time, I think that may have been an issue..
Grandma in Kenya states that OB, Sr was very upset because “they” were threatening to take away scholarships if he didn’t do right by the girl.....Talk about shot gun weddings!

What did BO see in his BC, that prompted him to search out BO Sr? DIdn’t he comment that “the family had lied to him.” What was the lie?

Devils Adv.

[AmericanGirlRising]

Bookmark for later reading.

[fightinJAG]

If natural born status means one’s parents (or father) is an American at the time of the child’s birth, I’m sure there would be some rebuttable presumptions accorded the candidate.

IOW, if nothing on its face raised a question about his natural born (citizenship by descent) status, the challenger would have to come up with more than speculation to rebut the presumption that the NBS attains. And, really, that is how it should be. This is not a matter that should be challengeable by every crackpot theory out there with no evidence whatsoever.

So, you questioned if DNA evidence would be required. I would answer “not usually, probably never.” But, hey, if a president-select needed to prove his natural born (citizenship by descent) status, it would be up to him what evidence he wanted to proffer if someone actually rebutted the presumption, based on say official documents, that his father was a citizen.

In McCain’s case, for example, there is no question at all about the citizenship of his parents. It would take some piece of incredibly solid evidence to rebut the presumption that his father was an American, based on his father’s Navy records, security clearances and so on. Yet McCain’s NB status may actually still be unsettled because the SCOTUS has never quite said that natural born status is based on descent alone.

In Obama’s case, there is no doubt that his named father was not and never became an American, or that his named father passed British citizenship to Obama by descent.

If the SCOTUS came out and said the natural born status is citizenship by descent from the father, regardless of birthplace, the only thing Obama could do is claim that he now knows that his father actually was someone else who was an American. And he’d have to offer whatever evidence he thought he needed to prove that claim.

P.S. I wonder how old Obama’s father was at the time of his conception. I mean, was this even legal in Hawaii at that time.

[Duck Fan]

I’m always too late to have fun with trolls. :-(

[fightinJAG]

Possibly.

But weren’t Arthur’s parents Americans, at least by the time of his birth?

I do think the parents’ citizenship trumps birthplace.

[Kevmo]

I do think the parents’ citizenship trumps birthplace.
***It’s a bit of a grey area, which is why we keep seeing trolls posting that McCain might be ineligible, even though he was born of 2 citizens who were expats on official country business. But it’s just an academic exercise, I don’t really care because McCain didn’t win the election.

[CHDmom]

BHO Sr was born in 36, so was about 24-25 when Jr was born. (I don’t know if it was statutory, if that’s what you are asking)

[fightinJAG]

That’s what I’m asking.

Not that it matters to the legal issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”

[fightinJAG]

I think even McCain’s situation needs to be settled by the Court (though, since he didn’t win, it could be considered moot).

I don’t doubt that McCain would be determined eligible, but I don’t think we have a settled rationale for that.

Certainly, if McCain is an American because he was born to two Americans, regardless of the place of his birth, that would militate for the holding that “natural born citizen” status is attained by operation of “nature” (that is, by descent; some in the framers’ time may have said “by natural law”)-—as opposed to by operation of law.

No legal authority in history ever had to declare that a child born to two citizens of a country was, by descent, a citizen of that country. It just was.

If, then, “natural born citizen” status is attained by nature (descent) for McCain, regardless of place of birth, the same standard applies to Obama. Since his father was not an American, and therefore Obama could not naturally attain American citizenship by descent from his father, the only question would be whether the law at the time allowed him to naturally attain American citizenship only from his mother.

The Senate resolution on McCain’s eligiblity, including the provision supposedly inserted by Obama, functions on the premise that “natural born citizen” status is, in fact, attained by operation of nature (descent), not law-—and that place of birth is irrelevant to attaining that status.

Therefore, Obama himself has recognized this principle and thus would have to bank on the fact that natural born citizenship status was naturally attainable by descent from his mother. Which is not at all clear at this point.

[fightinJAG]

Let me put it this way:

It appears to me that the practical effect the framers may have intended was to limit the presidency to those who were at least second-generation Americans.

Basing eligibility on attaining citizenship BY birth (i.e., by operation of “nature” alone), as opposed to citizenship AT birth based on birthplace (i.e., by operation of law / the sovereign’s recognition of the children of aliens as citizens), ensured so far as possible that the individual was at least “once removed” from ties to the old country.

And, of course, there is practical wisdom in that. As we see even today, hundreds of years later, the second-generation Americans usually do not have anywhere near the ties to the old country that first-generation Americans often do.

Therefore, to say natural born status is determined by both descent and birthplace seems to me to wrongly conflate citizenship attained by nature (descent) with citizenship attained by law (the legal import of one’s birthplace).

Place of birth determines citizenship only because positive law says it does. The sovereign, whether a king or a state, could have made a different decision. This demonstrates this is citizenship attained by operation of law.

Once “law,” yes, it will be enforced and elaborated upon by the courts and even come to be viewed as a “right.” That, however, does not change the fact that, in the first instance, the sovereign had the authority to deny citizenship to the children of aliens born in its jurisdiction.

Moreover, there is only one aspect in which the effect of natural born citizenship (by descent) status diverges from citizenship attained at birth, but without descent (by law): that is the very unusual, specific and important requirement regarding eligibility to serve as President and Commander in Chief.

IOW, there are no differences between citizenship attained by descent at birth and citizenship attained by law at birth EXCEPT (assuming the correctness of our working definition) that the former individual is eligible to be president and the latter is not.

Again, this construction would make perfect sense as it would limit the presidency to those who are at least second-generation Americans. That doesn’t seem too much ask, either from the framers’ point of view or ours today. Which, of course, matters not a whit anyway. No matter the burden the standard may impose, generally or in a particular case, the Constitution still must be vouchsafed.

[OneWingedShark]

>I suppose if one thinks about it, an argument could be made that the Founding Fathers seriously did not want Americans (even of military families) being born in other countries.

You are correct, the idea that America would be the “world police” and have it’s nose in everyone else’s affairs would have been utterly alien to them, especially given that there was no standing army.

[OneWingedShark]

>I do think the parents’ citizenship trumps birthplace.

If that’s the case, then anchor babies aren’t.

[Vendome]

He is not a Natural Born Citizen, the awareness of his mother or anyone else including him is irellevant. Yes, a baby born to mother and father of the US in another country is still a citizen of the US as the parents are subject, as US nationals, to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I am born 1963 and my mother traveled frequently including riding amusment rides she would not have been allowed to ride in today’s environment.

And part of the problem is the huge vacuum of this guy’s life story. You have very few people who remember anything about him. There is only one significant story and that is of his two roommates in college. They were foreign nationals and Obama was dormed with them. As the common practice is room college mates with similar backgrounds to provide continuity in their live and make it easier to socialize with those like you.

If you went to college you know that the process of housing dorm mates. This combined with Obama’s history prior to that and his travels to Pakistan and Indonesia give rise to belief that he registered for college loans as a foreign national. He either was or was not a forgien national or he still is. We need the BC and records of college, applications and passports.

As an aside it is very likely true that Pakistan and Idonesia were banned countries as in Telecom these countries were frequently blocked for calling as fraud and international issued related to them and twenty other countries were and issue. If you know about the CIA and their work at this time, think a contractor to them called Jartran.

There is nothing inconvenient about the Certification of Birth that has been displaye all over the Internet. The one we have seen that Barack Obama is his valid and genuine form of ID is most prominently displayed on Factcheck.

That one is not a Birth Certificate and the intellectual phonies continue claim it is.

In fact, a valid and genuine BC has much more information and you would not call a child’s race African in those or any other. African ancestory is derived by being from that continent and not all or not all indigenous peoples of the African Continent or region are Negro, Negroid or Black.

In the African Continent and region we find the people of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco,and even some island like Madagascar, they are not considered Black or Negro, as a whole.

It is possible to skate by in life with documentation that looks well enough and under different AKA’s with stuff that looks just close enough or as a foreign national, again.

I am not ready to buy the forgery argument and haven’t seen one promulgated. He has absolutely committed fraud at the minimum.

This would all be to much for me as well if my background weren’t so similar. I have a brother and a sister from my birth father and were adopted in another state, by mother’s second husband. Everyone who knows me know this story and it is all easily verified by the records in two states, counties and at the US Government. As you can imagine we had to reapply to all kinds of agencies dealing with our personage to obtain new documents.

Obama’s trail is even larger as his adoption took place between two countries and when he returned he had restablish his identity or establish a new one. In regards, to a new identity he changed his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Obama. You had to have gone through a long legal process to change your name and to ensure the state government of state in which you were born and the state you reside, that there are no encumbrances, warrants or debts associted with your current identity. They would then verify with US Government and then a whole process takes place there.

Once all your encumbrances are cleared and the government authorizes your new identity you have to apply for a new SS#, submit docs to IRS, Passport, Drivers License, Marriage, and on and on.

My parents had to go through alot of work in my adoption as there were three of us. But it was worth it to them.

There is a huge trail and no one has explore this.

[fightinJAG]

Nope. If that’s the case, then anchor babies are citizens, they just aren’t natural born citizens (citizens by descent). So they are in all ways citizens, EXCEPT that they are not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

[exhaustedmomma]

Thanks for the information you shared. I have been hoping somebody with like experience would post. I hope others actually read what you have said/written.

I, too, have 2 adopted children with similar to your & "whatever his name is" backgrounds. At this point, those two children are the only people that could touch their BC's... because they are living adults. However, their are original copies of their adoption BC's... and I happen to have original copies of the original BC's. I also have the hospital paper with their foot prints and my thumb prints, as well as our hospital bracelets. There are all sorts of photo's of them with relatives, family, friends, etc, from birth to present documenting the milestones of their life's. There are photo's of me pregnant with each of them... very "dated" photo's that identify a specific "era."

BO is no longer a "mystery" man or even just creepy. He is becoming downright scary.

[Vendome]

There you go. Then you know the amount of information there should be to support a claim of personage especially in the case of adoption. It is actually recorded everywhere.

I had been thinking about where these records are but had to leave the house for a while.

I know there are other parents like mine out there who could empathize with this and children of similar backgrounds.

Being adopted in the same jurisdiction creates enough records but, being adopted in two and between nations? Well, the records are vast and the numbers compounded by Obama’s reentry into the USA, his name change back to Barrack Obama(from Barry Sotero). He had to perform this at an age of emancipation. That age could be 16 with consent of one parent or simply having reached the age of 18.

If he changed his name would there would be a record of all entities that an interest with one’s personage at the state and federal level.

I wonder, and I will have to think it over, would he have also notified Indonesia, the place of his adoption? It seems likely, as the federal governemnt would have to place reciprical document with the original foreign registry of his second identity at adoption. If only to notify them” Barry Sotero no longer exists and has been replaced with Barrack Obama. Please update your records accordingly. Thank you, Uncle Sam”.

There have been alot of adoption over the years. How hard could it be to find like minded(read experienced/ed) people?

I am not unique just vocal. What gives?

It should be easy for someone who is honest enough to be dishonest and expose that information.

[exhaustedmomma]

Our situation only dealt with one country, the USA. It did cover 3 states; state of each child's birth, residency of children and natural and adoptive parents. There is paper work out the wa-zoo. Not to mention a lifetime of memorabilia.

The only people that can open the birth certificate of an adopted child-adult... is that adult child. To the best of my knowledge. I don't know what gives. Cat and mouse.

[oldengineer]

It’s all well and good to disagree with Obama’s policies. I have no problem with that and would rather not see many of them enacted myself. But I have one question that I have yet to see answered—Why do people believe that the state of Hawaii issues documents falsely identifying the place of birth?

I have a friend who was adopted from Korea. Her parents obtained a Hawaiian birth certificate at the time. She recently requested a copy of that record. The State of Hawaii sent her a short form version identical to the one Obama has posted. It says her place of birth was Korea.

I have an adopted son. We obtained a California birth certificate for his future convenience. I recently had to get copies of all my children’s birth certificates. The biological children’s certificates (also computer printouts dated 2008 that are perfectly legal) identify the US city and state where they were born. My adopted son’s California birth certificate states the foreign city and country where he was born.

States don’t issue documents with information they know is false. The only reason Obama’s COLB says he was born in Honolulu is that the original information transcribed into the state database says the same thing. That’s why the language from Hawaiian officials that some keep disputing clearly substantiates his birth record to the overwhelming majority of the American public, including conservatives. That’s why the Supreme Court has already dismissed this in conference. Even if they were to get past the standing argument, there is a state of Hawaii document saying he was born in Honolulu, and the state of Hawaii isn’t disputing it.

And no one is going to disqualify an elected President by trying to redefine the common sense term “natural born citizen” relative to paternal legacy. I’d like to see McCain as President, too, but this stuff just discredits conservatism. And honestly, there is no offense intended in my remarks.

[MayflowerMadam]

His birth announcement was probably a series of smoke signals and would be difficult to archive.

[Vendome]

I do not want to McCain as President.

The issue is Obama’s past history, who is he and what does he represent?

The BC copy presented on Factcheck is just plain suspicious for reasons you have probably read. That is why we are demanding the original long form. From there we want to know his citizenship status at various times in his, what was his qualification for a student loan, etc.

Additionally, we want to know when he changed his name back to Barack Obama. Presumably he did this as an adult and there should be plenty of records to confirm his current identity which HE CREATED. No one else created his identity. His mother did not change his last name, of his birth father, and his first name with out some due consideration. She most certainly did not change his name at a later date as she had, in her mind and heart, a very good reason to change the names. Women do not take this sort of thing lightly.

I understand your reasoning but that is not the issue. The issue is the document we have a known example of is highly suspect and would cost less than $20 to obtain the form that would put all this to rest.

It is really irresponsible of Obama to put the country through this over a simple document. If he is sincere in wanting to be the president of all the people under the legitemacy of the Constition then he should do so now.

If indeed there is a valid reason for his behaviour and he does release the documents that leave no doubt to his eligibility, fine. Then we all go back to friction of a Democratic Republic and argue our ideas and passions.

Until then we cannot even get there.