Posted on 02/07/2009 8:19:40 AM PST by classical artist
Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother has sworn she was present when Barack was born in Kenya. His backers provided a fake certificate of birth, which didn’t fool many people. He was born August 1961 and the certificate was printed on a form revised November 2001. The certificate’s number was also blocked out. A lawyer in PA., Philip Berg, sued Obama and the DNC to get the "proof" that Obama was a natural born U.S. citizen. U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the suit, saying the lawyer had no standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship. The judge did not explain what this meant. At present, there are eight other states ready to file lawsuit on this. The constitution was not created to have people "thumb their nose" at it, but as a rock solid rule to help our country live long and prosper. There is a lot of housecleaning to be done, but who is going to do it? Unless things change, don’t be surprised if our next president turns out to be "Arnold" or even Hugo Chavez.
I totally agree w/ Chip.
Reason why it is sealed: When a child is adopted the original BC is sealed. They do this to protect the original parents’ identity. I believe this is in every state. BO(or anyone who has been adopted) has to get a court order to release the original.
The bottom line is that he needs to show the BC! We the People do not have to prove whether he was adopted or not.
He needs to prove he is a USA citizen!
Perhaps because he/she is not entitled to see it? Please show us the law in every state that requires someone to produce their long form birth certificate to get on the ballot. Better yet, show us a legal requirement that President Obama release his vault copy long form birth certificate.
If a bunch of disgruntled individuals decide that they don't want another individual in office, they should not go about it by creating a bunch of stories, allegations and rumors and then demanding that they be proven wrong. Doesn't work that way.
I think you've lost the context. I was replying to the following statement.
"These petitioners are not “tin foil hatters”. Most of these people are extremely bright & brave(Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz & those from the armed forces)."
Well, there is compelling evidence that "tin foil hatters" is exactly what they are.
Sure, it's possible that even a tin foil hatter can be right. Stopped clock, etc. But there's no sign of it being true in this case. Their ideas have been debated to death and they are wrong on pretty much every point.
Here's the issue. The birthers have created an elaborate mythology to support the "Obama is ineligible" story, almost entirely based on false claims.
"I actually never heard of this BC problem until November. The media kept it hidden so well and the Hawaii officials sealed up the useless Hawaiian issued BC since it probably says he was born in Kenya."
What BC problem exactly? The media didn't hide anything. They didn't have a story to report. Hawaii didn't seal up the BC. And the BC says he was born in Honolulu.
"How many who mock us even know Hawaii issued BCs to any baby born outside the US, as long as one parent had lived in Hawaii, until they stopped doing this crazy policy in 1973? That sealed BC is BS."
False. The law people cite, when they bother to cite one, was passed in 1982.
If Soetoro had legally adopted Barry in Hawaii, as you speculate, the BC would have been replaced with one with the father as Soetoro. The place of birth would not change.
There is a difference between being worried and concerned about circumstances one finds oneself in, and clinical paranoia.
The message Leo wrote was a sign of someone in desperate need of psycho-pharmaceuticals.
Yes slavery was debated for years & thrown out of the courts.
One group of Abolitionist who were ridiculed -Quakers. That did not stop Lincoln! “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for POTUS! It will be debated in the Supreme Court at some time. Because it is not being argued at this point does not make it a “tin foil hat” idea.
The document is a reliable record, a proof, of the enrollment of Barry Soetoro, Muslim, at the primary school in Indonesia. The document is not as reliable as a record of his birthplace, it merely represents where his mother claims he was born, which may or may not be accurate.
What does any of that have to do with this issue?
"“Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for POTUS!"
We all know that.
"It will be debated in the Supreme Court at some time. Because it is not being argued at this point does not make it a “tin foil hat” idea."
Make *what* a tin foil hat idea?
By the same token, it merely represents what his mother claims as his name and his religion.
Yes, that’s true too.
Yeh, right -- the Chicago mob's American way, blue state's American way, Obama's American way.
No court has heard the merits of any of these cases because the plaintiffs can not meet the the constitutional requirements to prove standing.
Please list those "constitutional requirements" ---
Okay then he must prove that he is a natural born citizen some other way, and he has no other way other than producing the necessary documentation.
Please show us the law in every state that requires someone to produce their long form birth certificate to get on the ballot.
It's called the law against perjury. When he filled out and signed his applications for office of POTUS he stated on there that he was a "natural born citizen". If he is not, then he committed perjury.
Better yet, show us a legal requirement that President Obama release his vault copy long form birth certificate.
Show me any other way for BO to prove that he did not commit perjury on his application.
He already satisfied every official that controlled access to the ballots. There is no requirement that he do anything else.
"It's called the law against perjury. When he filled out and signed his applications for office of POTUS he stated on there that he was a "natural born citizen". If he is not, then he committed perjury."
Then someone would be required to *prove* that those statements were false. Not just ask questions. Where is the proof?
"Show me any other way for BO to prove that he did not commit perjury on his application."
He doesn't have to prove he did not commit perjury. Someone has to prove that he did.
A person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.
In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues".
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish in order to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
There are three constitutional standing requirements:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially-created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute, but Congress cannot change the three constitutional standing requirements.2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next-friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract.Uncle Chip, you can probably spend several days reading up on legal standing. If you would like to do it online, you may go to your favorite search engine and enter something like "what is legal standing?". If you choose to do it the old-fashioned way, your librarian will be happy to assist you.2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest : (a) Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute; and (b) Zone of Interests - The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.
And wouldn't we all like to know just how that was done.
But the point is that none of what you posted is in the Constitution, the highest law of the land.
Now that you mention it, I am not all that sure which is crazier, believing the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for the 9.11 Terrorist Attacks or believing that you are being followed by little yellow men.
Phil and Leo may want to use ObamaCare and and have their levels adjusted.
When you become a public figure, then your private life is an open book -- especially where you were born and especially if where you were born is a required qualification listed in the highest law of the land that you must meet before taking an office listed in that highest law of the land.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.