Posted on 07/08/2010 7:20:29 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A decision by Judges Dolores Sloviter, Maryanne Trump Barry and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have opened the door to questions on the record about President Obama's birth documentation and eligibility to be president, according to an attorney in the case.
The judges' opinion recently dismissed as "frivolous" an appeal of a lower court decision throwing out questions about whether the British Nationality Act of 1948 made Obama, at his birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, a subject of the British crown, thus possibly making him ineligible under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii," the lawsuit claimed.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo represented Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I don't agree. Even if he's born in Hawaii, he's still not eligible to be conferred citizenship by his child-mother. And his supposed father was a British subject.
Soldier on, Birthers!
Being called a "Birther" still carries a flavor of insult with it. (none taken) Best to leave the term for those who choose to use it for self identification.
So by having to pay for “frivolous” lawsuits, they have been “injured”, thereby creating standing!
That’s brilliant, I think they have him :)
You gotta make victories where you can in this business.
I don’t agree. Even if he’s born in Hawaii, he’s still not eligible to be conferred citizenship by his child-mother. And his supposed father was a British subject.
Before I, yet-yet again-again, research and piece together why he's illegal, I'd need some money from you. I'm tired of having to answer this stuff.
Any fellow FReepers want to step in?
Been there, done that. None of that research proves your contention. It’s just various historical quotes, from various people, often out of context, with no force of law.
My granddaughter is watching Wiley Coyote getting beat 1000 times by the Roadrunner.
I watch the birthers...
“BS. Every American has standing...”
Actually, legally, if every American suffers damage, then no American has standing. You just explained why, under the law, the case was frivolous.
From the decision
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens....
...The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people...We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.”
“Even if he’s born in Hawaii, he’s still not eligible to be conferred citizenship by his child-mother.”
?????????????????
Ever tried reading the Constitution?
>>Ever tried reading the Constitution?
Well, there’s a helpful comment!
What does the Constitution say about how someone becomes a citizen? Hint - read the 14th Amendment.
Why would I have a pissing contest with you? Drink it!
Indeed. Facts are SOOOOO inconvenient!
>>Indeed. Facts are SOOOOO inconvenient!
Yes My Rogers, indeed they are. What are you complaining about? Your butt-buddy is in power, and you must be thrilled all the way up your leg. Go and shake it off elsewhere.
Only a person who has that info can so confident about his status.
I wonder what evidence you’ve seen, that no one else has seen, that makes you think he’s eligible. It must be that you’ve seen evidence showing that Obama Sr wasn’t his father after all, and that for sure he was born in the US.
Come on, reveal your evidence so everyone else will know.
He said he’s already getting paid for posting here. Maybe he could spare some for you!
;-)
Well, maybe he isn’t a citizen. But his birth was announced in the local papers. Unless they could travel back in time to doctor them up, that’s pretty strong evidence. I also think that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, that men walked on the moon, and that Hitler died in 1945. Look, I’m on your side, OK? I want to see the birth certificate, too. Save your bile for someone else.
Bile? And you’re comparing questioning his eligibility to conspiracy nutjob stuff?
Apparently you have not studied up. I highly recommend it.
There has been research done lately which strongly suggests that the birth announcements published as images on the Web and handed out as photocopies at Hawaiian libraries were prepared from newspaper microfilm which had been spliced and doctored.
Someone somewhere (I am sure it's more than one person) has an original copy of the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin which is contemporary with the time frame of the alleged birth announcement.
Only a look at that original fragile, yellowing newsprint will tell you the real story.
Funny thing about newspapers. They can't be doctored. People also hang onto them for personal and sentimental reasons.
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.