A small infraction. Let’s MOVE ON!(/Soros Sick off)
bump
The case also raises the circumstances of Obama’s time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama’s mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.
Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be “naturalized,” not “natural-born.”
That’s assuming he went through the naturalization process. If not he is still a citizen of Indonesia.
so case (a) he’s British or Kenyan, case (b) he’s Indonesian, and case (c) there is a real full birth certificate in Hawaii stating he was born in Hawaii.
if (c) why not just release it and put an end to the rumors? that is what i don’t understand — i was a doubter until we got to the election with no release of info. i thought he was just hanging on til the last minute to make the questioners look stupid. now i’m curious too.
Ping.
bttt...
Are you folks that delusional? All the Supremes are going to do is find a way to quietly dismiss this case and move one.
Could you imagine what would happen if this was actually taken up as a case and if they HAD to rule against obama. The moonbats would go ballistic ... and the Supremes don't want that to happen.
I just got a letter from the Maine dmv yesterday. In order to renew my drivers license I MUST show a birth certificate or I will be denied. This is a new law to stop illegals from getting licenses. Shame the nation doesn’t have a similar rule for elections.
The Supreme Court would never invalid Obama, citizen or not.
These Justices are more “living document” than given credit.
Why are no other media outlets covering, or at the very least, mentioning it.
Judging from the “troll panic” on this thread, I think this issue is gaining strength.
Stay tuned...
I must be a contrarian on this issue. I don’t want the courts to decide who is and who is not qualified to hold office. For president, this is the responsibility of elected officials in the house.
Cab you imagine setting the stage for future conservative presidents or senators having to have their BS vetted by a liberal supreme court?
If Obama is determined ineligible for Presidency:
Will the SC invent new law making it possible for him to take it anyway?
Will the Congress ram through a bill redefining the term “naturalized” so that Obama can take office?
Will there be riots in the streets?
All three of those questions are the reasons I doubt we will ever get a satisfactory answer to this question. Obviously, something is very wrong with the birth certificate or we would have seen it.
Presuming the birth certificate shows information which would disqualify Obama from taking office will the SC have the guts to actually follow the law? Or will we hear some crap about the SC following the will of the people over the Constitution?
What a mess.
This is not a case where the justices have to agonize over their decisions. The remedy is simple compared to things like affirmative action. They simply send an order back to the state(s) to do ask for some paperwork, then wash their hands. It will be the state politicians who have to take the heat ... and, next case (or lunch).
bump...
Not going to happen. The SCOTUS will not start a fire like that.
If this was going to happen, it should have been early in the primaries. To late now.
God help us.
I found this, from a law web site.
Natural born is from British common law.
It means the child can and must inheret citizenship from his Father.
If seems law is followed, as intended, Obama is out, with good reason !
Here it is:
The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”(40)
This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)
A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46