Posted on 11/23/2008 8:07:05 AM PST by txnuke
By Jonas Oliver | Article Date: 11/20/2008 4:46 PM
On December 5, 2008 the United States Supreme Court is expected to meet to review a case being brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, which challenges whether or not Barack Obama is a "natural-born citizen" and thus qualified under the U.S. Constitution's to become president. Ironically Donofrio’s suit also claims that Sen. John McCain’s name should not have been on the election ballot for the same reason.
The case, which was unsuccessful at the state level, is not expected to find much success with the Supreme Court. However if four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
Questions linger regarding Barack Obama’ s citizenship despite the fact that his campaign has posted the President-Elect’s live certificate of birth at FightTheSmears.com.
Another action questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship has been filed in the State of California by Alan Keyes, a former presidential candidate and rival of Obama’s, who along with a series of other organizations including the United Justice Foundation, are petitioning the California secretary of state asking that the state's 55 Electoral College votes slated to be cast in the 2008 presidential election on behalf of Barack Obama be withheld until he verifies his eligibility to hold the office of president.
According to conservative website World News Daily, the California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process."
"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.
"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
Taking on the issue of the "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign, the California case alleges that it cannot be viewed as authoritative, given that:
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
The case also raises questions about 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, according to World News Daily.
The Obama campaign has called the barrage of lawsuits ‘garbage.’
Meanwhile FactCheck.org offers the following explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding Barack Obama’s birth and his subsequent eligibility to become president:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Well, you're a brave one. Where there any other places the story is reported, according to Google News?
THE AUDAICTY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING
Not that there’s anything wrong with that! :O)
There’s one of the key cultural the catch phrases that got this sod elected, after all: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
I don’t think Obama’s standing is even near to what our forefather’s meant...They meant TWO parents with a loyalty to the USA and no other country, i.e., there must be “no doubt”.
Obama’s mama didn’t even meet the loyalty to the USA and no other country, criteria. His father, whomever that may be, most certainly didn’t meet it.
I salute the FReepers who go places so we don’t have to!
You, Governsleastgovernsbest and the Today Show, PJComix and the DU.
All of you have my kudoes!!!
There are two American citizens with standing to challenge Obama’s citizenship. They were directly impacted if he is not qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of President.
Those citizens are John McCain and Sarah Palin but neither of them has ever mentioned Obama’s citizenship status and they have refused to be named as a party to any of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s status nor have they filed amicus briefs for the Supreme Court.
========Questions linger regarding Barack Obama’ s citizenship despite the fact that his campaign has posted the President-Elect’s live certificate of birth at FightTheSmears.com.==========
Why bother writing the article if you don’t research the problem with his posted COLB?
Thats your opinion.
McCain and Palin are political creatures. Leo, Berg, etc. are doing the dirty work for them. Perhaps its more a sign of their incompetence that they have not looked into this or more likely that McCain is no more an American citizen then obama (read Leo’s case before replying).
Out of curiousity after this post, I did a search on yahoo! and here are the results:
“1 - 10 of 3,660,000 for obama citizenship lawsuit”
Some sites were about the Berg lawsuit being tossed previously, but obviously some are willing to cover what the MSM won’t tell the American people.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu...
Question begging. Neither FactCheck.org nor the public has any evidence that husseinobama was actually born in Honolulu. His actual birthplace is precisely what is at issue.
“Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.”
Interesting and irrelevant.
“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
These two paragraphs are a smokescreen attempting to obscure the real issue. It tries to make it seem as if the problem with bho’s eligibility might have to do with some sort of dual citizenship status; i.e., born in the U.S., but from a father who was a Kenyan native. According to this scenario, up until the age of 21, bho supposedly had both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship. Since he did not renounce the former and never pledged allegiance to the latter, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on his 21st birthday and he was left with his American citizenship.
Of course, the issue is this: WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT HUSSEINOBAMA WAS ACTUALLY BORN IN HAWAII? None. We have a Certificate of Live Birth, which proves nothing; and we have a newspaper announcement, which also proves nothing. Only the original birth certificate can tell us where he was born. And so far, we only have a statement from a Dr. Fukino of the Hawaii Dept. of Health who merely confirmed that an original birth certificate indeed exists; and we have a complete refusal by bho himself to allow this original birth certificate to be released.
And FactCheck.org scrupulously avoids the issue of hussein’s Indonesian citizenship, which at best would now make him a naturalized citizen, not a natural born one. Indeed, he would only be a naturalized U.S. citizen if he took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. If he took no such oath, then upon returning to the U.S. from Indonesia, he would actually have been living here all these years as an illegal alien.
I love it that a Web site calling itself “Fact Check” doesn’t check any facts.
By such narrow application of legal logic was Dred Scott ruled not a full human, along with any other African Negro and any descendants.
Yet you may be not right too -- the Supreme Court could rule that not even the candidates have standing. For perhaps it is that Chief Justice Tanney had much in common with Justice Scalia, in terms of how to read the law. For that is how it went down for the tragic case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, pure and innocent of any crime, and an abandoned wife in all practical effect, among the class the Bible would call a "widow and orphan". She was damned to a judicial order for her death, carried out by hundreds in uniform, because the court could give her no standing as a human being entitled to a presumption of life.
And would you be happy if that is to be how the Supreme Court -- the men from Trenton, the lady from Princeton, and the others -- rule? That no voter has standing in such a matter, the matter of the Presidency?
What a ruling to be had as we come to the 228th anniversary of the night some three thousand suffering patriots and rebels crossed the Delaware to secure a future of Liberty to themselves and their prosperity! That ...
Dred Scott is no human, Terri Schindler has no inalienable right to Life, and we -- the citizens -- may have no expectation of access to a redress in this fraud of an election for the most powerful position in the world?
Is that your happy outcome?
Three million! Everyone knows about it, and no one knows. Some few talk about it, and the rest — ARE RULED BY FEAR!
Its not about my logic. I’ve read the judges’ decisions on issues of standing in three cases thus far: Berg v Obama; Donofrio v Wells, and Martin v Lingle.
What all three cases have in common is the judges’ denial that citizens, as opposed to Congress have the right to overrule Hawaii state vital record confidentiality laws for a greater good.
I am more than willing to wait for the judicial process to fully play out in all of the now 17 cases that have been filed for access to Obama’s vault copy birth certificate.
What I’ve been attempting to do is provide information on what I have read as the rationale for those denials and dismissals on the basis of lack of standing that have occurred thus far. It was pure speculation on my part that John McCain and Sarah Palin MIGHT have a better chance at a ruling granting them standing as the only other CITIZENS who received electoral votes.
When any parties go into a court of law seeking redress, anything can happen so I do not presume to know at all what will happen in future rulings and if some court(s) should rule that Obama must present his vault copy Hawaii long form birth certificate before assuming office, so be it. That would be just fine with me.
Please quit abusing the Activism sidebar. It’s reserved for News/Activism of the FR chapters.
Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis Sign the Petition : 114,332 Letters and Emails Sent So Far
I disagree with your suggestion that McCain and Palin are the only ones with standing to legally question Obama’s status. That just doesn’t make sense. I am not a lawyer, but I do not see why only other candidates on the ballot would have standing. The Constitution belongs to, and applies to, all Americans.
But even if the other candidates on the ballot are the only ones who have standing, why only McCain and Palin? What about Keyes? He was on the ballot too (and I think he filed suit). Just because McCain finished second, that does not give him exclusive standing to sue. For all we know, had Obama not run, all of Obama’s votes might have gone to Keyes, giving him the victory. Yes, I realize that’s absurd, but the law has cannot decide who would have voted for who.
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.