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

[Vendome]

There you go.

[Star Traveler]

“The truth is out there...” That’s the best I can say.

Obama is hiding something real serious or else he would have released that birth certificate by now and wouldn’t be spending all that money to prevent it from being done.

It’s beyond most of us to be able to dig up the real and original facts in this situation, because it’s going to take some detective work, questioning people and gathering together all your evidence. I hope someone is doing it...

—

Where there’s smoke, there’s a fire — and with the amount of smoke pouring out of this “situation” — it’s a roaring fire behind it.

[hoosiermama]

Even my soon to be 89 year old father is considering it.....If the SCOTUS has already gotten 60,000 letters re: this issue, think about the number of Amicus they’ll receive.....

Picture the mail room! (Once closed down the IN Dept of Ed with a letter writing campaign...They must open and read each letter to see if it is pertinent or just “another one of those”.)

[hoosiermama]

WIfe number one had a “tribal wedding”/ Jumping over the broom. Remember his religion not only allows but encouraged multiple wives.

[Smokeyblue]

“Regarding SCOTUS being silent, I just had a thought. Maybe it is better if they pass on this than rule against us.”

I agree.

[Star Traveler]

Probably Ann had a tribal wedding, too...

[txhurl]

“Regarding SCOTUS being silent, I just had a thought. Maybe it is better if they pass on this than rule against us.”

---

There are more, better sophisticated cases being built in the states..... passing on Donofrio might well be best at this point.

[nobama08]

Did his birth announcement say where he was born?

[nobama08]

A resolution isn’t law.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

” Now, as to that documentation, I’ll let someone else dig that out.”

Even Barack Obama couldn’t figure it out.

” Dreams from My Father ,” Pg 22

” In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky , a bill of particulars I’ve never quite had the courage to explore.
There’s no record of a real wedding ,a cake , a ring, a giving away of the bride.
No families were in attendance, it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed.”

But, after all that-Obama says
“ Just a small civil ceremony,
a justice of the peace [ sic ].”
If there’s no record of the wedding and all this murkiness-how does Obama then conclude that it was a civil ceremony with a JP ?

[hoosiermama]

Seems that way....Went off to one of the lesser island...No one has found the record yet....I think one of two scenarios happened. She discovered she was part of his harem when she arrived in Africa and decided “no Way!”

Or: He took one look at the baby realized it didn't resemble him and said “Adios”!

[MilspecRob]

Gee I don’t know, Were is yours, and who cares?

[Star Traveler]

From the fact of them getting divorced after a sufficient period of time passed by, seems to indicate that it was a marriage in name only. In other words, he knew it wasn’t his son because he was getting married only for appearances. There was probably some incentive for him (but I wouldn’t know what that would be). I guess there was the additional prestige for having another wife.

She probably already knew he had another wife and the reason why they had to go back to Kenya (so he wouldn’t face bigamy charges). I doubt that was a problem to her. She just wanted a “name” to have to say she was married and pretend that this guy was the father. The father was probably this other guy who was married and had sex with her (and his wife) as part of his sex escapades (he wrote about some of this in a book he wrote; can’t remember his name right now). He doesn’t describe her by name, but describes a situation that sure sounds like her. That guy is probably Obama’s father (but it just doesn’t say that on the birth certificate... LOL...).

She was so messed up as to what she was doing that there’s no telling who is Obama’s father and what his mother was doing.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying — “Even Barack Obama couldn’t figure it out.”

That’s because it was with a witch doctor in Kenya... LOL...

[fightinJAG]

Well, I’d say it’s past time we fixed it, don’t you?

[fightinJAG]

IIRC, however, all of our presidents had parents who were Americans at the time of their (the presidents’) birth.

Have we ever had a president who had a parent who was not an American at the time he was born?

[Kevmo]

Have we ever had a president who had a parent who was not an American at the time he was born?
***Possibly: Chester A. Arthur

Maybe Obama will be the Second Foreign-Born President in History
Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:49:32 PM · by Kevmo · 24 replies · 1,004+ views
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2142451/posts

[fightinJAG]

BTW, based on the rationale for the “natural born citizen” provision-—ensuring against foreign allegiance, etc.-—here’s what I think would have made sense to the framers at the time:

(1) Natural born citizen = a citizen literally “born American” (as opposed to merely born IN America). This means citizenship determined by descent-—i.e., by operation of nature (or “natural law”). At that time, most likely descent from the father. I don’t think we have had a president whose parents were not both Americans at the time of his birth.

(2) Citizenship at birth = those who are Americans at birth because a law makes them so-—i.e., by operation of law-—, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. These Americans AT birth would not have the same status as Americans BY birth. In the latter case, no law, at all, was required to make them citizens while, in the former case, a law was required.

(3) Naturalized citizens = those who were not Americans BY birth or AT birth, but obtain citizenship later by fulfilling a legal requirement and doing a substantive legal act to obtain citizenship. This would be citizenship by operation of law and volition.

In short:

— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;

— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and

— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.

Since much of the caselaw on citizenship addresses only citizenship, and therefore could be limited to citizenship by operation of positive law (i.e., AT birth as opposed to BY birth), much of that precedent may not be helpful in determining eligibility to serve as President.

OTOH, if natural born citizenship status is as simple as having two parents who were Americans by the time of one’s birth, or—according to the law at the time-—a father who was American by the time of one’s birth, that’s a straightforward standard that would greatly limit the possible factual permutations that could be presented.

[fightinJAG]

I agree with you: any action here has to be brilliant. The more I think about it, though, the more it seems it really could all boil down to a rather simple framework.

The really complicating thing might be how to handle all the precedent that went to “mere” citizenship. The Court would have to make very clear that those cases, and many of the statutes, did not contemplate “natural born” status, and, therefore, are not on point.

I posted a version of the framework that seems to boil down everything so far, fyi:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2143728/posts?page=178#178

[fightinJAG]

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

I would draw the opposite conclusion and say the framers weren't as concerned with birthPLACE as with one's parents' citizenships.

People didn't travel as much as we do today and citizenship was widely considered a natural law attribute that descended from one's father. The British law, for example, said a British subject's child was born in "natural" and "perpetual" citizenship in Britain which was "impossible to shed."

IOW, clearly the most important and usual way to determine one's citizenship, and therefore putative allegiance, was through descent, not according to birthplace.

I don't know if our law has made such a tangle of things that it's now impossible to sort out the framers' intent, but it seems completely reasonable that they were focused on one's "natural" citizenship (i.e., the citizenship one attained BY birth, by operation of natural law), rather than on citizenship obtained by operation of law (i.e., by operation of positive law that declared a person born in a certain place had a certain citizenship or by operation of positive law and volition to be "naturalized").

More here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2143728/posts?page=178#178