Posted on 12/09/2008 9:31:34 PM PST by rocco55
12/10/2008
I met with my family attorney today for 3 hours to discuss family issues. The last 30 minutes he discussed the Obama lawsuits. He is approximately 60 years old and has been practicing law full time for over 30 years.
He said that, despite popular opinions, the Supreme Court are not a group of predominantly liberal justices. In is opinion, the problem with the lawsuits is that if they reject the first one or two suits (Donofrio and Berg, for example) based on an unclear definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen", then the precedent will established to dismiss future cases addressing the same point as the major thrust of their case. One can make the argument that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen regardless of her age and the theory of applying 1961 citizenship guidelines (I mentioned her needing to live here 5 years after the age of fifteen in the U.S.) could be a matter of opinion at the discretion of the individual justices. I was born in New England. As an example, he stated that if my parents were visiting Canada and I was born prematurely in Canada, I would still be considered a U.S. citizen even if my father was born in Canada because my mother was from the U.S. (I don't know the legal answer to that question, but he said that is what the Supreme Court judges are considering in their analyses.)
So I have been WRACKING my brain trying to determine what would make a case with an alternate motive that might be considered worthy of a court hearing since the current ones are being denied and getting EXTREMELY critical reviews from the mass media.
I am not an attorney so my propositions set forth are just rudimentary ideas and ideally "viable" alternatives.
1. Can someone make a case that Barack Obama is NOT the legal name of the representative the Democratic National Committee has nominated as their presidential candidate ?
By definition, nominate itself has its etymological derivation from the Latin word for name ( nominatus, from nomin, nomen name )
Basically, if the DNC has not fully verifying the legal name of their elected nominee, DNC could be guilty of falsely promoting a candidate with an illegal name.
Can this be a form of "misrepresentation" --or "fraud" or "aiding and abetting" in promoting an illegal candidate. Can they be liable for such a claim ? Can they at least be indicted for this ?
Most legal scholars familiar with these cases (including Berg and many others) seem to agree that Barry Soetoro is Mr. Obama's "REAL, LEGAL" name !
Many suspect that the reason all of the "unavailable" records of Mr. Obama's past are because he attended college as a foreign student ! Didn't college affiliates refer to him as Barry Soetoro ?
ALL of hidden records might be hiding the same thing ! His REAL NAME !
1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available 4. Harvard College records -- Not released 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available 8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth-- Not released 11. Any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago--Not Available.
Can the question of his TRUE identity be used as an alternate argument for a lawsuit to get the court to order his birth certificate, hidden passports, and ideally, the additional records listed above ?
Didn't Mr. Obama sign an application to take the bar exam affirming that he has no other name other than "Barack Obama" ? or is this another SEALED document ?
If no charge is made other than to VERIFY Mr. Obama's name, perhaps the courts would look more favorably on an application like this as opposed to one that is demanding and insisting that he is Constitutionally unqualified to be our president. And if a case like this is heard, then others can argue as to citizenship later, or possibly claim that a 740 million dollar campaign was based on FRAUDULENT information.
2. Instead of suing Obama, can one elect to sue Nancy Pelosi ? She is the one who signed a certification that Mr. Obama was qualified to run for President ?
Can one make the case that SHE is liable for proving his Constitutional eligibility ?
I just cannot imagine that NOT ONE hospital or facility in Hawaii can verify that Mr. Obama was born ANYWHERE in Hawaii and ALL of the Democrats (along with the Mass media) are accusing the plaintiffs of these cases as 'chasing the wind' ! KILLS ME !
Can one sue Nancy Pelosi and insist that she MUST supply the name of the hospital or facility where Mr. Obama was delivered, and in the event of her inability to prove such, then the real birth certificate would have to ordered by the court as evidence ?
3. Can either the unverifiable name of the candidate or the lack of evidence of Hawaii being his birthplace be used as grounds that a "misuse of campaign funds" is in question ? There are laws that govern both the acceptance and use of campaign funds and if there is evidence that these funds were misused, maybe the DNC would be liable to answer to such claims ?
Reading and hearing these UNFAVORABLE reviews in the news is BEYOND DISHEARTENING ! I think we are in need of alternate ideas to reach our objective....THE TRUTH !
This is a quote from an msn.com AP article from December 8, 2008:
"At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed."
Did the Hawaiian S of S actually confirm this ? or is this a misquote? I would think this would be 'breaking news' if it were true.
One last comment, did ANYONE ever see the "backstage" footage from 2004 Keyes-Obama debate that was posted (and shortly removed) on YOUTUBE where Obama allegedly answered Keyes question on his citizenship with "That's OK, I am running for Senator, not for President" ! This is not in any transcripts nor in the TV footage, but was recorded by a private individual off the main camera set. If anyone has seen this, they might be able to retrieve it on their computer via the "RESTORE" or "GO BACK" feature. It would be a CRUCIAL piece of evidence.
Comments are welcome ! Thanks....keep the faith !
won’t catch anything with the bate your using.....
1, 2, 3 go........
Maybe we should stop trying to sue our way to elected office?
Just a thought.
What have we got to lose except Constitutional authority?
Can the question of his TRUE identity be used as an alternate argument for a lawsuit to get the court to order his birth certificate, hidden passports, and ideally, the additional records listed above ?
Didn't Mr. Obama sign an application to take the bar exam affirming that he has no other name other than "Barack Obama" ? or is this another SEALED document ?
Well, it adds up to the notion that Marxist Obama is certainly hiding SOMETHING!
I tend to think that given all the terrorists and criminals that Obama chose (and currently chooses) to hang around with, that someone might feel (rightly or wrongly) in some sort of jeopardy, and flip.
I freely admit that this might be wishful thinking on my part.
.
Sheesh. Go judge shopping, find an activist court, sue till you get your way. No thanks.
I’m not certain we are trying to sue our way into office.
It’s quite logical to assume that were it officially discovered that O’s not a U.S. natural born citizen, Biden would be President. I can accept that as being legal. I would not support filing any lawsuits about it.
If I don’t get my pie I’m going to sue him for that.
I’ve kind of been thinking along the same lines. Could it be possible the Supremes are not wanting to hear a case before the EC meets to avoid another Constitutional crisis? I know once Obama and Bidden are officially elected by the EC at that point if Obama is declared unable to serve Bidden takes his place. But what about before the EC meet? Since they have not been elected officially.
If nothing else the SCOTUS should step in and make an interpretation of what is considered a natural born citizen. I really don’t think they want to enter that realm and that is why they balk at providing a hearing. I also believe that they might be fearing the type of action taking place in Greece if they arrived at an opinion negative to obama.
The Supreme Court won't overturn the results of an election. And they certainly won't do it over the Birth Certificate issue.
Nor should they!
I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for that last statement. But I don't think that courts should legislate from the bench. They shouldn't make up new laws, and that's what it would take to disqualify Obama.
Yes, the constitution does list the requirements for the office of the president. But it contains no requirements for proof. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that candidates must provide a birth certificate in order to qualify.
Congress hasn't enacted a law to require a candidate to provide a birth certificate to prove his qualifications for the office either.
I'm not comfortable with courts fabricating new laws, even if I might agree with the laws they fabricate. Judicial activism is bad no matter the outcome. The proper place for lawmaking is in the legislature.
For over 200 years, we've taken Presidents at their word when they say they are "natural born citizens." No other President was ever required to provide a birth certificate to take office.
I wish there were laws that prevented unqualified candidates from even appearing on the ballots. And that's probably where our efforts should be focused. That is something that state legislatures can enact, and that the Secretaries of State of the several states can enforce in the next election.
While I might have preferred a different President on January 20, 2009, lawsuits about his birth records aren't going to change that.
However, it would be poetic justice if in 2012, Obama fails to get his name on the ballot in one or more states because he can't or won't produce the documentation required by new state laws.
The role of interpretation of the Constitution does not (constitutionally) belong to the Supreme Court. The SC took that role upon themselves in the 19th Century, but the Constitution doesn't give it to them.
But as the SC HAVE taken on that role then we may as well have them working for us for a change. Its not like they'll be reading penumbras or anything - the requirement for being "natural born" couldn't be clearer, they just need to decide what that means legally, grow a spine and enact it now.
I think all things being equal a family law practitioner doesn’t know squat about what makes the individual Justices of the USSC tick.
Why not? The Democrats have been doing this for years. why not fight back a bit instead of rolling over all the time.
Well the 20th Amendment adopted in 1933 anticipated a Supreme Court that would and should act in such a case with these words:
"if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified ...".
It anticipated just such a time when an elected President would fail the qualifications of office. What are the odds that just such a person would march around under the title: the President elect?
Beckwith wrote:None of this gets you anywhere.
They should decide if Obama is, in fact, a "natural born citizen." They should also clearly define what that means.
OK, let's say the Supremes say "natural born citizen" means someone who is a citizen and was born in the United States of America. That's just speculation, but it's the most obvious definition they can come up with.
Notice that I have left out any requirement for producing documentation. I can't see anywhere in the constitution where you have to produce a Birth Certificate to be President. Or a Social Security card, passport or drivers license for that matter.
Then what? The plaintiff in the case makes a complaint alleging that Obama isn't a "natural born citizen". Who is the complaint against? And what's the remedy sought? And is the complaint brought in a timely manner? And does the plaintiff have "standing" to bring the complaint? And is the matter something the court feels they should decide? or is it a political matter better left to Congress or the Electors (the electoral college electors)?
If the court even takes the case, the plaintiff in the case is going to have the burden of proof to prove that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The defendant can stand with a sworn statement that Obama is a natural born citizen to the best of his knowledge and belief. That's all it's going to take for the defense.
If the plaintiff says he's not, the plaintiff will have to prove it, and I doubt they'll have much cooperation from the defendant, or from Obama in proving it. So it will take reliable proof from other sources (preferably more than one source) that he either wasn't born in the USA, or that he isn't a citizen. Or that he fails to meet whatever requirements the Supremes read into their definition of "natural born citizen."
My whole point is, it's better to debate these issues in a legislative body, and hammer out a law that will apply. Then, if the time comes and there is a dispute, the courts have something to go on.
Like I said above, those who are hoping the courts will disqualify Obama are asking for the justices to legislate from the bench. They want the court to make up new requirements, after the election has been held. New requirements to be on the ballot or to be a candidate, or just new requirements to take the office if elected. The courts won't do this, and they shouldn't.
Beckwith wrote:OK, and what was George W. Bush hiding? He didn't volunteer his birth certificate either? What was George H. W. Bush hiding? He didn't volunteer his birth certificate. What was Reagan hiding? We never saw his birth certificate?
But none of that answers the larger question, "what is Obama hiding" and why is he fighting so hard to hide it?
I just read all the replies to your post...looks like the Trolls are out to discourage us.
Never give up. I have no legal knowledge, so I don’t know if your ideas are viable, but all I want is for the truth to come out.
SOMEBODY, SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE WILL FIND A WAY.
And, I’m reminded, that even Bill Clinton, thinking he was invincible, got caught by a stained dress,
And the research of two reporters uncovered Watergate.
or, even outside of politics, Al Capone got trapped by his tax returns.
As long as people like us keep on working on this, reading, researching, talking, something will come to light AND SOMETHING WILL STICK!!!
Yes, Keep the Faith!!
There is no “backstage footage” of any such Keyes-Obama exchange that I’m aware of. It is my belief that someone made the story up out of whole cloth.
Tom Hoefling
Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008
PS
Our goals in this are simple:
1. That the truth be known to all Americans, whether that truth confirms Obama’s natural born status, or whether it denies it.
2. That the Constitution be followed.
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.