Skip to comments.Justices Won't Review Obama's Eligibility to Serve
Posted on 12/15/2008 10:48:10 AM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve president because of his citizenship.
The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.
Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.
He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Suppose Obama is not eligible for office. By what means do you think the issue could be resolved peacefully? If Barack Obama were disqualified at this point, there would be major riots and the result would be a major crisis of legitimacy. Although the Constitution would give Electors and Congress essentially plenary authority to select the President, anyone they select would be widely seen as illegitimate. I think many judges would rather allow in someone they knew to be illegitimate than have someone appointed to office contrary to the people's vote.
Any demand that Obama produce documentation prior to the counting of EC votes in Congress would have the problem that (1) if they hold that failure to produce the documentation prior to the count would disqualify Obama, they've got the mess above; (2) if failure to produce documentation doesn't disqualify Obama, then he would have no reason to comply with the demand.
On the other hand, the judges would have an option to keep an illegitimate president out of office without having to actually disqualify him. They could rule that Barack Obama is free to take as long as he wants to produce the necessary documentation; Joe Biden (assuming he can supply his own credentials) can serve as Acting President until such time as Barack demonstrates eligibility. If the Court were to do that, there would be no need to say at any point that Obama was disqualified. If some prestigious ambassadorship or something opened up somewhere, Barack could announce that he thought Joe Biden was a good President, and his own skills would actually be put to better use in that other position. The issue of Obama's legitimacy would thus be rendered moot.
Why would you think that? None of these ruling have had anything to do with the merits of the case. They dealt with "standing" and with requests for "stays and injunctions", to prevent actions from occurring, thus preventing harm until the Court could rule. Many of the cases are still alive, even if their requests for injunctive relief and/or stays have been rejected.
Even at the lower court levels, the cases have not been argued, other than at the level of "briefs". Evidence has not been presented, if there is any to present.
The potential need to do just that is part of the reason that prices of AR type rifles have gone through the roof, and are pretty much not to found, except at few even more overpriced dealers.
I'm curious: if the information on the picture that Obama claims to be his COLB matches the information in Hawaii's files, which do you think would be easier for Obama:
In the meantime could be a good long time, especially considering how relatively young "The One" is.
If he, and his minions, are willing to violate the "natural born citizen" requirement, what other parts might they violate? We know, based on his own website, both campaign and "Change.gov", that he's willing and even eager to violate Amendment II. Why not Amendment XXII as well?
You blew your hole case. Under both common and statue laws of England, anyone born of two British subjects outside the realm was considered "natural born", even if only the father were a British Subject, under the statue law the child was a "natural born subject".
That was pretty much the standard in most countries, although some required both parents to be subjects/citizens if not born in the country. But few granted, or grant today, that status to people merely born in the country, but of alien parents. But England did, and the US does.
If Obama was born outside the US and possessions, he does not meet the criteria, since his father was a British Subject,. He also was not a citizen at birth, because his mother did not meet the requirements of the law in effect at that time.
What would you have the Supreme Court do prior to Barack Obama's officially becoming President-Elect? The designation of anyone other than Barack Obama as President-Elect would create a major crisis of legitimacy, and I see no way of avoiding that.
The only sane remedy I can see would be to invoke the Twentieth Amendment in such a way that Barack Obama would be free to take as long as he wants demonstrating eligibility; if necessary, Joe Biden could serve as Acting President until such time as Barack demonstrates eligibility.
If a public announcement were made that if Barack is eligible he can be inaugurated within hours simply by phoning the Hawaii department of records and authorizing them to authenticate his COLB, I would think that should effectively cause people's anger at the delay to be directed at Obama, rather than the Court or anyone else. The only way to stir up anger elsewhere would be to acknowledge that Barack's birth records don't match his claims, and that would be a dangerous move for Obama.
You said — “In the meantime could be a good long time, especially considering how relatively young “The One” is.”
Well, it’s a maximum of two terms... and that’s it. I already heard all that other “conspiracy stuff” about Clinton staying in office and/or suspending the Constitution. I read all that, here on Free Republic.
And then you said — “If he, and his minions, are willing to violate the “natural born citizen” requirement, what other parts might they violate? We know, based on his own website, both campaign and “Change.gov”, that he’s willing and even eager to violate Amendment II. Why not Amendment XXII as well?”
There’s a difference between something that is speculated on and/or hidden and is a *possible* violation. You see..., the problem here is that no one *knows* for sure. And that’s what gives a huge amount of “leeway” in the issue.
HOWEVER, with those other things you’re talking about, they become *plain and obvious* once anything is done to *overtly* violate a Constitutional requirement. That’s the big difference and that’s why anything else — done overtly — can be “seen” to be a violation. With this “qualification issue” of Obama’s — it’s not able to be clearly “seen” and that becomes the major part of the problem.
Now, there’s another thread that talks about a Constitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment and that we need only two more states for that Constitutional Convention. Some were saying that if that happened, then we could lose the entire Constitution (I’m using this example for a reason). But, if we look into it, we see that any change or amendment must *still* be approved by 3/4 of the states before it can go into effect, so it’s not any more of a problem than any other amendment that might come out of Congress.
I’m pointing this out because anything else that Obama would do “on the surface” would not be a hidden issue and there would be mechanisms in place for dealing with it, just like there are for a Constitutional Convention and how to ratify any amendment. It’s done “openly” and “on the surface” for everyone to see. It’s likewise with anything else that Obama would do with the 2nd Amendment (which would require 3/4 of the states to ratify any changes...).
It certainly is in the United States, and England. But in most countries it would be a given. If your parents were not citizens, then you are not either, regardless of where born. (if parentage is "mixed", most go with the father's nationality and citizenship).
One example, Children, and now grandchildren, of Turkish "guest workers" born in Germany (and in some cases of parents born in Germany) are still considered Turkish nationals, and must carry Turkish passports. Fortunately for them, Turkey agrees, and I know one young lady, program manager on a fuel cell program, who is in just that situation.
In a sense that is what the 20th Amendment seems to imply, but will those who are supposed to do that invoking actually do the invoking????
What 17 y/o girl in her right mind would have become involved with a 25 y/o foreign exchange student, from a (at best) third world country, who just happened to have a wife an a couple kids back in Africa?
I don't think Stanley Ann was *ever* in her right mind from puberty on.
Under the laws in effect at the time, if he wasn't born in the US, he wasn't a citizen at all. Unless later naturalized, he wouldn't be one today.
This issue is not over with yet.
Tonight at 9 ET on my radio program, I will be talking to Dr. Orly Taitz, the constitutional lawyer involved in the California Case brought by Alan Keyes, and the Lightfoot v Bowen case now under consideration for hearing by SCOTUS Justice Kennedy.
Taitz’ reaction to today’s news was “very concerned”. She’s filing another lawsuit on behalf of our military, petitioning the court on the basis that our military is put in an unlawful position taking orders from an imposter commander in chief.
Join me tonight — and call in if you have questions — the number is 646-478-4604.
Listen to the show at:
Read more about it at my website:
Being the son of a US citizen mother, he could have very easily and quickly been naturalized if hadn't been a citizen at birth. There's a whole section of the US immigration code entitled "Expidited naturalizatino of Children."
That would have made him eligible for all the welfare his mother had wanted at the time, negating any incentive for her to fraudulently claim a US birth.
Unless...thanks to the magic powers of a tinfoil hat, she was somehow able to forsee that one day her son would run for president....Something to think about.
You're kdding. Haven't you ever read Othello? Teenage girls are often attracted by exotic men who are slightly more mature. It's not that hard to envision a naive, idealistic 17 year-old from Kansas falling for a dark and dreamy 25 year-old African.
It's not like he was an illegal alien. He was on a full scholarship and had fairly good prospects. And it's not like he was all that much older. An 8 year age difference isn't a big deal. It's not like he was old enough to be her Dad.
As to his wife and kids back home, from what I had read, she was not aware of them. That he failed to disclose them to her was, in fact, one of the grounds for her divorce.
Come to think of it, that he was a bigamist makes it even more absurd to suggest that he took her back to Kenya to give birth. If he were hiding the fact that he was already married and with kids, why the heck would he take her back to his family and run the risk of her finding out?
That's just plain loony.
Another thing to think about is why the founders put the natural born requirement in the constitution in the first place...Another is to look at 200 years of precedent in the election of presidents, and how they met the requirements, and how that differs from the present situation.
Provided (1) she knew that (2) and it wasn't much easier to just file for a "late" certificate, or the sort that only required that one parent had been a resident of Hawaii for a short period (1 year?) prior to the birth.
Since we haven't seen the *real* Certificate, and there is some indication the Certification has been altered, we don't know that she "faked" anything. She may have reported the correct date and place of birth, and that would be reflected on the Certificate. Or she could have "faked" a late registration, and little Barry is actually several months older than we think.
Yes, a 1963 birth certificate long form shows section 7c. The caption is: County State or Foreign Country. In the copy shown it was simply stated Honolulu. The birth being there in that case. All is needed is the long form of the President-elect. The details can still be redacted if of embarrassment to him and is his own private business. Just the hospital and attending physician is needed.
If she would have known to file a late certificate, I find it seriously doubtful that she would not have know about the naturalization process.
(2) and it wasn't much easier to just file for a "late" certificate, or the sort that only required that one parent had been a resident of Hawaii for a short period (1 year?) prior to the birth.
What incentive would she have to lie to say he was born in Hawaii, as we know his certificate says?
Since we haven't seen the *real* Certificate,
Yes we do. The certification of live birth that his campaign provided is as valid, as official, and as "real" as anything else.
and there is some indication the Certification has been altered,
Where is this indication? And no, some anonymous allegations by a guy with a phoney Ph.D. don't count.
She may have reported the correct date and place of birth, and that would be reflected on the Certificate.
If that's true, and he was born in Kenya, then the COLB that he provided would list Kenya as his birthplace. It doesn't.
Or she could have "faked" a late registration, and little Barry is actually several months older than we think.
I suppose. It's also possible she flew back from Kenya in a black helicopter with little Barry on her lap. Anything is possible if you're wearing a tinfoil hat.
I've seen the photos of the man. Dark he was, very, but dreamy, not hardly. His son is much better looking. IMHO, he looks mostly like a darker complected version of his maternal grandfather.
But even if she was "naive and idealistic, she still wasn't in her right mind, by the standards of the day especially.
But you make my point, if she was that enthralled with the Luo dude, she'd have gone to Kenya if he told (much more likely than "asked", which is what I typed first) her to.
BHO Sr, himself was no common sense kind of guy. A big dreamer and apparretly like Sam Houston, a Big Drunk. Houston had the advantage that horses generally don't crash and kill you if you ride drunk. :)
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.