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 ...
Well, I still think the Supreme Court knows better how to handle this than those who think the best course is for the cities to burn!! How about we take a breath here and calm down a little. Maybe Obama really IS a citizen of the US? Huh? What about that? Maybe we’ll be ok after all?
Please read my post #43 on this thread.
My gripe about Obama is not so much whether he is a natural-born citizen (although it is obviously essential to become POTUS), it is the obfuscation. It is all so Clintonesque.
Perhaps the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans in this sense because they keep so much of their past hidden. The openness and transparency of the majority of the Republican candidates has often gotten them into trouble. But ethical, morally upstanding leaders rarely have anything to hide.
But what about Obama????
Yes, because he would have been born in a US territory, which is just as good as being born in a state.
How was citizenship of Hawaiian residents determined upon gaining state-hood? I assume not all current residents were citizens let alone natural-born (if any).
If they were born on Hawaiian soil after it became a US territory in 1898, then yes, they are natural born citizens. Those born before then were not. Instead, they were naturalized when the US assumed soveriegnty over the islands. Of course, this is all moot, since I doubt there are very many Hawaiians before 1898 still around.
This is not complicated.
Constitutionaly ‘Citizens’ need not apply.
(feigned ignorance is hardly curiosity, nor more so truth.)
I understand that Obama would not be eligible to be president if he were a naturalized citizen. I never said otherwise. What's your point?
curiosity:”This is not complicated.”
Of course it is not complicated when you maintain the standards you have chosen. If you just rely upon somebody’s word that indeed they were born in Hawaii, then it is trivial.
How do we know that the documentation and records that Hawaii kept for 60 years prior to statehood were accurate and legitimate? How do we know that the standards they maintained were consistent with those that the continental 48 states maintained.
This seems to be your problem. You are taking too much of the argument at face value without gaining a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, laws and their interpretations were very different then. At the time of Churchill’s birth citizenship by blood could only be passed on through the father. From what I have read of the early writings of our founding fathers, women were considered to obtain U.S. citizenship by simply marrying a U.S. citizen.
I'm not relying on anyone's word. I'm relying on an state document that officially certifies such a birth.
How do we know that the documentation and records that Hawaii kept for 60 years prior to statehood were accurate and legitimate? How do we know that the standards they maintained were consistent with those that the continental 48 states maintained.
The state department and the department of homeland security trust the integrity of Hawaii's records. If you have some evidence that they are not legitimate, present your evidence.
No, they are afraid of the truth. If the truth is pursued, it could mean rioting all over the nation by disaffected minorities.
No, they are afraid of the truth. If the truth is pursued, it could mean rioting all over the nation by disaffected minorities.
Riots are unlaw acts. No one wants them. Riots are done at one’s own’s risk.
Looks like a lot of new freepers here since the election.
Only has Fox said a word about the CRA after the election.
You know what Polly, this situation is truly a travesty. America is letting this just “slip” by and is intentionally overlooking a very important “legal, constitutional” issue. America WILL rue the day that they let this imposter RULE the country in his ultra left wing commie manner and pour major socialistic laws all over you. Having lived under a major Socialist regime (Chretiens Liberals) for 13 years I can tell you that it does not take long to undermine EVERYTHING that your country once stood for. And it is no easy task to undo that even when you get a Conservative government back in. Been there. I fear greatly for the United States. It appears to me that it is on a greased pole heading south and very few appear to give two flips in the wind!! Sad. CO
The Donofrio theory, on which this other suit is also based, always struck me as a non-starter. I think SCOTUS is taking the interpretation “natural born citizen = citizen at birth”.
The issue arises only because of the age of Obama’s mother. Under citizenship law prevailing in 1961, if Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not have been a citizen at birth. Under Hawaiian law in 1961, foreign birth could be registered with a Certificate of Live Birth, of which a genuine Certification of Live Birth is a shortened version.
No, wherever he was born, his parents announced his birth in their local U.S. paper because that’s where the U.S. part of his family lived.
The real question, and the main reason this is still going on, is why Obama hasn’t done the obvious thing to shut all of this down, and asked Hawaii to send a certified legal copy of his Certificate of Live Birth to the PA court where Berg filed suit. There is something he wants to hide in his birth certificate. What? He wasn’t a citizen at birth? His father was really the Communist Frank Marshall Davis? What? The other reason is that Berg claims that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother says he was born in Kenya.
You nailed it.
Perhaps, but then it wouldn't list his birthplace as Honolulu, unless you are willing to believe that the state of Hawaii deliberately lies on its official documents.
Does the apathy towards this situation not truly astonish and frustrate you??? I am sure that those who really do care must be tearing their hair out. I am and I’m not from there. My two American cousins however, are beside themselves. CO
No, but since no one I know of has seen anything other than a computer image of the document, which computer imaging specialists have analysed as fraudulent, neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether the real COLB (either long or short form) lists Honolulu as the place of birth.
curiosity:”Perhaps, but then it wouldn’t list his birthplace as Honolulu, unless you are willing to believe that the state of Hawaii deliberately lies on its official documents.”
Of course, that is the million dollar question (or at least Obama has spent a few hundred thousand). How can we judge the veracity of the government officials of Hawaii (all conveniently Democrats). What is different between the vault copy of the birth record that is not on the abbreviated document...
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.