Justices Won't Review Obama's Eligibility to Serve

AP ^ | 12/15/2008 | staff

[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.

[Lumper20]

CO. We have a bunch of spineless whimps, gutless wonders, and victims in the USA. These punks rarely serve their country, and bitch if their tennis shoes get dirty like my no good 23 yo SIL does.

[Lumper20]

TRUE.

[Peter Libra]

Of course a COLB is entirely dependent on the integrity and accuracy of the clerk or archivist. This should have been evident to our critics. I have seen what purports to be and possibly (guarded statement) is, the corroboration of what is said to be on the long form. This on the reverse side of the COLB. The name of the official is a well known and qualified authority. I believe, a Mr Onaka.

Just when I thought that this almost puts the matter to rest, I took a closer look. The "signature" and statement to the effect that it is a copy "or abstract" of the long form, is a mere rubber stamp.

The official could be asked to sign an affidavit, and verify the rubber stamp entry. Nothing to that hopefully, not much to ask surely. Well I guess this enthusiastic amateur and research buff on biographies, will have to call it a night.

The enormous number of replies and views on this subject is an absolute compliment to Free Republic. The volume of views and differing ones are the life's blood of free speech. Having gone overboard, I will carry on tomorrow.

God Bless America.

[yldstrk]

Chickens

[TChad]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been busy.

Truth is not measured by Google hits.

American public interest is crudely measured by Google hits. You know, the same American public that Obama will be representing as President? Is it good for the country to have a large group of Americans believe that Obama would be an illegitimate President?

Regarding my link, you said:

Pretty much everything there has been answered here:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-certificate/

Your linked page does not answer "pretty much everything" from my linked piece, it answers nothing of it. It focuses on the question of whether or not the short form is a forgery, which is not even discussed in the linked piece. As I said, I don't care about the short form. Whether it is legitimate or a forgery, the long form or "root document" is what matters.

This, from your linked page, was cute:

Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born children as being born in Hawaii: Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says...

The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982, 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration in 1961. See Figure 2 above.

This carefully avoids the question it pretends to answer: Could Obama's mother have obtained a Hawaiian birth certificate (or something similar) in 1961 had she given birth in Kenya? Just because a 1982 law was not in effect in 1961 says nothing about the law in 1961. Perhaps In 1961 mothers with infants recently born abroad were met at the airport upon their return to Hawaii and told, "Sorry, ma'am, you'll have to turn right around and take junior back to his country of origin." Or, maybe not. Perhaps the law in effect in 1961 was basically the same as the 1982 law. A real answer to this question, not a fake answer, would be helpful.

The piece I linked points out that the short form is not considered adequate documentation for paternity cases, and is not even adequate documentation for Hawaiian state agencies:

...DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

Here is the question you won't answer: If the short form COLB is considered inadequate documentation for paternity suits and state agencies, why on earth should it be adequate documentation for Obama to assume the presidency? Why should second rate documentation be tolerated, when first-rate documentation can be so easily obtained?

Of what possible relevance is the name of the hospital and doctor?

Of what possible relevance is providing easily available documentation that would help confirm his place of birth, when a large group of Americans doubt his offered documentation? It is like asking "Of what possible relevance is water to a man dying of thirst?"

Here is all that Obama has to say:

I have asked the appropriate Hawaiian state agencies and the hospital where I was born to immediately release to the public all documents related to my birth.

Problem solved, unless he was born in Kenya.