Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg
There is no retraction necessary. I’ve already documented (earlier in this conversation) the only two eligibility lawsuits in which Perkins Coie defended Obama: Berg v. Obama and Hollister v. Soetoro. I’ve documented the total number (8) of filings that Perkins Coie made in those two cases and that last dates of activity by Perkins Coie in those cases, October 2008 and December 2009, respectively.
Perkins Coie did not represent Obama in any new eligibility lawsuits during that time. Yes, the DOJ would provide such defense.
I see the confusion now about the word “new.” My first response included it. My second didn’t. The first should have included it as we’ve already established the two existing eligibility lawsuits in which Perkins Coie provided representation. It was simply a typo in omitting it the first time. For that confusion, I certainly do apologize.
I agree that those things would be none of your employer’s business.
However, Obama is holding the highest office in the land. We’ve looked into other presidential candidate’s medical and military records which would also be none of your employer’s business. So isn’t there an unspoken requirement of significant disclosure by those seeking to hold the highest office in the land?
If who paid for Obama’s education speaks to his allegiance and past associations, why should that be irrelevant?
Good discussion point, lucysmom. Thanks for raising it. Are we entitled to see anything other than a candidate’s proof of residency, age, and citizenship status?
I was correcting the false claim that these documents do not exist. In fact, the COLB does exist and a newpaper birth announcement does exist. There is evidence that is clear for both:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/08/birther-madness-ii-bhos-birthplace.html
What was posted on the internet have been photographs of the documents. saying the docs don’t exist because they’ve only been posted is like me saying you don’t exist because I only see the electronic words you write.
Not hard to find ...
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/08/birther-madness-ii-bhos-birthplace.html
Yeh, by the discredited and dissembling Factcheck. If they are your source, then you are trusting in thin air. All you see is a photoshopped photograph -- not a document.
Attack the source all you want, it’s still a real document.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
“Obama was not listed as a defendant or the DOJ provided the defense.”
Yup, US attorneys are doign the defense work. We the taxpayers are probably paying for much more of obama’s expenses on these than any of Obama’s political supporters.
Does a presidential candidate have the same Constitutional rights and protections enjoyed by non candidate citizens? We are entitled to ask any question we wish, however we are not Constitutionally entitled to answers.
So isn’t there an unspoken requirement of significant disclosure by those seeking to hold the highest office in the land?
An unspoken requirement is not a legal, Constitutional requirement. Individual citizens make voting decisions based on whether their particular requirements are met as is their right.
If who paid for Obama’s education speaks to his allegiance and past associations, why should that be irrelevant?
Do colleges keep track of the source of money used to pay a student's tuition? I'll have to ask a friend with a son in college; his tuition is being paid by a collection of scholarships, loans, and money he's earned.
With the relevance of past associations in mind, you might find this interesting.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/MNCFLEADIN.DTL
When it is claimed that Obama's BC was posted on his campaign's website, are they referring to Factcheck as his campaign's website????
There have been 62 eligibility lawsuits. Obama’s personal attorneys defended three. The DOJ defended seven. The rest were either dismissed sua sponte or Obama was not listed as a defendant.
“Good discussion point, lucysmom. Thanks for raising it. Are we entitled to see anything other than a candidate’s proof of residency, age, and citizenship status?”
Interesting reading about Terri/Donofrio and Hawaii cover up:
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0
Natural Born Citizenship and the qualifications for which have been established in English Common Law, on which our laws are based, since the 1600’s, two parents born of that nation, the baby being born on that soil.
I believe the author has confused English Common Law with De Vettal.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PNkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=english+common+law+citizenship&source=bl&ots=w5Vd0zi5Ak&sig=TAiGZ_s5_hShp9CV20TAd9wEDLc&hl=en&ei=IHY7S76CDo7csgO937DLBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=english%20common%20law%20citizenship&f=false
It is interesting to note that Winston Churchill's mother was an American.
I agree, and Ben Franklin was a huge proponent of Vattel, see links:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” […]“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
From Wikipedia
Prior to Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court had held that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 1884). U.S. citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark has acknowledged both jus soli (citizenship through place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from parents).
It would appear that citing Wong Kim Ark affirms Obama's NBC status rather than supports the notion that he is not a NBC.
Perhaps the author of your link has misused, or misunderstood Wong Kim Ark when she concludes that In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this..
Bookmark #126.
“When it is claimed that Obama’s BC was posted on his campaign’s website, are they referring to Factcheck as his campaign’s website????”
A graphic image of the Certificate of Live Birth was posted on Obama’s website in June 2008, prior to sharing and posting a picture of the COLB on factcheck website.
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.
