Posted on 04/16/2010 4:26:38 AM PDT by BCW
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia Posted: January 29, 2010 12:20 am Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama'seligibility to be president has brought a "Quo Warranto" case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama's eligibility. She previously attempted Quo Warranto cases on behalf of government officials, without response. This time she filed the action directly with the court on her own behalf. "The case revolves around the federal question of eligibility of the president under Quo Warranto," she wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’ve said what they HAVE decided.
“Did she really obtain one with a document that did not state where she was born and/or identify a disinterested witness (usually a doctor or a midwife) to the birth?”
The certificate from New Mexico gives the County of birth. No ‘witnesses’, no hospital, etc.
and now comes the inevitable dig on my intelligence
Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, has said, “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate”
Obama’s says Honolulu.
And you believe that not hearing a case is making a ruling decision on a case, right?
Do you understand the legal definitions of the words you're using?
You must have retired rather recently then.
Do you understand that if a court refuses to hear a case, it means they think it a waste of time?
FWIW, I retired in the fall of 2008 - a month before Obama’s election. Happily, my retirement was signed by GWB.
Yeah, I read that article too.
This:
“We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
refers to McCain, not Obama.
You've produced a quote from someone who states a fact not in dispute.
Obama’s says Honolulu.
She didn't say that, did she?
ML/NJ
The certificate says Honolulu. She said, “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”
Wrong. The founders documented that it is a child of two US citizens at birth. David Ramsay, founding father and Historioan documented it when the constitution was created.
Obama is not a qualified president. Sorry. So sorry.
I queried...Can you give the cases where that was decided or the statute where it was enacted into law?
You then gave me a link to a case you believe proves your assertion.
And now you say that a footnote in a decision supports your assertion even when that very footnote details that the court did not "address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad".
Have I got that right? Where is your original assertion supported in that footnote when the court admitted, albeit in a footnote, that they didn't even address the issue of natural born citizen status of a child of US Citizens born abroad?
I hope I was concise enough for you. You're going to have to help me out on this one.
Guess I need to use small words...
If you have evidence that Obama was born abroad, fine. Present it, and I think the courts will back you up. I think Congress would back you up, since it would mean Obama was guilty of fraud.
However, many birthers say Obama is not President because his father was from Kenya, since a NBC needs to have both parents be Americans. The court ruled this is not so - that Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the USA.
You may not like it, but that is what they ruled.
The footnote you cite talks about McCain, who was born abroad.
“The founders documented that it is a child of two US citizens at birth.”
Wrong. One did. Others did not. The Indiana Court, backed by the state Supreme Court, said US Supreme Court decisions mean a NBC is one born in the USA.
And since the US Supreme Court refused to hear a case before Obama’s inauguration, it isn’t likely to take one 2 years later...so Obama is President, and that precedence will rule in the future.
Nothing that you wrote supports the claim you made in reply #36 so you're bottom crawling? Not very becoming of you.
However, many birthers say Obama is not President because his father was from Kenya, since a NBC needs to have both parents be Americans. The court ruled this is not so - that Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the USA.
WHERE?! Where has any court ruled or decided that he was born in the USA? Which court and which ruling or decision?! And don't play ignorant 'cause you've already proven that you know the meanings of the words...
Think back...Can you give the cases where that was decided or the statute where it was enacted into law?
You swallowed it hook, line and sinker 'cause you gave a case where a decision was rendered, buddy, at reply #58!
The case which you purport to support your first assertion doesn't do that and it's for damn sure not in footnote #16! Hawaii isn't even mentioned a single time in the case you proffer.
So now you've got two bees in your bonnet!
So, is it your view that the “laws” in effect at the time he was born can narrow the constitutional qualifications?
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.