Old whatsisname is no longer a member of the Illinois Bar for reasons which are sealed. He also falsely denied drug use, and any traffic violations. Typically, a wayward attorney might be offered a chance to "voluntarily" withdraw from the bar, and have all records sealed, rather than involve the parties in a possibly acrimonious proceeding. Old whatsisname's Bar Files are sealed.
In re the sealed original birth certificate: That is exactly what is done in the case of adoption by a step parent. The question is, was the Soetoro etc. moniker ever LEGALLY CHANGED BACK?
IMHO, it is possible that DuJan is not quite on target in one regard. That is, it is entirely possible that Barry was born elsewhere and Grandma Dunham just "phoned it in," as was very often the case in Hawaii in that period. As a result, neither DuJan, nor I, nor any Freeper can be sure either way! Smells fishy. Might be chicken?
I have always had the sneaking suspicion that the COLB/BC deal, while important and certainly germane, was a monstrous sleight-of-hand; a misdirection; away from the real issue of Barack Senior's citizenship. It has certainly helped Team Obama confuse the issue by conflating "Native" Citizenship, which is barely possible for him, with "Natural Born Citizenship," which on the face of it is impossible for him. In that regard, Team Obama has surely gotten its legal dollar's worth!
Gee, I wonder if I could get a Judge to look at this in court. What do you think?
I agree that the birth certificate is nothing but a distraction. Its only purpose, if ever produced, would be to ascertain one way or the other where BHO was born.
The real question is before the court in this case, and can be determined only by the SCOTUS: what was the intent of the Framers in inserting the term ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution for the Office of President, and no other?
The Constitution was a very carefully crafted document. “Citizen” status was adequate for every other Constitutional office. But NOT for the Office of President, who serves as Commander in Chief.
I would submit that every literate person in the US and Europe in the late 1700s new exactly what that term meant, and it needed no further elaboration. Unfortunately, with the passage of time, lawyer-types have twisted it to suit their own purposes.
This SCOTUS, or one in the foreseeable future, will have to interpret that phrase once and for all. Hopefully sooner rather than later, before we have to face this question with a massive generation of ‘anchor babies.’
We can only hope there are enough Justices sitting on today’s High Court who take their own Constitutional duties seriously enough to face this tough question.