Um. no.
His internet COLB is proof positive that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
Until today there was no proof either way accepted by a court.
Until today no case got far enough to establish legal FACTS of the case, as no one had "standing" to question his lack of bona fidies.
Until today the status quo was all we had.
Today we proved in court that although legally, he is a citizen, he is not a Natural Born Citizen within the definition the Founding Fathers intended.
Ironically, Leo cites dicta in MvH to create the illusion of precedent and ignores the dicta in WKA to establish precedent. Either you think dicta is precedent or you realize that only the holding is precedent.
Where has SCOTUS ever issued a ruling on the definition of Natural-born citizenship? That’s right! It doesn’t exist.
The only way to get someone kicked off the ballot is to prove they are a naturalized citizen or a non-citizen. The Georgia ballot challenger Plaintiffs just got evidence submitted Obama was native born and its been accepted by the Court as undisputed fact.
Obama will use Judicial Notice to prove he’s native born and it’s undisputed in Court. No native born citizen will be kicked off the ballot as a POTUS candidate.
What he posted online can’t be proof positive of anything - unless it’s actually at least accurate, and since it’s not genuine we have no way of knowing whether it’s accurate or not.
That’s the concern that Sven has. The attorneys weren’t using an “even if” argument: EVEN IF Obama’s documentation was accurate, he wouldn’t be NBC. It seems to me they were saying that his alleged documentation IS accurate, and that’s the reason for Sven’s concern.
If they presented Obama’s claims as simply being Obama’s claims, then wouldn’t it be the job of the judge to establish the facts of the case before actually deciding the matters of law? I’ve read a case where the judge said that they can’t argue cases on an “even if” basis. The case has to be decided on the basis of findings of facts.
What am I misunderstanding here? Were they arging that “even if” Obama’s BC’s are accurate he wouldn’t be eligible, or were they arguing that SINCE Obama’s BC’s are accurate he’s not eligible?
It’s an important distinction, I think. And it’s why some of us were saying that without a genuine birth certificate the NBC argument couldn’t even be made because there is no evidence that Obama’s father WAS Obama Sr.