Posted on 08/25/2008 7:42:37 PM PDT by neverdem
PHILADELPHIA - A Lafayette Hill attorney filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Sen. Barack Obama's claim to United States citizenship. The action seeks to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot.
To be eligible to serve as U.S. president, a person must be born in this country. According to Obama's birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors that he is foreign born, the Illinois senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961. On Thursday, Philip Berg filed a temporary restraining order in federal court to bar Obama from running for president, claiming the Democratic candidate was actually born in Africa.
"We really don't believe he was born in Hawaii," Berg said. "We think he was born in Kenya."
The presidential candidate's father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, according to Obama's campaign Web site.
Berg's suit claims the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country.
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign. Eventually, Obama's father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. Also, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.
"If he was born in Hawaii, and he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, (Obama) would lose his citizenship," Berg said.
The Obama campaign has a special section on its Web site, "Fight the Smears," that debunks the birth certificate story and other reports that have circulated about him during the campaign.
"It's part of a smear campaign," said an Obama campaign volunteer who identified herself as Rachel. "There are just so many lies out there."
The lawsuit claims three "independent" document forensic experts performed extensive tests on the digitally-scanned image of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on the campaign's site and found the document to be "a forgery."
Jerome Corsi, author of the book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," has also deemed the birth certificate phony, according to The Annenberg Political Fact Check, www.FactCheck.org.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, aims to expose deception and confusion in U.S. politics.
Recently, FactCheck.org staffers "touched, examined and photographed" the original birth certificate kept at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago and concluded the document is genuine.
"The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.," FactCheck.org staffers concluded.
Sean Smith, Obama's Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.
The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Keith Phucas can be reached at kphucas@timesherald.com or 610-272-2500, ext. 211.
Yeah. MY birth certificate says I was born in [Town] Naval Hospital, in [Town].
The problem is [Town] Naval Hospital, is located in [Adjacent Town], not [Town].
Go figure...
“That’s called jus sanguinis It’s the same rule England used to press American sons into service in the British navy. That is why I believe our founding Fathers rejected it. The US government does not have absolute rights to the firstborn of every American citizen.
We are citizens not subjects! “
And by defining Citizens of the U.S. as being offspring of two citizens would make us “subjects” exactly how? Simply because the founding fathers disagreed with it doesn’t make it bad. They disagreed with the wording in the Constitution,and finally “compromised” on much.
“Sure, can you define American? So keeping with the spirit of YOUR posts, we can safely assume that Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Somoans, Brazilians, and a whole host of other “-ians”, can become President?
Nope, none of those country names include the word American.”
You’re right, but America is the name of not one, but two continents. America is NOT the name of any country. Pretty much anyone in the Western Hemisphere can call themselves an American. Much like the old Soviets could call themselves Soviets no matter which of the oppressed countries they came from. It’s only because we haven’t really gien our country a name. Even after lincoln deigned to demand federal rule.
“Can we step back from Hyperbole-land?”
I will if you will. 225 years indeed.
“That is neither what I said, nor what I meant, and you know it.”
Yeah, sort of the way I felt, bub. That whole 225 year old comment was assinine, and I felt it needed to be responded to in kind.
“Besides, let’s see YOU define the word “IS” without using the word “IS”.
The third person, singular, present indicative of ‘to be’”
As in?
“Define American blood. (We’ll give you a pass on “American” vs “Citizen of the U.S.” for this one.)
Any citizen of the United States has American blood flowing their veins. “
Hardly. A naturalized citizen immigrant from anywhere else does not.
“Not every citizen can be president.”
Like I said.
“but we would simply define “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
If only it actually was defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t be agonizing over it right now, would we?”
And if you did better parsing, you wouldn’t be.
The words “natural born citizen” are written in the Constitution. I said we DEFINE it (because we NEED to).
“Find one that wants to be a politician. Well, except me of course, but I fear the power might corrupt me.
*sigh* Me too. Besides, I could never survive the vetting process...”
Sure you could. Unless of course you have a spotless record of always supporting the Constitution.
bj billie smoked pot, barry is a cokehead, bj was also a philanderer, jimmy carter lusted after women that weren’t his wife. jfk was a philanderer, a liar, and probably cheated at cards. fdr was a communist. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.
If you haven’t been found at a murder scene with your hand on the knife inside someone’s ribs, you’d pass the vetting process.
I’m gonna want a position in your cabinet though as Secretary of Defense. I want Limbaugh as Secretary of State. I like playing with guns, and Limbaugh will give me lots of opportunity.
“Patience my FRiend. Barry S. gets elected and the Congress becomes more Solidly Socialist, that could happen, sooner rather than latter.
Only problem is, it might be Russians doing the hanging.”
See, in one post you raise and lower my hopes.
In sentence two though, you make me feel justified in all that range time and ammo purchases.
If two Americans move to, say, Australia with the intent of becoming Australians, and the US government treats them and their offspring as escaped slaves SUBJECT TO American law, e.g. they draft their son into the US Army, they are SUBJECTS, not citizens.
That whole 225 year old comment was assinine, and I felt it needed to be responded to in kind.
Agreed. I thought so when you first brought it up, and you apparently think so too. If you'll agree to drop trying to shore up your side of the argument with a passage that was clearly indented to be a temporary bridge for the time needed for natural born Americans to have lived long enough to be 35 and eligible to hold the Office, I'll drop it too.
America is NOT the name of any country.
Mind boggling. Hello????? There is exactly one country on earth that has the word America in it's name. The citizens of that country call themselves... wait for it... place your bets... AMERICANS
As in?
The dictionary. YOU LOSE. I defined 'is' without using the word 'is' exactly unlike you defined 'natural born'.
I this point I believe meaningful discussion is impossible. You are incapable of staying on track, nor can you recognize even the most glaring truth.
*sigh* But I'll at least finish this response.
Hardly. A naturalized citizen immigrant from anywhere else does not.
Bloody well does. Otherwise they wouldn't be Americans would they?
Unless you insist that someone who has taken all the efforts of learning more about America (May I call America America? Pretty please?) than 90 out of 100 high school graduates and has satisfied all the legal requirements, and unlike a 'natural born' American has taken a loyalty oath to America is a lower, second class, not as good person the someone who is here by accident of birth.
In which case I am certain meaningful conversation is impossible. You look down your nose at far to many of my friends and colleagues for me to wish to talk to you. May I suggest you will find abundant like-minded people at your local KKK or Aryan Brotherhood meetings?
I said we DEFINE it (because we NEED to).
Amen to that!!!
So tell me, without parroting a passage from the Constitution that contains those words, what is the definition of 'natural born'? Deadly serious question. And one that needs to be answered before the general election.
It's somewhere between 'any offspring of any American' and 'any offspring of TWO American citizens, delivered vaginally, within the territorial limits of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia'
Note that those are not circular definitions, they define the words 'natural born' without requiring the use of the words 'natural born'.
Now you try.
Sure you could.
I sincerely doubt it.
Unless of course you have a spotless record of always supporting the Constitution.
That only disqualifies democrats.
“If two Americans move to, say, Australia with the intent of becoming Australians, and the US government treats them and their offspring as escaped slaves SUBJECT TO American law, e.g. they draft their son into the US Army, they are SUBJECTS, not citizens.”
So in your example, defining citizen then defines them as subjects. Huh...
“Agreed. I thought so when you first brought it up, and you apparently think so too. If you’ll agree to drop trying to shore up your side of the argument with a passage that was clearly indented to be a temporary bridge for the time needed for natural born Americans to have lived long enough to be 35 and eligible to hold the Office, I’ll drop it too. “
Yo jackass. I brought it up to point it out to the other person to show it was such as bridge. The fact that YOU didn’t read my earlier post, and then posted the 225 year old comment displays YOUR lack of comprehension. I used it to explain AWAY the stand-alone term of “citizen” in said passage because some tried to stop reading the same passage at that word. Amazing you’ve survived so long.
“Mind boggling. Hello????? There is exactly one country on earth that has the word America in it’s name. The citizens of that country call themselves... wait for it... place your bets... AMERICANS”
Mind boggling? Not really. Not for those that actually pay attention when it was pointed out that “America” is NOT the name of a COUNTRY. Using it as such for shorthand doesn’t make it so, and your continued insistence that it’s the “only blah blah that uses it” still doesn’t make it so.
Now, if you’ll pay attention, you will note that the Constitution (the specific passage we are talking about, and since you’ve finally realized that you caught up to me on ignoring the “bridge”) doesn’t say citizen of “America” is says citizen of the United States.
If all of the countries of Europe decided to start calling themselves the “United States of Europe” (not losing their national sovereignty) would they ALL be citizens of the country of Europe?
When Russian formed the Soviet Union, were Ukranians U.S.S.R.ers or were they Ukranians? Simply because the Socialists demanded they be called Soviets, or citizens of the U.S.S.R. that didn’t make it so. Simply because you call all Americans citizens, it shows you might be wanting to follow BHO’s example of being a “citizen of the world”.
“As in?
The dictionary. YOU LOSE. I defined ‘is’ without using the word ‘is’ exactly unlike you defined ‘natural born’. “
I wanted you to do what the dictionary often does, give an example. It was meant to be a joke, but your apparent lack of humor, and self perceived status of greatness forbids that.
When I said that “natural born citizen” needed to be defined, you misrepresented what I said, and attempted another pointless jab.
I recognize the truth all the time, but you want to “loosely” define something that can only be well-defined.
The fact that you sprinkle off-topic comments about and then claim I can’t stay on track when I reply to them is indeed worth a smile.
The fact that you claim I said that you had to be 225 years old to run as President, shows your dishonesty.
You’re right.
Conversation with you IS pointless.
Go ahead and dazzle us with another reply. I await with bated breath.
Nope. No point.
Two points. First, they couldn't have rejected it based on the pressing of Americans into British Navy service, since that mostly happened around 20 years *after* the Constitution was written. Secondly they didn't reject it at all. The 1790 law, passed by the first Congress only 3 years after the Constitution was written in September of 1787, provided:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".
The practice of pressing young men into service dates back as far as Elizabeth I, late 1500's.
At the establishment on the Constitution the Founding Fathers were surely aware of this practice. After all, Britain had been occasionally pressing New England fishermen into the Royal Navy for nearly two centuries.
Yes, it didn't become a major enough issue to go back to war with Britain until 1812, but is was one of the zillions of details they considered.
Even the 1790 law didn't extend natural born citizenship beyond the first off-shore generation.
When the 1790 law was repealed the new law dropped the language 'natural born'. Dammit. That would have made McCain's eligibility exquisitely clear!
If only we could get the Supremes to rule that for the purposes of holding the office of the president the 1790 requirements suffice, then McCain wouldn't suffer under one or two terms of leftists insisting that he's an illegal president because he was born a couple miles from the Canal Zone. You KNOW they will!
The down side? This phrase: "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" Barrack Obama Sr. was a resident of the US as a student, and that would also qualify a Kenyan born, Indonesia raised Stanley Ann Dunham, Jr., err, Barry Toot, uh, Barry Soetorro, ummm, Barrack, Jr.
I'd be willing to sacrifice a McCain (at the very best I only have tepid support for in anyway) to permanently drive a stake through any thought of an Obama presidency. You may have a different threshold. I can respect that.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but:
"The framers of the constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance" never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good people of these Colonies...are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards this as "high treason." So the common law--the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance--could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e. republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!" - Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science
I read this to mean that being an American is different than the preceding reality, and that being an American citizen is not something imposed on someone by an accident of birth. It can derive from being born in American to Americans, or it can be earned by the citizenship process. It is an actual right, not an obligation. We even allow people to leave!
The question still lingers: What did the Founding Fathers mean with a restriction unique to holding the office of the president, that of needing to be not just a citizen, but to be a 'natural born' citizen.
I believe that their intent was to exclude anyone with any hint of divided loyalties, specifically including a certain fondness for a place of birth other than on US soil disqualifies.
YMMV.
Anyway thanks for raising excellent points, I even managed to learn a little (pre-coffee no less!) formulating an answer.
That's a good summary!
Obama Sr was a a vistor, a temporary resident. That, imo, is not a “resident” under the terms of that law.
Thank you.
Too bad the other guy was utterly unable to give me a non-circular definition.
He lived here for an extended period of time, even a temporary resident is arguably a resident.
And the left lurves to argue...
Thank you for your homework and excellent analysis. I agree with you all the way. This is a real keeper.
Should McCain be told to go home, the “barracuda” will do just fine. She may very well be our own Iron Lady. Although she is only 44, she has shown iron courage.
I do not care about a candidate’s shade of skin or whether male or female. I just want the best there is to get our country jump-started in the right direction after 16 years of multiple disasters.
Allow me to dream…in alpha order so I am not accused of favoritism, the combination of Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin would be just beyond belief.
At this moment, Hillary must be having a Shi’ite fit. All her crooked, sick aspirations are evaporating.
Thank you again.
I thought he might make a different one.
McCain's ideal a running mate:
He wants someone who will make him look like a moderate
Someone who will appeal to women voters
Someone who can steal democrat votes from Obama
He wants to be bi-partisain, and "reach across the aisle"
(And if he really HAD picked the Hildabeast for a running mate we'd STILL have people here trying to convince us that he's the bestest possible candidate)...
McCain one (or a fraction of one) term, and a then more experience Jidal as Veep?
That works. That works very well!
At this moment, Hillary must be having a Shi’ite fit. All her crooked, sick aspirations are evaporating.
I will not count the Hildabeast out until the last of a legion of demons reluctantly departs her rotting corpse.
She can still nuke Obama (If she has his real BC, for example) and crush Biden into selecting her as ViPer.
If she times it right, McCain-Feingold will prevent an effective campaign against her.
“I will not count the Hildabeast out until the last of a legion of demons reluctantly departs her rotting corpse.”
You are correct. One cannot let one’s guard down against the moraless, crooked, egomaniacal, pompus, god-complexed, sick Clintons.
Y’know what sounds good? A couple of Guinness!!
Besides, I have Ratboy this weekend, how does Monday evening sound?
I’m moving this weekend. I’ll get with you next week.
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.