Posted on 11/03/2008 11:20:35 AM PST by Sibre Fan
The decision was handed down today – it is a long and well-reasoned analysis.
***
Today’s decision is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I have made a good living working in out nations courts and have the utmost respect for them. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system.
***
Now, the decision.
There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.
[Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president]
With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast. The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:
“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”
Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.
As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.
Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.
The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).
[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:.....
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
“British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama's UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963. However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
Hmmmm
Honestly this whole thing is rather confusing!
I thought it was the certificate of live birth that was the documentation of the baby’s birth location.
Then you need to construct a valid legal argument, based on existing law, neutralizing the acceptance of the certification and requiring disclosure of the sealed original BC.
Whining “a COLB isn’t enough” isn’t enough. The issue must be articulated legally. The RKBA crowd spent 70 years trying to figure this out (finally got _Heller_).
See the comment #12.
Is this judge a Democrat?
If he is, he should have recused himself.
What was funny to me (in an ironic sort of way) is that the State of Hawaii has different standards of proof, depending on whether or not money is involved. Why not require a BC for proof of citizenship? Because to the state, citizenship status is not as important as its bogus concept of “native authenticity.”
Again, why would he not release it?
My wife and I had to have our birth certificates, marriage certificate (for my wife), social security cards, and former state's drivers licenses to get our driver's licenses in New Hampshire.
How is it that this bastard child of a promiscuous mother doesn't have to present his COLB to verify he is eligible?
Who should he have to present it too? Us, we the people, we are his boss.
HS, the candidate needs to satisfy the conditions of eligibility, and he needs to do it now. McCain showed his because when this issue first cropped up Bozo and the boys switched it to McCain being born out of the country totally ignoring the fact he was born to two US citizens, one of whom was military personnel, making him a citizen even if he had been born on the moon. Bozo has offered no proof and the point is this: If he has a valid vault copy of his BC then why isn’t he showing it? Why keep showing a COLB over and over and sealing his real BC? Your arguments are not essential to this judgement. The judges in these cases should go ahead(in fact they have a duty to do so) and order Bozo to produce a vault copy of his BC because if he is a citizen then fine,if not then not so fine. Showing a BC in no way violates his civil rights nor infringes on his freedom. To argue otherwise is to argue for fraud.
No, it doesn't. HI issued COLBs for non-citizens, B.O.s sister is proof of that.
All the state did was attest to the existance of a vault copy (original). The state made no such statement that B.O. was a natural born citizen of HI.
IF he wins the situation changes.
But it is impossible to win a challenge if he was indeed born in the State of Hawaii.
I’m on your side. Really. We can’t win without presenting a compelling LEGAL argument. Whining coulda/woulda/shoulda isn’t enough.
The COLB shows the location of birth as Hawaii. It is certified as a true representation of the BC. End of Obama’s argument at this point, until someone presents a compelling LEGAL counter-argument. Whining “that’s not good enough!” isn’t enough.
Ok, maybe there is reason to show that a COLB isn’t enough. You have to provide a LEGAL justification of why that isn’t enough, such as finding someone else’s COLB showing they’re born here _and_ a BC showing they aren’t. THEN you have to show why the judge should care about YOU and your complaint, that you actually have standing (which, at this point, nobody has because he’s just a name on a ballot representing electors).
As for the privacy of the BC, how ‘bout I go get a copy of yours and publish it? Most jurisdictions rightfully limit access to personal BCs. One should have compelling LEGAL reason to access it.
The core point: you must be able to show _in_existing_law_ why BHO must reveal his BC. Good luck. If your response is another variation of “but he SHOULD...”, don’t bother. I agree with you, but that’s not going to get us anywhere.
I agree! We are SUPPOSED to be his boss. That is the problem - the powers that are trying to take over this country see it the other way around.
This is on the verge of being a constitutional crisis. I suppose they figure we’ll forget about it but we do so at our own peril. The laws need to be changed. We shouldn’t have a President who can’t get a Top Secret security clearance and who won’t verify his place of birth to the public.
Gosh and I thought those same Hawaiian officials said that the original document still remains under seal. If this document does not have the name of the doctor and the hospital on it, then its not worth the affidavit accompanying it.
Gosh and I thought those same Hawaiian officials said that the original document still remains under seal. If this document does not have the name of the doctor and the hospital on it, then its not worth the affidavit accompanying it.
Hope you've got your asbestos jammies on....
Don't you just love elevated, rational, issue-based debate?
Sorry, left "Commie" out of my description of his mother.
Update folks. I just checked http://www.whatsyourevidence.com - a rather (!) anti-Berg site. They have not posted this reported decision, and have added a note that they have information that it may not be “real.”
Given that that site has every “reason” to post information that contradicts Berg’s case, and still is calling reports of this case into question, I consider that a rather big deal, so am posting that as an update here.
Now I don’t know what to believe - and recognize that i’ll get flamed for this - but this poster’s prior posts on ObamaCrimes sounded very believable.
In the interest of full disclosure, am posting this as FYI.
I don’t find this article on the Obama Crimes website and the link pulls us into the comments section where I still don’t see it.
You are saying the judge is lying about having seen a valid certificate?
He may have seem a COLB. Different documents.
All I know is what I read and this ruling says it has seen evidence that he was born in Honolulu. This could be a lie I realize.
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.