Posted on 09/10/2009 4:54:47 AM PDT by kellynla
Americans’ who do not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen won a huge decision in California as a judge set three court dates, one of which will require the President to prove his citizenship.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in Southern California, it is the first time the merits of the President’s citizenship will be argued in open court.
The first obstacle the plaintiffs will have to overcome is an October 5 motion to dismiss as well as the arguments on the issue of discovery. From there the plaintiffs will have to navigate a pretrial hearing before Judge Carter will hear the case tentatively set for January 26, 2010.
According to Jeff Schwilk, who was in the courtroom, the judge was solid as a rock. “The audience of about 45 was nodding and giving thumbs up to each other on almost all of his decisions.”
“He (the judge) is determined to get Obama to prove he is eligible,” Schwilk explained. “Things are going to move very fast.”
However, Judge Carter hasn’t ruled on the discovery motion, which is the right to see the President’s still-concealed records. Judge Carter didn’t rule on the motion to dismiss either.
The next few weeks will tell if the California plaintiffs will actually be able to challenge President Obama in open court.
The lawsuit claims President Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia or Kenya. This would violate the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, it says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The records put forth by the President show that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth took place in Hawaii.
“It’s pretty close to check mate, but of course the Obama team will try to come up with something to get their way,” Schwilk finished.
“It’s not even at ‘Check’, let alone ‘Checkmate’.”
Did I say that? Noooooooooooooooooooooo
“Big step, no doubt, but a long way from over.”
No Shiite. LOL
“Thank God for the Marines.”
The few, the proud...
Semper Fi,
Kelly
This is why the definition of “native born” is so important.
She has to have so many years in the US by such and such an age, and she’s the only one who has to be a US citizen.
IF they can establish her whereabouts prior to the birth, and if they can establish her whereabout following the birth, then the closer in time those are to the birth, then the more likely that Obama was born in the US.
She is in Washington State, I believe, one month after the birth and ready to go to college. They’re calling her residence a place under her parents name (lease?) prior to the birth. How likely is it that in that final month of pregnancy she disappeared to Kenya to have her baby, especially if they can establish his presence in the US at that time at some eastern college? The burden would be on those who would propose that, because travel wasn’t as easy in those days, and she would have been 8 months pregnant.
So, if they say that the original is lost, then they default to circumstantial and other evidence. At that point they would have to prove that Obama is NOT a “native born” citizen, and I’ve not yet seen the evidence that can do that.
Now, if someone rules that “natural born” IS NOT the equivalent of the “native born” law, then we have a different horse race, but I think that even then, his opponents would have to prove he was born outside the country, and the circumstantial evidence I know of doesn’t support that.
All that said, let me add that I’ve argued long and hard that he should release his original birth certificate, and that his obfuscation is insulting.
In that sense, I’m on the birther side. The most open presidency ever should be immediately open about all documents.
hey, missy, you’re on the “renege list”...get lost
Why would there be two different terms if they meant the same thing? They don't.
even then, his opponents would have to prove he was born outside the country
No, it's irrelevant where he was born if he's not a natural-born citizen.
The real problem is that this obvious error was so easily ignored when Obama was vetted (cough cough) for the Presidency.
Pelosi should be jailed for her negligence.
My error - you are correct. The California Supreme Court would not be involved. However, just as bad is the CCA
in the 9th. It is my understanding it is loaded with Liberals.
The whole point is that there is nothing in the constitution that defines the term. Therefore, it will all be opinion, and they’re not going to make this decision based on one person’s opinion over another’s.
It will be made politically.
If it existed when he needed a "birth certificate". AFAIK, Hawaii did not start issuing CoLBs until 2001, before that they would issue a certified copy of the "long form", either printed from the microfilm/microfiche of the oringal or a photocopy of the original. Like this:
This an image of certified photocopy of a 1963 Certificate made in 1998.
This is an image of a certified microfilm/fiche print of an August 1961 Certificate made in 1966.
The latter is from a birth the day after Barry is supposed to have been born. Interestingly it's file number is lower than that of Barry's CoLB image. It was also filed 3 days *after* the Obama CoLB indicates it was filed. Yet it has a lower number.
Also interestingly, when researching some "certifigate stuff". I found this little tidbit on the Vital Statistics Page of the Honolulu Star Bulletin, one of the two papers that the "birth announcement" was supposedly found:
Each Sunday, the Star-Bulletin publishes Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health's Vital Statistics System.
The statistics cover the five-business-day period ending the Thursday of the previous week.
The dates listed do not necessarily reflect the actual marriage or birth date, just when the information was filed If that last little tidbit was true in '61, then there is a disagreement between the COLB and the "birth announcment(s)". The COLB says it's corresponding certificate was filed on August 8th, not the 4th which is the date shown on the COLB as the date of birth. Just something that makes me go "hmmmm".
So now you need to prove he was born in Kenya. He says he wasn't. The state of Hawaii won't say he wasn't. The Grandma interview is problematic because it's through a biased translator and she immediately denies meaning that Jr. was born there. The Kenya cert that Orly's trying to submit to the court has its own problems and not even WND buys it.
And Obama Sr. being African, especially if he had no intention of becoming an American citizen, would mean obama could not be a natural born citizen.
Tougher case to make. One US citizen parent+born on US soil has a pretty strong argument of "natural born" according to what case law is there. The strongest argument that I've seen is that he isn't a US citizen if he was born in Kenya because his mother wasn't old enough under the residency requirement. That just leaves you to prove Kenyan birth.
I've never heard that story before. Any details?
I think that would be the least of their worries. If Obama is found not eligible, they will be deep sixed for decades anyway, more likely they'll be dead, split into "blue dog" and "Red" factions/parties.
Something like that happened to the Whigs, eventually resulting in the Republican party, which was considered very radical at the time.
The truth be told, no one knows. My take is that impeachement is for Presidents, if he's not eligible, he's not President. He's an illegal usurper, if ineligible because of foreign birth, and never naturalized, he's an illegal alien usurper.
Half right, discovery would allow the plaintiff's attorneys to get a copy direct from the state of Hawaii, perhaps with accompanying affidavit, perhaps not. The judge will want to to see the paper, the seal, etc. The law in Hawaii provides that an order from a court of competent jurisdiction allows access to the vital records. A subpoena is such a court order.
It will only feel that way.
There are hundreds of words in the Constitution that are not "defined in the Constitution" because their meaning is a given.
Read the following link...
The term natural born citizen was first codified in the legal reference book "Law of Nations" in 1758, of which was used by John Jay who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. John Jay considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time had the "natural born citizen" clause inserted into the U.S. Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention..."The Founders required the President to be a "Natural Born Citizen" to help ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had unquestionable and unwavering loyalty to the United States of America, first and foremost.
Any Supreme Court uncompromised by expediency and dirty politics would have to decide in favor of the two-parent definition of natural-born citizen.
Yes, but that would not matter if the marriage took place in Kenya, where polygamy is legal and was, even under the British Protectorate.
Therein lies the dilemma. Today, a great number (a majority?) no longer believe loyalty to the US is appropriate. The Communists(?) and other nations have so infiltrated the land, those of us who revere the Constitution are outnumbered. It seems we have under 15 years until the collapse occurs, unless God sees fit to pull this sorry mess out of the dumpster.
The dates listed do not necessarily reflect the actual marriage or birth date, just when the information was filed If that last little tidbit was true in ‘61, then there is a disagreement between the COLB and the “birth announcment(s)”. The COLB says it’s corresponding certificate was filed on August 8th, not the 4th which is the date shown on the COLB as the date of birth. Just something that makes me go “hmmmm”.
Then they could easily say that that’s what they used for the passport, and that it’s since been lost.
What do you say to that? How do you prove that he is NOT a native born US citizen?
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.