Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American

Frivolous is convenient excuse to give. Evading Obama’s lack of NBC status is the easier path for them to take. None of these federal court opinions has proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen as to the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. This one didn’t either. It is just as easily for them to claim a case “frivolous” as easily to say Obama is a natural born citizen and is qualified to hold presidential office... if that was true. Gee Obot clown why is that not happened? Why has none of these federal judges claimed Obama an NBC?

Does this pResident look like he has taken his oath to the US Constitution seriously to you? Does he care about checks and balances of this government or does he hold them in contempt? Obama shows his contempt everyday and is in your face that he flaunts the laws of this country and certainly when it has to do with citizenship. As Obama has just proclaimed - “Obama: Being An American Not A Matter Of “Blood Or Birth”

One day Obot, you’ll get the zot here and I’ll be there to wish you bon voyage.

What is “frivolous” to you and what is deemed “legally frivolous” to judges and justices is an entirely different level of opinion.

The judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a “precedential opinion” in the Commander Kerchner, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al. lawsuit. That means THEIR opinion is binding precedent on all future US District Court Judges.

Obama doesn’t have to “care” about checks and balances. The checks and balances are built in to the system whether he cares or not. That is why Obama is continually being sued over his eligibility. However checks and balances don’t guarantee a win for one branch of the government over another. At this very moment Senator Coburn is trying to organize a filibuster of Obama’s nominee Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. THAT’s checks and balances in action. Any half way decent Middle School Civics class would teach you about how checks and balances work in the real world since you obviously don’t have a clue.

What “law of the country” regarding eligibility is Obama “flaunting” when 71 courts thus far have looked at the issue of his eligibility and none have ruled him to be ineligible? No court ever needs to proclaim him eligible since he has the same presumption of innocence under the laws of the land as every other American. Courts don’t find defendants “innocent;” they may however find them to be “not guilty.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals however did find that (and I quote) “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009.

Since Ankeny was a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for not having two American citizen parents, the Court’s finding was that you don’t need two American parents to be eligible to be president if you were born in the US. That sounds like an endorsement of Obama’s status on parental grounds to me. The other issue, of course is was he born in Hawaii or not. No higher court has reversed the Indiana Court of Appeals.

I will continue to maintain that the way to resolve the Obama eligibility debate is not through the endless civil lawsuit route with plaintiff after plaintiff being shot down on grounds of lack of legal standing, lack of justiciability and because it is deemed a political question.

In my humble opinion, the way to resolve this issue is through the CRIMINAL justice system by utilizing a grand jury investigation, subpoena power and compelling testimony from witnesses under oath. Obama DID sign legally binding documents asserting that he is a natural born citizen. Those signed documents of (for example) the state of Arizona are a legal entree into a fraud investigation to determine whether Obama committed election fraud. Then his birth documents can be subpoenaed by a prosecuting attorney directly from the state of Hawaii. There are no standing issues, jurisdictional issues or political question issues in a grand jury investigation. Grand juries can investigate anything they want to investigate. Why not Obama’s eligibility? Both Nixon’s resignation and Clinton’s impeachment grew out of Grand Juries.

I sincerely doubt that disagreements over the correct legal tactics used to resolve the Obama eligibility issue is grounds for me to be removed from this web site. But I’m not big on trying to predict the future. Anything’s possible, I suppose. I’m disappointed that you appear to just want the debate ended rather than to continue to vigorously defend your point of view.

Happy Fourth Of July!!! Isn’t it wonderful to live in the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth?

In meeting job qualifications, there is no “presumption of innocence.” The burden of proof is on the applicant. It is an affirmative responsibility not a passive one.

The “applicant” has had the job for a year and a half now.
69,456,847 voters selected the applicant, 365 Electors confirmed the applicant, and none of 535 members of Congress in a joint session of Congress with Vice President Dick Cheney presiding objected to the applicant assuming the job. The applicant was then sworn in by the Chief Justice in his role as director of Human Resources.

Since Ankeny was a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for not having two American citizen parents, the Court’s finding was that you don’t need two American parents to be eligible to be president if you were born in the US. That sounds like an endorsement of Obama’s status on parental grounds to me. The other issue, of course is was he born in Hawaii or not. No higher court has reversed the Indiana Court of Appeals.

So you can't find a federal court case that proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen. Oh, because there is not one federal court case that has done so - what's the count so far...about 65+ cases that have not said Obama is a natural born citizen? You are predictable. the Indiana Ankeny opinion is as flawed as Obama being the president.

Gee paid Obot, why didn't the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner cite Ankeny in their opinion as case closed since you think it is such a big revelation that Obama is a natural born citizen?

One of the clues to why they did not, that you know that Ankeny is a worthless opinion is by looking at their footnote 14 as those Indiana jurist clowns butted their own opinion's credibility to the crap-can.

Obama doesn’t have to “care” about checks and balances. The checks and balances are built in to the system whether he cares or not. That is why Obama is continually being sued over his eligibility.

So you admit he doesn't care about the checks and balances that are written in the US Constitution. So Obot, Obama took an oath to defend and support the US Constitution didn't he? I agree it is meaningless to him since Obama just by occupying the White House is in Constitutional violation. And if you haven't noticed, which you should have, Obama would do away with those 'checks and balances' if he could and he may have some success before this is all said and done. Obama is a threat to this nation's rule of laws and way of life, but you don't care about that do you Obot?

Any half way decent Middle School Civics class would teach you about how checks and balances work in the real world since you obviously don’t have a clue.

You're a clown fool. What do you think the overwhelming majority at FR that has an opinion about you think of what you are?

What “law of the country” regarding eligibility is Obama “flaunting” when 71 courts thus far have looked at the issue of his eligibility and none have ruled him to be ineligible?

You've got to wonder more to why none of the federal court opinions have gone ahead and found Obama a natural born citizen?

No court ever needs to proclaim him eligible since he has the same presumption of innocence under the laws of the land as every other American. Courts don’t find defendants “innocent;” they may however find them to be “not guilty.”

Gee Obot. This is not finding that the Marxist in the White House is innocent or guilty as in a criminal case. But the stupid Ankeny judges found it in their limited wisdom to find him to be an NBC why not the federal courts? So none of the tens of federal courts judges could not type in that Obama is a natural born citizen in their private offices and state why Obama is an NBC? It so easy that a retro caveman could do it.

The Indiana Court of Appeals however did find that (and I quote) “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject”

Based on the language? What type of nonsense is that? That's not specific now is it Obot? I think they mean the cherry picked dicta from Blackstone and who would not himself say Wong Ark a natural born citizen but a denizen, and beside De vattel is the citizenship definition that is the meaning and intent behind Article 2 Section 1, and Clause 5 to more specific. Again all one has to do is look at Footnote 14 of Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana to see that the Indiana opinion is worthless.

I will continue to maintain that the way to resolve the Obama eligibility debate is not through the endless civil lawsuit route with plaintiff after plaintiff being shot down on grounds of lack of legal standing, lack of justiciability and because it is deemed a political question.

I have no doubt about that Obot since you have admitted to being paid to do this.

I sincerely doubt that disagreements over the correct legal tactics used to resolve the Obama eligibility issue is grounds for me to be removed from this web site. But I’m not big on trying to predict the future.

So who pays you that salary Obot to troll? Does it come directly from the DNC or does it come from some Soros funded outfit? You are lucky I'm not running FR you would have been zotted a long time ago. You are still here because of the benevolence of the owner to post here.

Happy Fourth Of July!!! Isn’t it wonderful to live in the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth?

So are you flying the Stars and Stripes today? I doubt it. I suspect your heart belongs as with Barack Obama where he sees in his minds eye of flying the sickle and hammer on a red field waving in the wind over the US of A. Other than that have a happy 4th of July.

Othugga might like the red sickle and hammer along with the green field and crescent of Islam, maybe.

A small point about “since 0thugga’s already in there he has no responsibility to prove he’s eligible/qualified”:

I remember sometime in the last 1/2 year or so reading on FR about a guy who was a scam artist. He claimed a bunch of qualifications he didn’t have, including a law degree from Harvard. He was hired in some capacity based on his fakery, and when people started to doubt his degree, he had to put up or shut up. There was a lot more to the story as well as other scams, but in the Real World, if someone commits fraud to gain a job, no matter how long ago, if proven to be a liar and a fraud, OUT THE DOOR!!!

None of what you said addresses the constitutional qualifications for candidacy.

Sure it does.

For example, any one member of the House of Representatives and any one Senator could have submitted a written objection to Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate at the Joint Session of Congress held to count and certify the vote of the Electoral College. Those written objections could have raised the issue of Obama not meeting the constitutional qualifications for election. Both Houses would have then been obligated under law to conduct investigations into the objections before certifying Obama’s Electoral College votes.

Candidacy eligibility issues could have been raised any time between February 10, 2007 when Obama announced his candidacy and November 4, 2008 when Obama’s candidacy ended. Those issues were raised which is why Obama’s campaign created the “Fight the Smears” web site and posted a copy of a Certification of Live Birth for Obama on that site.

John McCain and Obama’s Democratic Primary opponents could have raised those consitutinal eligibilty issues in the presidential candidate debates. They didn’t.

Any state’s Secretary of State could have raised those issues before allowing Obama on the ballot in any state.

The US Supreme Court could have granted a hearing to any of the appeals that challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility such as Berg v Obama. The Supreme’s chose to reject those appeals from being heard.

So many dogs did not bark. That’s crazy, but that is what happened.

I know I asked my State’s Secretary of State to investigate the issue of his eligibility before the primary and they said they did not have to do so. The legal cases brought in my state where tossed before any hearing.

A stupendous massive suppression of the issue has occurred. Why?

“A stupendous massive suppression of the issue has occurred. Why?”

the Oligarchy hopes to dodge Constitutional accountability to We the People.

Its a test for America, because of the growing weakness of society there was a captive audience of the population that for the most part wanted equality, they have seen too many pimped out Escalades and Hummers being driven around and they want the free ride, they want their neighbors brought DOWN to their economic level, brought DOWN and given equal status.

They are sleeping socialists, they were willing to follow a leader no matter how unrealistic were the promises, they wanted to see a minority come into power and in effect be a person that can “help” the helpless.

Summing it up Obama is the product of a weak helpless society that has lost its fortitude, lost its will and is divided.

But there is a glimmer of hope, because of Obama America is actually reversing course and becoming more united AGAINST him, the more Obama works to DIVIDE America the more it appears to draw the fractured parties together.

People are beginning to realize that Obama will not help them, he has been playing America for a foll and is only trying to make everyone equally BROKE, DEPENDENT and willing to be the Obama junkie for his promise of “candy”.

So many dogs did not bark. That’s crazy, but that is what happened.

I know I asked my State’s Secretary of State to investigate the issue of his eligibility before the primary and they said they did not have to do so. The legal cases brought in my state where tossed before any hearing.

A stupendous massive suppression of the issue has occurred. Why?

My personal opinion is that the “massive suppression” is primarily because when the Republican Governor of Hawaii, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii and appointed Health Department officials of the Republican administration in Hawaii vouched for Obama’s birth records and his birth in that state, it took a great deal of wind out of the sails of the “Obama is ineligible” legal movement.

I also believe that the “Obama is ineligible” movement has used a losing legal strategy by filing civil lawsuits by plaintiffs who don’t have standing to sue. My personal opinion is that the criminal courts were the way to go by trying to find a prosecuting attorney to convene a Grand Jury investigation of Obama’s eligibility and then subpoenaing documents and compelling Hawaii officials to testify under oath.

No Grand Jury has been convened. Both Nixon’s resignation and Clinton’s impeachment grew out of Grand Jury investigations.

If civil lawsuits were going to be the strategy. John McCain should have been coerced by the Republican National Committee into suing Obama. In exchange for agreeing to be the plaintiff, McCain’s primary opponent, J.D. Hayworth could have been convinced to step aside with the assurance that McCain would retire in six years and the Senate seat would be Hayworth’s.

Can you imagine the worldwide publicity the “Obama is ineligible” movement would have received if John McCain had filed suit against Obama for being ineligible to be president?

You are exactly correct and none of them did. That only means that if Obama is a fraud they were grossly negligent, as have been the courts in not holding him accountible. All that happened was that two party hacks in each party filed forms with the states and said their guy was qualified. As I started this, Obama has never how that he is constitutionally qualified for the job and you cannot cite proof that he is. It will take a court to rule on that.

I laughed when you brought up McCain. Do you think that a guy born in a foreign country is going to challenge the other candidate for not being Natural Born?

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ``natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2543518/posts?page=36#36

I laughed when you brought up McCain. Do you think that a guy born in a foreign country is going to challenge the other candidate for not being Natural Born?

Yes. Since he was born in a foreign country to two American parents which you conveniently left out.

You are exactly correct and none of them did. That only means that if Obama is a fraud they were grossly negligent, as have been the courts in not holding him accountible. All that happened was that two party hacks in each party filed forms with the states and said their guy was qualified. As I started this, Obama has never how that he is constitutionally qualified for the job and you cannot cite proof that he is. It will take a court to rule on that.

Two courts have ruled that Obama is eligible and a natural born American citizen.
This is from the decision of the highest of those two courts:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

So you can’t find a federal court case that proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen. Oh, because there is not one federal court case that has done so - what’s the count so far...about 65+ cases that have not said Obama is a natural born citizen? You are predictable. the Indiana Ankeny opinion is as flawed as Obama being the president.

Gee paid Obot, why didn’t the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner cite Ankeny in their opinion as case closed since you think it is such a big revelation that Obama is a natural born citizen?

One of the clues to why they did not, that you know that Ankeny is a worthless opinion is by looking at their footnote 14 as those Indiana jurist clowns butted their own opinion’s credibility to the crap-can.

So you admit he doesn’t care about the checks and balances that are written in the US Constitution. So Obot, Obama took an oath to defend and support the US Constitution didn’t he? I agree it is meaningless to him since Obama just by occupying the White House is in Constitutional violation. And if you haven’t noticed, which you should have, Obama would do away with those ‘checks and balances’ if he could and he may have some success before this is all said and done. Obama is a threat to this nation’s rule of laws and way of life, but you don’t care about that do you Obot?

You’re a clown fool. What do you think the overwhelming majority at FR that has an opinion about you think of what you are?

You’ve got to wonder more to why none of the federal court opinions have gone ahead and found Obama a natural born citizen?

Gee Obot. This is not finding that the Marxist in the White House is innocent or guilty as in a criminal case. But the stupid Ankeny judges found it in their limited wisdom to find him to be an NBC why not the federal courts? So none of the tens of federal courts judges could not type in that Obama is a natural born citizen in their private offices and state why Obama is an NBC? It so easy that a retro caveman could do it.

Based on the language? What type of nonsense is that? That’s not specific now is it Obot? I think they mean the cherry picked dicta from Blackstone and who would not himself say Wong Ark a natural born citizen but a denizen, and beside De vattel is the citizenship definition that is the meaning and intent behind Article 2 Section 1, and Clause 5 to more specific. Again all one has to do is look at Footnote 14 of Ankeny, Kruse v. Indiana to see that the Indiana opinion is worthless.

I have no doubt about that Obot since you have admitted to being paid to do this.

So who pays you that salary Obot to troll? Does it come directly from the DNC or does it come from some Soros funded outfit? You are lucky I’m not running FR you would have been zotted a long time ago. You are still here because of the benevolence of the owner to post here.

So are you flying the Stars and Stripes today? I doubt it. I suspect your heart belongs as with Barack Obama where he sees in his minds eye of flying the sickle and hammer on a red field waving in the wind over the US of A. Other than that have a happy 4th of July.

I’ll let most of the rant above stand as good therapeutic emotional catharsis for RedPlastic but I’ll just add a tiny bit of Middle School Civics once again.
The United States does not have a true national election. We have 50 state elections to select electors plus an election in our federal district, the District of Columbia. Therefore, if the two courts in Indiana had found Obama ineligible due to his not being a natural born citizen because of the foreign citizenship of his father, the courts could have invalidated his receipt of Indiana’s electoral votes which is what the plaintiffs were asking for. If that had happened, it is certain that other states would have followed Indiana’s lead. So state court decisions can have tremendous impact on national election results.

But since RedPlastic asked nicely (for a birther), I will once again quote from two different FEDERAL judges’ decisions in Obama eligibility lawsuits, just for RedPlastic: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief FEDERAL US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US FEDERAL District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009

I think you need to read more. From what I have seen here these are narrow decisions which did not air the full issue. The court in 2009, did not see the birth records and we need the supremes to come in on the definition of natural born. So while you are satisfied that we have a legitimate person in the WH, I still believe that the issue of fraud is an open one.

Since you are settled about his qualifications then you won't mind joining us in calling for him to open his records so that we can see what our president has in his background. Also, it is a great opportunity for you to say "I told you so" to about 40 million Americans.

I think you need to read more. From what I have seen here these are narrow decisions which did not air the full issue. The court in 2009, did not see the birth records and we need the supremes to come in on the definition of natural born. So while you are satisfied that we have a legitimate person in the WH, I still believe that the issue of fraud is an open one.

Since you are settled about his qualifications then you won’t mind joining us in calling for him to open his records so that we can see what our president has in his background. Also, it is a great opportunity for you to say “I told you so” to about 40 million Americans.

There have now been 70 “narrow” (to use your term) decisions regarding Obama’s eligibility. When 70 decisions are lined up, they equal a 24 lane superhighway of court decisions on the issue. The US Supreme Court has had eight opportunities to look at Obama’s eligibilty:
Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supremes are not interested.

The only birth record that Obama ever needs to show has been posted on the internet for the entire world to see for two years now. That record has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii on two separate occasions.

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
###
For more

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009

It is the job of the loyal opposition to Obama to uncover whatever can be found to injure him politically so that the American people will fire him in 2012 or, if information is very damaging, to force his resignation earlier than 2012.
It is politically naive to expect Obama to simply hand over information to his political opposition.

I have no problem whatsoever with calling for Obama to release more personal information but I am also aware that both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush used the releasing of political information via “document drops” to their best political advantage to embarrass their political opposition.
Obama may very well release such personal information at a time when it is the most politically advantageous for him to do so in order to make his most ardent opponents look bad and vindictive.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by US District Court Judge David O. Carter who is a former US Marine, a Vietnam combat veteran and the winner of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. Judge Carter said:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009.

See? I’ve been doing my reading! ;-)

I guess you forgot to read the part where I said the president shyould open all of his records to the public.