US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

This is what i didnt like about the msnbc news video.

1. I havent seen anything about worldnet daily saying obamas BC is "legit "
2. someone thinks he was born in canada?
3. the host said that we are "living in denial"
4.he also said that this is a "bogus claim", well not to me, and hopfully not to anyone who loves the constitution.
5. and the big one....... they said that the BC they showed was his true BC they didnt state that its a COLB and how that is two different things.
Saying that is his BC on live news just told people who are sheep a lie and I bet millions that most people watching this thinks that its the real deal BC now. it shows how the media is not telling the whole truth.

he is right on about the case as far as i know. but he acts like there is no standing on any of the cases aginst him and thats upseting to me.(not to mention the times he said we are living in denial AND THAT THIS IS A BOGUS CLAIM.)

(just my opinion based on what i know, if I am wrong please explaine and i will look into it)

Originally posted by FightLies
1. I havent seen anything about worldnet daily saying obamas BC is "legit "

Edit: Here it is on WND.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

2. someone thinks he was born in canada?

Google it. Some people think that.

3. the host said that we are "living in denial"

That's an opinion. I think some people are, too. Sorry.

4.he also said that this is a "bogus claim", well not to me, and hopfully not to anyone who loves the constitution.

Another opinion. I think it's a bogus claim, too. I understand not everyone sees it that way. Why do you think the Constitution is not being followed? DO you think Obama was born in Hawaii?

5. and the big one....... they said that the BC they showed was his true BC they didnt state that its a COLB and how that is two different things.

Right. That was one of the inaccuracies.

Saying that is his BC on live news just told people who are sheep a lie and I bet millions that most people watching this thinks that its the real deal BC now.

To be realistic, if people are watching Keith Olbermann, they're probably Obama supporters and already think the suit is a bogus claim anyway.

This is a really good article with links that explains some of the discrepancies.

Great Slate Article on the story.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I will check out your links i think you have some infromation i have not seen, you are right about the opinions, there just opinions but he is projecting them on his listeners/watchers and thats what angers me.

anyways thanks for the links and info

reply to post by redhatty

I agree with BH. The poster makes certain interpretations to reach the conclusion he or she wants, which frankly, seems to be trying to assert John McCain’s eligibility without explicitly saying so.

But, if one were to make the strict interpretation the poster made, and following the same line of reasoning and logic, then McCain wouldn't be eligible either: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”.

From that strict interpretation, McCain wasn’t born in the US, nor was he naturalized in the US. Therefor, the 14th Amendment wouldn’t even contemplate McCain’s situation.

Which incidentally is what Donofrio claims:

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. He is a citizen at birth by statute. (...)

McCain is none of the above. He wasn't born on United States soil and he wasn't naturalized in the United States. Instead, McCain may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a) (source)

While I agree with Donofrio’s conclusion that McCain is US citizen by statute, I disagree with him when he says that McCain’s situation doesn’t fall under the category of “... naturalized in the United States”. I cannot make that strict interpretation.

I also disagree with Donofrio on the point that McCain was a “US citizen at birth by statute”. Donofrio rightly, in my opinion, points out that McCain “my claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a)”, but that addition to US Code was made by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 16 years after McCain was born.

Donofrio concludes McCain is a citizen by statute. He cites the statute that naturalized McCain (8 USC 1403(a)). How, then, he reaches the conclusion that McCain was US citizen at birth, if the statute that naturalizes McCain, was introduced 16 years after McCain’s birth?


Just out of curiosity, redhatty, you quoted the whole text of the poster? I’m just asking because if some context was left out, I might be judging the poster for something he didn’t mean.


edit: added reference to what post I was replying to.

edit: as redhatty pointed out here, 8 USC 1403(a) is retroactive to February 26 1904, disproving my opinion that McCain wasn’t a US citizen at birth.




[edit on 5-12-2008 by danx]

To answer your question BH about were I believe he was born is Kenya.


The Great Birth Certificate Scandal/Cover-Up of ‘08
www.tulsatoday.com...

Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)
www.youtube.com...://www.obamacrimes.com/

Was Obama Born In Kenya? / Video
www.youtube.com...

Sarah Obama Reveals Barack Obama Was Born In Kenya
www.youtube.com...

Obama Does Not Have A US Long Form Birth Certificate / Video
www.youtube.com...

OBAMA IS NOT A US CITIZEN | RESIGN NOW!
www.youtube.com...

Produce the Dog Gone Birth Certificate
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by FightLies


Ah, man, no need to add all those links. I've seen them all.

You realize the case the Supreme Court is looking at today is not about Obama's birthplace, right? It assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.

Originally posted by FightLies
4.he also said that this is a "bogus claim", well not to me, and hopfully not to anyone who loves the constitution.

I would argue that there is a difference between a substantiated legal case and a “bogus claim”.

Personally, I think Leo Donofrio’s case has some merit and the Supreme Court should hear it. Some people, however, seem to confuse or mix all the lawsuits out there [edit: you apparently were one of them], as trying to accomplish and arguing the same.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. While I’m sure there are plenty of cases of people who have that goal in mind, it is not the case with Donofrio’s.

His case in fact, if one were to read it, would show that Obama is not even the only or main ‘target’ (the defendant is actually New Jersey’s Secretary of State), and Donofrio doesn’t question that Obama was born in Hawaii, merely that Obama doesn’t qualify as “natural born” citizen because he was born with dual citizenship.

I disagree that this situation would disqualify Obama, but I recognize that it is a legitimate doubt one might have, and Donofrio makes his case based on nothing but legal interpretations, not “bogus claims” or Internet rumors, as is the case with Mr. Berg.



[edit on 5-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx
Donofrio concludes McCain is a citizen by statute. He cites the statute that naturalized McCain (8 USC 1403(a)). How, then, he reaches the conclusion that McCain was US citizen at birth, if the statute that naturalizes McCain, was introduced 16 years after McCain’s birth?


Just out of curiosity, redhatty, you quoted the whole text of the poster? I’m just asking because if some context was left out, I might be judging the poster for something he didn’t mean.

Donofrio's conclusions re: McCain are because 8 USC 1403(a) clearly layout dates for it's effect

Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

Even though the legislation was enacted 16 yrs after McCain's birth, it was made to be retroactive to Feb 26, 1904.

ANd, yes, I quoted the whole text of the poster. I also, partially agree with BH that the poster is proving a point they want to be true, I also think that the final line would have been better written Any Child born on US soil to Two US Parents is a natural-born citizen.

Originally posted by danx
Personally, I think Leo Donofrio’s case has some merit and the Supreme Court should hear it.

I understand where you're coming from on this, I think. You want the "natural-born" clause to be defined once and for all. And I'd like to see that, too.

But I'm not sure this is the right case to do that. Having Obama in this case makes it difficult. Because the question about him (Does having dual citizenship at birth disqualify a US-born person from being POTUS?) has already been answered with the presidencies of James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover, hasn't it?

Irish Nationality Law

By descent

A person is an Irish citizen by descent if at the time of his or her birth at least one of his or her parents was an Irish citizen.

So, some of them were Irish citizens AND US citizens when they were born here in the US.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I do know thats not the case but you asked were I thought he was born and I told you kenya and then I showed you some of the reasons why I think like I do thats all sorry if its all been coverd already. mybad.

the point I am trying to get to is that the media is handling this like its a joke that someone would question there messiah, I have a big problem with that. I think people need to know about this stuff.

give the people all the information tell the truth and then lets figure out what to do whith it.

Originally posted by redhatty
......

Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.

We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.

We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).

14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:

1. BORN in the United States

OR

2. NATURALIZED in the United States

A child BORN on US soil receives the same type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized.

Either could serve in the Senate or House but NEITHER can serve as President because they are only citizens. Not natural born citizens. They receive the same type of citizenship in different ways.

A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.

A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.

A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President.

So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?

A person with two US citizens as parents

I personally think that this summarizes the issue quite clearly

This is just silly.

The writer is assuming the set of citizens has to be exclusive of the set of natural born citizens.

However it makes much more sense that the set of natural born citizens should be a subset of the set of citizens.

Originally posted by redhatty
Even though the legislation was enacted 16 yrs after McCain's birth, it was made to be retroactive to Feb 26, 1904.

You’re right and I was gonna edit and add that to my previous post. Thank you, nonetheless for pointing it out

I also think that the final line would have been better written Any Child born on US soil to Two US Parents is a natural-born citizen.

So you’re of the opinion that only one born to two US citizens, classifies as “natural born” citizen? Is it because of the dual citizenship situation? I’m asking this because there are countries whose legislation doesn’t apply to the children of people who are living abroad, and those children are not granted citizenship for that matter.

In these cases, a child born in the US to a US citizen and an alien of one of those countries, would only have US citizenship. Would that then make that child a “natural born” citizen? Because the child would only be a US citizen at birth?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand where you're coming from on this, I think. You want the "natural-born" clause to be defined once and for all. And I'd like to see that, too.
But I'm not sure this is the right case to do that. Having Obama in this case makes it difficult.

I’m also of the opinion that Obama’s automatic dual citizenship at birth doesn’t disqualify him from being a “natural born” citizen. But Donofrio’s case also addresses John McCain (and Roger Calero), one born outside the United States to two US citizens, and a naturalized US citizen born outside the United States.

If the Supreme Court addresses this case, it would settle Obama’s situation - that I know you want to see settled as much as anybody else - but would also allow for the Supreme Court to address two other cases, that in my opinion, raise pertinent questions.

That’s what I mean in regards of having merit. I’m sure Donofrio is completely right in regards to Roger Calero, somewhat right regarding John McCain, and not right on Obama’s status.

Even though I’m pretty confident on my conclusions on all 3 situations, I can’t say for sure the Supreme Court would rule that way. Hell, apparently, not even constitutional scholars agree on what the answer is.

Originally posted by FightLies
I do know thats not the case but you asked were I thought he was born and I told you kenya and then I showed you some of the reasons why I think like I do thats all sorry if its all been coverd already. mybad.

I understand your concerns, even though I do not agree with your opinion. However, as BH as pointed out, this thread in particular is regarding a lawsuit that does not question Obama’s place of birth.

give the people all the information tell the truth and then lets figure out what to do whith it.

I agree that the people should have all the information, but with all due respect, this is an issue of legality and Constitutionality and as such, I don’t see this as a matter for people “to figure out what to do with it”.

This is something that has to be decided by the Courts. People can (and should) only input their personal opinions, preferences and concerns. Doesn’t mean they have much legal or Constitutional value, or even relevance, though.

Originally posted by FightLies
I do know thats not the case but you asked were I thought he was born and I told you kenya and then I showed you some of the reasons why I think like I do thats all sorry if its all been coverd already. mybad.

the point I am trying to get to is that the media is handling this like its a joke that someone would question there messiah, I have a big problem with that. I think people need to know about this stuff.

give the people all the information tell the truth and then lets figure out what to do whith it.

So much of what you are calling "this stuff" is misunderstandings, misquotes, untruths and unsupported allegations that no reputable media would want to be seen as supporting it.

For example, do you realise that Obama does not even have a living Grandmother? Sarah Obama is his father's third wife, and when she states she was there at Barack Obama's birth, she has just been discussing Barack Obama senior and is obviously still speaking about him. Listen carefully, write down what is said, and you will see for yourself.
When, on another tape, she says Barack is a child of the village, she is using a colloquial term that denotes ancestral roots.

When so much of the argument that Obama was born in Kenya is based on fanciful evidence like this, and there is absolutely no evidence that Obama's mother even traveled outside the US during the year of his birth, you cannot expect even Fox News to report on more than the mere fact that there is a rumour.

Does anyone have any idea when we might hear of the Supreme Court's decision? I have no experience with this sort of thing and just wondered if anyone else did...

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by FightLies
I do know thats not the case but you asked were I thought he was born and I told you kenya and then I showed you some of the reasons why I think like I do thats all sorry if its all been coverd already. mybad.

the point I am trying to get to is that the media is handling this like its a joke that someone would question there messiah, I have a big problem with that. I think people need to know about this stuff.

give the people all the information tell the truth and then lets figure out what to do whith it.

So much of what you are calling "this stuff" is misunderstandings, misquotes, untruths and unsupported allegations that no reputable media would want to be seen as supporting it.

For example, do you realise that Obama does not even have a living Grandmother? Sarah Obama is his father's third wife, and when she states she was there at Barack Obama's birth, she has just been discussing Barack Obama senior and is obviously still speaking about him. Listen carefully, write down what is said, and you will see for yourself.
When, on another tape, she says Barack is a child of the village, she is using a colloquial term that denotes ancestral roots.

When so much of the argument that Obama was born in Kenya is based on fanciful evidence like this, and there is absolutely no evidence that Obama's mother even traveled outside the US during the year of his birth, you cannot expect even Fox News to report on more than the mere fact that there is a rumour.

good post thanks for the information and no i did not know THAT HE DOSENT HAVE A LIVING GRANDMOTHER IS THAT TRUE? (wow)

(my step grandmother is still my grandmother, just wanted to make that clear)

I do think she was talking about child of the village though (roots).

do you think she was talking about being at obama's dads birth?

whats your take on the COLB and BC problem? I mean can we agree that its not the same thing and that he has not shown us his BC. (because thats my biggest problem with all of this, why can't he just show us the BC so this can go away?)

I will look into what you said..... anything eles I might not know? just asking because if I am wrong I am wrong, but I would like to know why.

Originally posted by danx
You’re right and I was gonna edit and add that to my previous post. Thank you, nonetheless for pointing it out

No Prob

So you’re of the opinion that only one born to two US citizens, classifies as “natural born” citizen? Is it because of the dual citizenship situation? I’m asking this because there are countries whose legislation doesn’t apply to the children of people who are living abroad, and those children are not granted citizenship for that matter.

In these cases, a child born in the US to a US citizen and an alien of one of those countries, would only have US citizenship. Would that then make that child a “natural born” citizen? Because the child would only be a US citizen at birth?

Second question first... I am a US Citizen and only concerned with the US Laws, though for personal reasons I may become much more familiar with Canadian Laws, my main focus is on the laws that define life in my country.

First Question: I am of the opinion that the Framers and Founders considered only those born to US citizens on US soil (after the adoption of the Constitution including the XIV Amendment) as Natural-born Citizens. I do think they accepted other methods of citizenship and even allowed people who fit that definition to hold many elected offices, with exception specifically made for the office of President.

I also fully understand their reasoning, why would we, as a nation, want to have someone in charge of our military forces who may harbor sympathies or allegiance to another nation that may or may not be our ally? Would we want someone with multiple allegiances to negotiate trade accords and treaties? Could we be absolutely certain that such an individual would ALWAYS have the best interest of our nation in the front of their minds as they hold that power?

But, for myself, I am more of a Constitutionalist in my political view. I personally believe that if we followed the letter of the Law of the Land we would be better off, unfortunately, that has not been our history as a nation in many cases. Too much federal control with less and less power left to the states is not what the Founders and Framers had in mind when creating this once great country.

reply to post by redhatty


But why would a baby's secondary citizenship necessarily mean he had "loyalties" to a country he'd never been to? Especially when he became an adult and let that secondary citizenship lapse...

And why would a piece of paper (his mother's US naturalization papers, for example) change that? The fact that his mother became a US citizen doesn't change the fact that he was born and raised here.

Just some thoughts.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by FightLies
I do know thats not the case but you asked were I thought he was born and I told you kenya and then I showed you some of the reasons why I think like I do thats all sorry if its all been coverd already. mybad.

I understand your concerns, even though I do not agree with your opinion. However, as BH as pointed out, this thread in particular is regarding a lawsuit that does not question Obama’s place of birth.

I agree with you, like I said before my bad

give the people all the information tell the truth and then lets figure out what to do whith it.

I agree that the people should have all the information, but with all due respect, this is an issue of legality and Constitutionality and as such, I don’t see this as a matter for people “to figure out what to do with it”.

This is something that has to be decided by the Courts. People can (and should) only input their personal opinions, preferences and concerns. Doesn’t mean they have much legal or Constitutional value, or even relevance, though.

I gree that it needs to be done in the courts. I just also think all of america should know. I guess i should have explained better. give everyone the information and tell everyone the truth then lets let the courts decide how to deal with it. lawfully


[edit on 5-12-2008 by FightLies]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Does anyone have any idea when we might hear of the Supreme Court's decision? I have no experience with this sort of thing and just wondered if anyone else did...

We may not hear anything until Monday Morning (around 10 am EST)