Decision on Obama citizenship pending (Washington Times + 57 COMMENTS)

Decision on Obama citizenship pending

Court delays action on suit - 'They apparently need the time to deliberate'


Tom Ramstack (Contact)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/


The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.

The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari -- the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case -- would mean that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.

The Supreme Court's justices met in a private conference Friday morning to discuss the issue. At least four of the court's nine justices must approve before the case is heard.

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear the lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the justices' conference.

Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship -- which claim he really was born on foreign soil -- Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii but says he still held foreign citizenship at birth.

"Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth,' just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Kenya was British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.

Legal scholars doubt the court will hear the case. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders -- or stays -- sought by Mr. Donofrio. And doing so in this case would set up an unprecedented challenge to the presidency of a man who already has won the election and almost certainly will have taken office by the time any hearings or decisions could occur.

About a half-dozen people who say the court should stop Mr. Obama from becoming president protested in front of the Supreme Court on Friday morning.

"He does not meet the criteria of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers set out," said Roger Bredow, an Internet publisher from Bethlehem, Ga., who has tried to rally lawsuit supporters to block Mr. Obama's presidency.

Valerie Wohllheden, of Alexandria, said the danger is that in deciding the lawsuit, the Supreme Court might bend to "the will of the people" by allowing Mr. Obama to become president despite constitutional provisions.

"Then you've got mob rule," she said. "How can he uphold the Constitution if he's breaking it?"

The Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit that argues President-elect Barack Obama cannot become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Associated Press)

After the list of actions was released, Washington resident Theresa Cao said she took heart from the court's delaying its decision on whether to grant a hearing.

"They apparently need the time to deliberate," she said.

COMMENTS

*
By: Panamabound

This is another lying newspaper. Obama HAS NOT produced a birth certificate. He has only produced a "certificate of live birth", which has been inspected by several specialists in fraud detection and this document has been declared to be fraudulent by at least 3 parties. A "certificate of live birth" is not sufficient in the USA to even obtain a passport. Only a birth certificate is sufficient.

There is a tape recording of Obama's grandmother who is now living in Kenya who said that she was present at Obama's birth and he was born in Kenya. As far as I'm concerned he's a phony any way you cut it. That's why he's always smirking.
December 7, 2008 at 5 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: unspun

More on the Donofrio challenge, including rationale, context, and case law:

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2...
December 7, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: boopu2

Thank God! Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing by forcing Obama to produce a valid birth certificate! Obama is a fraud! He's trying to derail our country!
December 7, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: coolpillow

So happy that the TIMES - and the Kool Aid Drinkers- are Finally waking up! Just hope that the Supreme Court does the same.
OR We are lost-
Wake up Justice Kennedy- PRAVDA is paying more attention than YOU!
December 7, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: pff136

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel Adams
December 6, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Krazyhorse

I tell ya, I am so fed up with the whole thing, it is not funny. I don't know what the people are doing anymore???? this could be the single most important court case that we have ever had in America and we the people should make sure it see's the inside of a court room. I feel like my country is going soft and that is a shame.
December 6, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: adamsrelic

OK, let me get this straight. I sign up my boys to play baseball and I'm required to present their birth certificates, yet this guy can run for president and nobody checks his credentials? What's wrong with this country?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery

The Obama Zombies seem quite pleased with this because they themselves have sold their souls to this charlatan Obama or whatever the hell his name really is. He is the mystery man of the New World Order. He is far more secretive than his equally incompetent predecessor GW Bush. He appears to have been groomed for this role by the elite for many years. If we can ever get them to release his college info we will see what this student of Bzrezinski has been hiding from us. They should take him to court for that info to be released to. Let the court proceedings begin.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery

Obama was born in Kenya. Berg has the sworn affidavits proving this. Obama produced a false certificate of live birth claiming he was born in Hawaii. This is not the same thing as a birth certificate. He did so knowing it was fraudulent and a lie. He used that false document to claim he could legitimately run for office of POTUS. It stands to reason that he had some doubt or he would not have lied and produced a falsified document to try and put the issue to rest. The DNC is also complicit in the fraud as well as the national media who continue to try and cloud the real issue.

Here is a report by Dr. Polarik proving this COLB is a photoshop fake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blog...

The Obama media has not reported this yet. The first reports were available as early as July 20th.

This is the real issue. It is criminal what he has done. Obama should be arrested and tried for defrauding the American electorate. An election based on fraud and deception is not the basis of validating an election. The majority does not rule when it comes to the US Constitution or interpreting the law. This undermines not only the spirit but the letter of the laws of our constitution and our election laws.

We are not surprised the dummycrats have been fooled by this charlatan. But shame on the Republican leadership who has not and still has not challenged this fraudulent election. It is an example of how compromised the Republican party really is today. It is empty shell of American conservative values.

If Obama and the DNC and the New World Order wanted to modify or change the US Constitution there is a legal way to do it. Obama thinks he can illegally posses the office and then change the Constitution to suit the selfish personal needs of his ego.

Does the Supreme court have the backbone to do their job and rule on the law? It is highly unlikely. They will pull a Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the crime. The American people have no standing. This is suppose to be the peoples court to protect us from the rich and powerful. Now it protects the rich and powerful. This is the same morally compromised court that has allowed the murder of millions of innocent babies in the womb in the name of women's reproductive rights. This is the same court that has presided over the destruction of the American way of life by the liberals and socialist and communist and atheists. Thanks to them criminals have more rights than legal citizens now.

It is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will find their conscious after it has so completely compromised. The undermining of the judicial system has been one of the main strategies of the New World Order in dismantling the US Constitution. They are very close to finally succeeding in destroying America.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT

But on the other hand, current America doesn't care.
December 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT

Just like Jose'; need I say more?
December 6, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: americangenie

"Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961." NOT!!

Mr. Obama produced a bogus Certification of Live Birth as evidenced by the use of the word "African" to indicate his father's race. "African" is not a race. In 1961, the accepted terminology for the race of a black person was "negro" or "colored." The Harvard educated 'one' is too elitist to even allow the correct terminology on his fake COLB. His father couldn't have possibly been a negro or colored. That's simply beneath him.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

God bless America.
December 6, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: zeezil

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And the question of Obama's birth/citizenship is producing so much smoke, the fire is imminent.Even more so if the Supreme Court dodges the issue.
December 6, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SmittyinLACA

This is the "Anchor baby" issue, are foreign nationals within the US under US jurisdiction and eligible for birthright citizenship?

Before you say yes, be sure you understand it will allow birthright citizenship by adverse posession to the global community and guarantee continuous criminal foreign invasion of America forever or until America becomes the least desirable place on the planet, America by law wll become the global lowest common denominator.

The Supremes will not touch this issue, they have no spine, they've managed to avoid this issue for decades, now they're stuck with the wreckage, one of the Anchor babies is running for President and the immigrant mob of Socialist voters is bigger than the non-immigrant mob.
December 6, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mother1991

Immigrations have started out that citizenship between an alien and US citizen is inherited through the father. Then in 1922 under Cable Act Married Womens Independent Nationality Act changed to state that it limited women could keep US citizenship if she stayed within US but if she married foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years she lost American nationality. And the Immigration of 1972 reduced restrictions concerning residence requirements for retention of U.S. citizenship acquired by birth abroad through a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent.
We need to make sure the paperwork was done correctly for Obama if he really was born in Kenya and if he was really born in Hawaii then the arguments need to go bye. Personally I tjink we need to let things lie so we can heal as a country and if not it could create anarchy and an uprising that would do more harm than good.
December 6, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette

The earlier long post relating to the laws that apply to Obama is not quite correct."Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) -- including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent's 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress's intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619)." So the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii is still an issue, there is a further issue in regards to whether his parents were married if you read through this material.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#Ci...

But this is a complicated issue that can only start with the production of the birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth.

Here is the State of Hawaii site that shows Obama how to fill out the form and send in $10.00 to get a copy of his birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth as opposed to the worthless Certification of Live Birth he has produced. See pages 7-11 for the particulars.

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...

This is a complex issue that can only be answered once Obama is willing to be transparent on this issue and provide the documentation needed by government representatives that are knowledgeable in this area and competent to make the determination. This should have been done BEFORE THE ELECTION. It is obvious that Obama and his team have found a loop hole in the election process pertaining to vetting of candidates that will need to be addressed to ensure this never happens again.
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Cullen

To all the Obama supporters who don't care about the Constitution, I have a new Pledge of Allegiance for you:

"I pledge allegiance to the President of the Blue States of America, and to Socialism, for which he stands, one Obamanation, under Democrats, indiscriminate, with poverty and abortion for all."

(Say while facing rainbow-flag and placing hand over wallet.)

Somebody made a video of you voting on election day: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Check it out, it's your finest moment!
December 6, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.
*
By: Irate Nation

>We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
So true, even now it's being called a long shot or non starter. Interesting to see this story appeared in Pravda before a DC newspaper decided to report it
December 6, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: johnboy

SoCalSicilian:

Democracies and Republics are NOT opposites.

Republics can be monarchies, dictatorships, or representative democracies like ours. There are some very nasty Republics around the world with dictators in charge (can you say Zimbabwe?)

You really shouldn't be so forceful with your opinions even when you are right (which in this case you most definately are not)
December 6, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Kitty1

We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
December 6, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. | Mark as Offensive

Next Page

*
By: levotb

Answer: You can't. Once the Constitution is broken, abused and trashed--which would be the case if they give Obama a "pass"--anarchy will reign and the country will spiral into civil unrest. SCOTUS MUST debate and rule for the People!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian

Additionally, The article is WRONG!!!

Obama has NOT released a copy of his Birth Certificate. What he submitted to factcheck.org is something ANYONE can get, natural-born citizen or not!

Vladimere Putin could get the same thing Obama produced!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

Once again you are being controlled and duped by the power base and their cronies, the media!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian

First of, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY in the USA! Therefore, even if 100% of "The People" wanted Obama to be President, if he is NOT Constitutionally Qualified he can't be President of the United States!

The fact that the majority of "The People" voted for someone means NOTHING! It is NOT a racist thing, a Right Wing Conspiracy Thing, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL THING!!

The United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!! The CONSTITUTION is what matters! If the "will of the people" goes against the Constitution, TOUGH!

The founding fathers NEVER wanted a democracy, IN FACT they despised democracy. Read the Federalist Papers which outlined WHY the founders did NOT want democracy. It is VERY clear!

If the SCOTUS has ANY Constitutional credibility, they will hear the case.

What is it that everyone who opposes this suit scared of. If he is qualified according to the Constitution you have nothing to be worried about. However, IF he is NOT Constitutionally qualified then we are ALL better off if he is exposed now so we are not thrown into a Constitutional crisis.

It is so typical of those who have NO Respect for the Constitution to sit there and say it doesn't matter. However, IT DOES MATTER!

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land!

If Obama refuses to follow the Constitution, what do you think he will do when it comes time to preserve and protect your liberty?
December 6, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.
*
By: joe y

Get over it, you lost.
Let's move on.
December 6, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette

Here is a State of Hawaii site that actually shows how to fill out the form to receive a birth certificate, and why a Certification of Live Birth (as produced by Obama) is not sufficient see pages 7 to 9:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...

Obama could produce a birth certificate for $10.00?
December 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica

Rendezvous with Duty

To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Ignoring it is not acceptable.

I want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 6, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: American for America

If Obama is what he is trying to appear to be, he will provide the certificate. How tough is it to do so? Mccain had to show his being from Panama. Obama will not provide this because he was not even born on US soil. I believe we are in for some VERY SERIOUS problems with Obama. Change is what you want? Sure you do. Just like most Presidents he will start well and he will finish with us hating him. We need another Reagan or Kennedy. Our Constitution was set in place for a reason and it has been stepped on, amended, etc. There will come a time when we the people will have to use the Declaration of Independence and will throw the corrupt Government out of office. This must happen because people, there are greater forces at work here. If you think the President and our Government are in control, you are mistaken. The Bankers are evil and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. The current goal seems to be the North American Union. Expect Obama to work on that. Obama is backed by Rockefeller and that man is backed by the Rothschilds. Believe me when I tell you that the Rothschilds have Central Banks all over the World in areas of major economy. They only place they don't have yet are where? Afghanistan and Iraq!!!

This is evil working in front of us and they must be stopped. If the Supreme Court is not corrupt, they will see this case through. If not, we have no one to turn to but ourselves to stop the New World Order...
December 6, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Justmy02

And what are they waiting for this time? For January 20th to come and go so it becomes even tougher to get any sort of straight answer about this CONSTITUTIONAL issue?

I don't understand why Obama is so reluctant to show a vault birth certificate and end this matter once and for all. Could it be because George Soros and Co. and the DNC don't want people to know we've all been screwed?
December 6, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: ska'd4life

Here's something to think about...
If you were running for POTUS, because you knew you were qualified as a per the Constitution a Natural born citizen, wouldn't it be self incriminating if you were to spend one penny for a law firm to safeguard your birth records?

BHO is paying 3 law firms (not lawyers) to defend him.

Why would someone who knew he was qualified to be president need lawyers to defend him?

BTW he is a constitutional lawyer from Harvard.

If you were a lawyer, what kind of deep stuff would you be in if you needed to hire a bloody lawyer?
December 6, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: MsRock4Ever

The LARGE majority of voters elected Barack Obama to be our President. It seems the SMALL minority of voters are poor losers. Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet, but he's done more for the country in 32 days than gw bush has in 8 years. I seriously doubt the case will be heard because the law scholars know There IS NO "case". The Supreme Court Judges have a full docket, they won't want to be bothered by this infantile request. Mr. Obama is going to be a GREAT President, EVEN for the people who were too stupid to vote for him. I predict that many who have protested against his Presidency will have to eat their words early in his term.
December 6, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: brian_d_w

You commenters are all a bunch of racist, christen fascist, bad losers. Obama won by the largest margin for a non-incumbent, ever. He was born to an american citizen in the USA. He father is not revelent to the issue. Case closed.

This is a bogus challenge, and an affront to democracy.
December 6, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: VAGirl

Greetings, all: Have a question. God willing, SCOTUS will decide this matter is something they cannot ignore and will decide to hear the case. Say that happens on 8 Dec. Can the Electoral College, which meets on 15 Dec decide to hold off on their final vote on BHO till either: 1) SCOTUS makes a final determination; or 2) can they disqualify him because he has not adequately proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) the he can be legally & CONSTITUTIONALLY elected POTUS? Has anyone seen anything about BHO submitting the required information to SCOTUS on 1 Dec? I haven't. That just shows BHO's contempt for the law, but that's just my opinion.

Also, all those cabinet positions BHO has filled -- one would think those people named would be a bit concerned.
December 6, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT

http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....

UNITED STATE CODE
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
(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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years… (LINK (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc...))

Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

TITLE I--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

SEC. 101. EQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN ABROAD.

(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)). (LINK (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...))

In closing I urge all American's to weigh the candidates and base your decision on the course you wish to set for America over the next 4-years.

God bless the USA.
December 6, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT

http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....

Born in Kenya
The final legal challenge is based on the idea that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother then flew to Hawaii to register the birth. This is the issue which generates all the discussion about his birth certificate. The perception is that the law of at the time (Immunization and Nationality Act of 1952) required that a person born to a couple where one was a US Citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham) and the other an Alien (Barrak Obama Sr, Kenyan) – that the US Citizen had to have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14 to be able to pass citizenship to an offspring by birth. Current law as contained in USC Title 8 Section 1401 (paragraph g) states that to pass citizenship in this case the parent need only have been a citizen for 5-years two of which were after the age of 14.

But you say the law from 1952 is applicable, not the current law? Not quite.

This now appears to be incorrect as in 1994 Public Law 103-416 was passed which is the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994. This law makes current immigration law applicable retroactive to Obama’s birth in 1961. As such it does not matter if Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii as he would have been a citizen by birth either way. By his mother’s status if born in Kenya and by his location if born in Hawaii.
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT

http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....

Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
The claim is that Obama lost his United States citizenship when adopted in Indonesia. However, no adoption records have been presented, only a school registration slip listing his citizenship as Indonesian. I hate to point out, but school records are not adoption proceeding, they are applications filled out by parents trying to get their kids into school. Might he have been adopted? Maybe, maybe not – but a school registration is not proof.

But actually that whole discussion, while it might impact voters, is irrelevant to his constitutional eligibility as US Citizenship is determined by US law and not by Indonesian Law. Indonesia’s view of his dual citizenship status does not change in anyway the view of the United States’ view of his citizenship status. Under United States Law the parents of a minor child cannot relinquish the US Citizenship of that child prior to the age of 21 (law at the time) as per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or prior to 18 years of age (current law) per the United States Code Title 8 Section 1401. Since Obama never relinquished his citizenship after the age of maturity, and his parents could not have relinquished it for him as a minor, then he never lost his citizenship status so no naturalization or oath of allegiance would have been required.

Section 349 (a) From and after the effective date of this Act
a person who is a national of the United States whether
by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his
own application, upon an application filed in his behalf
by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the
naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such
person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost
by any person under this section as a result of the
naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person
is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of
naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under
twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian,
or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to
enter the United States to establish a permanent residence
prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ....(LINK (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_e... eIII_Chapter3.pdf))
December 6, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT

http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....

Constitutionally speaking there are only three requirements, (well actually four if you also read the 14th Amendment, but that would be an even tougher challenge then trying for a TKO on citizenship). Those requirements as per Article II are:
A Natural Born Citizen,
35 Years of Age,
14 Years a Resident

Now over the last few months we’ve seen multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s technical eligibility to serve under the law based on his status as either a Natural Born Citizen or not. The Constitution, while listing it as one of the eligibility requirements, does not define what that phrase means. Does it mean you have to be born on United States soil, or, does it mean you have to derive citizenship based on birth (i.e. not a naturalized citizen). So far those challenges have been dismissed based on lack of standing, just as for fairness, was the legal challenge to Senator McCain’s eligibility. I’m disappointed on these dismissals as I truly feel there should be some mechanism in place to legally vet a candidate for public office, however it appears that will have to wait until after the election. The thrust of these challenges have been centered on a few primary possible points:
Possible Dual Citizenship
Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
Born in Kenya

What does that law say about each of these possible challenges to Obama’s legal eligibility to serve in the Office of President of the United States?

Let’s review.

Possible Dual Citizenship
Some have claimed that you cannot be a citizen of the United States and hold citizenship in another country. This is not the case. In the case of Mandoli v. Acheson (1952) the United States Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that US Citizens can hold citizenship in another country and by holding such citizenship do not relinquish their rights as a United States Citizen and to relinquish citizenship requires positive action after the age of maturity.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/cas...
December 6, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay

http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....

WorldWatcherOctober 31st, 2008, 10:02 am

Over the last few months there has been a small, but growing, group of people dearly hoping to eliminate Barrak Obama as a presidential candidate due to questions concerning is citizenship status. In my opinion this is a non-issue as the Technical Knock Out (TKO) that many are hoping for will never happen. Why? Well read below and I’ll explain why. There are two separate questions on the table: (a) the legal requirements, and (b) the political influence of information on voters. Realistically speaking information which may have no relevance legally can of course have a huge impact on voter perceptions and therefore impact the results of the election. This post addresses Obama’s legal eligibility.

If we are going to defeat Obama we need to do it based on the issues and not based on some trickery of the law. We need to vote against Obama because his tax plan is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because socialized medicine is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because he lacks the experience to lead the greatest nation on Earth. We need to vote against Obama because his past associations show a lack of understanding of what America is truly about. Voting the candidate is something we do in the primaries trying to get our candidate into the final election, however, when it comes to the General Election we have to put sour grapes aside and decide to cast our vote based on what’s best for our country. While I disagree with McCain on certain issues, hands down he is the better candidate to lead this country for the next four years. His economic policies will be better for America then Obama’s, his leadership and moral courage are without a doubt better then Obama’s.
December 6, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc

Furthermore, if the SCOTUS decides against Obama's eligibility after the Electors meet, and he has been inaugurated, then certainly it will be President Biden. My question is this, then. If Obama was a fraudulent candidate, therefore his election would be by definition fraudulent. Biden was a nominated running mate on his fraudulent ticket.
Originally, the Constitution defined Vice-President as the Presidential candidate who received the second highest number of electoral votes, which of course has now been amended.
This has the potential of being the most serious Constitutional crisis the country has seen since the election of Lincoln and subsequent hostilities that ensued.
December 6, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc

What do you all think? If the SCOTUS decides after reviewing the appropriate documents and finds them to be fraudulent, where will this put the democrats:
a) prior to the Electors voting
b) after the Electors have voted.
If the Electors have not met, they will be compelled to vote only for eligible candidates, correct? Of course this leaves McCain, and a long list of 3rd party candidates. Who is the Democrat, then? Biden?
December 6, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jfitz89

Why would his father's citizenship be more of a determination than his mother's, especially when he was born on US soil?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. | Mark as Offensive

Next Page

*
By: Drumsalot

jl1,

Are there any pending court cases or were there any court cases contesting McCains citizenship status? If so, please enlighten me and give me the source for us to verify.
December 6, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Drumsalot

Givin the fact that this WOC has not been dismissed yet and is considered 'Pending" offers me a little bit of hope that the case will be heard. I would imagine that the SCOTUS is well aware of the other WOCs that are upcoming and other suits filed in the District Court system in many states regarding the same basic principle as this one which is the claim that Obama does not qualify to be POTUS.

mrunpc,
I read that sworn affadavit by Bishop Ron McCrae. If this affadavit of accusation is true , then my theory that Obama is a one man sleeper cell is certainly strengthening.
December 6, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1

Oh and BTW, please note that Sen. McCains citizenship is also being challenged on the very same grounds that Obama's is. So if the courts should rule that Obama is not a "naturally born citizen", then McCain would not be president either and Palin can suddenly find that she may not have wait till 2012 or 2016 after all. And the person who started all this murmuring? Why, Mr. Corsi, of course. Just keep that in mind good people.
December 6, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: dynodick

For the supremes not to take this up will cause great damage to the country. It would also lower our stature among other world leaders. What ever they do, it would be prudent to place all law enforcement and national guard units on standby.

Either way, violence will ensue!
December 6, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1

I tell you, some of the dumbest people out there are the most educated. I guess by this guys argument, Jindal's citizenship may also be suspect, right? Here's the other thing I find interesting about this. My dad was born under British colonialism. My oldest sister too. Neither one of them is a British citizen.
December 6, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: eddieb lue

saw a copy of the "birth certificate" the obama campaign released to the press.

it stated that obama's race was "african-american"

that designation is a recent one and was not used when obama was born.
December 6, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: creativeogre

It is important to point out that the clause in Article 2 section one, reads

"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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is a grandfather clause since there were no eligible "Natural born" citizens at the time. The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

For more information on all the cases before the courts, and background on the entire matter visit:

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3...
December 6, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: stevedeery

He may be a citizen, he may be natural born, but he is still anti-american.
Just move in with the Dixie Chicks, move to France, and everyone will be happy
December 6, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mrunpc

If Barack Hussein Obama were a Republican with this hanging over his head I "wonder" if Democrat Big Media would be completely ignoring it.

ANYONE who loves this country as I do, should be VERY concerned about what it happening. Just the sworn affidavit from Bishop Ron McRae (google him) is enough to make one's skin crawl about Obama.

This issue and many others surrounding his shady past is far from over and a LOT of Americans are readying themselves for something that they sense is coming, something very unusual and bad.

Anyone read about firearms and ammunition sales lately? They're skyrocketing nationwide and it's not just because people fear stricter gun control laws. Women are also among those lining up to purchase and one of the most popular weapons on back order is the AR-15 assault rifle...that's NOT your typical home self-defense weapon, folks!

Either way, it's going to be an interesting 4 years, isn't it?
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: rancho2008

I did not vote for Obama or McCain, but I just want to know if any employer has a person applying for a top job in his company and yet there are so many questions popping up regarding his eligibility, do you think the employer will just go ahead and hire him without further investigation? I doubt it. So why not clear up the doubts before Obama takes this highest job in the U.S? Is this really so hard? Strange enough almost no other MSM reports the case.
December 6, 2008 at 3:50 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Gene44

A simple solution is for Obama to present to any of the Federal Judges in any of the lawsuit cases a certified copy of his orignial birth certificate proving beyond a doubt his place of birth and citizenship at the time. According to international law a persons father creates the childrens citizenship. Thus Obama under this law would be a British subject at birth, however, as he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia it could be claimed that he is Indonesian.
The Surpreme Court must take this case and prove one way or the other the actual legal status in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Anything else would be breaking the law of the land.
December 6, 2008 at 3:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: norcalauto

As I understand it, the Founding Fathers, (and framers of our constitution); gave careful and serious consideration to the possible ramifications to our country should a future President in any way, have a conflict of foreign allegiance, hence the words, “natural-born". The term is unique in that it applies ONLY to POTUS per Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. I do not believe the 14th Amendment applies but I am not a lawyer either.

Notes to ponder:

All natural-born citizens are citizens of the United States
-- but NOT all citizens of the United States are natural-born citizens

Obama may or may not be a US citizen, entitled to all that a US citizen is entitled to
-- EXCEPT POTUS.

Obama certifiCATION may or may not be acceptable for most purposes
-- in lieu of a CertifiCATE
-- EXCEPT POTUS .

Obama may or may not still hold US/UKC dual-nationalities
-- EITHER way; because he was (admittedly) born with same, he is
-- NOT ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS.

Obama TAUGHT Constitutional law
-- was well aware of his predicament.

Obama has gone to great length and expense to prevent release of pertinent documentation
-- WHY?

Obama cannot claim privacy issues while seeking the authority of Commander In Chief.
-- these documents must eventually become part of our history
-- past candidates and Presidents have done so willingly

Obama has not argued the facts of any case against him
-- relies on a technicality of "standing", which has worked (so far)
-- 4-5 cases now before SCOTUS
-- 17-20 still in the lower courts
-- SCOTUS has the power to "drawl" in all pertinent cases
-- and make ONE ruling

Obama may or may not succeed again on the technicality of "standing"
-- it will not end there because voters and opponents will have been
-- denied Equal Protection under the law.

Obama was never properly vetted for public office
-- legislators insist that is the responsibility of the public
-- voters have already vetted him twice
-- once by voting for him in the primaries
-- once by voting for him in the general election

What's wrong with this picture?
-- according to legislators VOTERS are responsible for vetting public officials
-- including candidates for the Presidency
-- yet are denied access on grounds of "privacy"
-- have NO "standing" to demand proof of qualification to hold the position.
-- cannot obtain records without a court order.
-- Catch 22?

Obama may or may not be inaugurated on January 21st
-- if so; do we face the possibility of a usurper in the White House?
-- will social and legal chaos ensue?

"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." (Thomas Jefferson)
December 6, 2008 at 2:54 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Lonnie

Since our Constitution legitimatizes candidates one who fails to fulfill it's requirements is illegitimate. Therefore Obama's status is fraudulent which reduces ALL of his presidential "activities" to a game of charades! We need to get to the heart of the problem. The Supreme Court needs to pry open his closely guarded box of secrets and hold him accountable to our rule of law. The office of president is no place for playing games. There should be zero tolerance for a person who exhibits such clandestine behavior. Who knows what you are getting? You don't.
December 6, 2008 at 1:23 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica

I suspect that Obama himself does not believe he meets the qualifications of "natural born citizen", otherwise he would have cooperated by now. Some point out that he has already released his "birth certificate" on his website. But the posting of a short-form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on his website does not suffice, because that same COLB certificate is given to those of foreign birth who just register their foreign birth with Hawaii. Why does he not just allow his long-form birth certificate (e.g. showing hospital, doctor, etc) to be released. I also find it very revealing that Hawaiian officials will not say he was born in Hawaii; they just say they have seen his birth certificate. That's a very odd parsing of words when the direct question was whether he was actually born in Hawaii. Maybe he was born in Kenya and according to law he could still be considered a natural born citizen. I would be okay with that. Just let the facts and the law be aired. Let the chips fall where they may. Our constitutional republic can withstand the truth faced squarely. But we would not be able to withstand just sweeping aside the Constitution for "unity". If we do so, we will have neither.

We know that the Supreme Court did not issue of Writ of Certiorari today. They could still take it up next week. May all freedom-loving and Constitution-loving Americans pray this weekend that the Supreme Court will muster the courage to do their duty and hear the facts and law on this prior to the Electoral College meeting on 15 Dec. "We here highly resolve... that government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the earth."
December 6, 2008 at midnight | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica

To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Just ignoring it is not acceptable.

I just want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 5, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: corporalquick

Take note of the MINCING OF WORDS by Dr. Chiyome Fukino. They have the original. She did not utter the words, "Barack was born in Hawaii and it can be proven." Instead, ANOTHER official said, that Dr. Fukimo MEANT he was born in Hawaii. Very clever. No one can be sued or held liable for what someone else THINKS you mean. Why won't she use the words herself? She's concerned, if by the unlikely chance, she will ever have to surrender the original handwritten document. So, corrupting one official is outside the realm of possibility? Show the ORIGINAL circa 1961 document!!! The press is demonizing anyone who will challenge and they are misstating basic facts. Throw in the fact of Barack's Pakistan trip in the 80's, and we have a national security issue. Wake up at the Court! FInd a way to get your hands on the original document. If there's only a 2% chance that we're dealing with something really, really serious -- would you want it on your watch if you could have prevented it?
December 5, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Slow Poke

This is good news. At least they didn't say no to a review. Many folks take this issue very nonchalantly. Not being a "natural born citizen" is a violation of our Constitution as well as a treasonous act, which no one wants to discuss. Regardless of all the assumptions and attempts to soft pedal the issue, as this article does, he obviously can't prove he is eligible. He shouldn't mind showing a legitimate birth certificate, in lieu of a forgery, as many times as need be. Why does he have several law firms trying to make sure no one sees it, if in fact one exists? Folks, it simply doesn’t compute. The media and those that voted for him simply want to let it pass because it is a “historic event”. He, as well as every Secretary of State, the DNC, the FEC, and others that should have vetted him, should be arrested and charged with treason. It is not up to the individual voter to vet a candidate. If a name appears on a ballot, it is assumed the person has been properly vetted. If he is willing to proceed, what's to say that he will not trample more of our Constitution, or doesn’t anyone care about our rules of the land? If the SC rules in favor of him, they should be arrested as well. Sure, there will be problems if found ineligible, but would you rather have the problems later?
December 5, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive

+++++++++++++

WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.

If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.

kwdavids has left a new comment