TexasCHLforum.com

I have been looking at this case more closely. So far, I don't think it will go anywhere. The case was appealed from a motion to dismiss by the court of appeals. They granted the motion due to lack of standing. Right now, SCOTUS is just looking for an answer as to whether or not they should grant the writ of certiorari. Other than a few posts on blogs, I find nothing requiring Obama to produce anything like a birth certificate. I think that will not come until after they grant cert.

And, since the plaintiff has not yet been harmed, I don't really see he has standing. He might be able to re-sue now claiming his ability to vote for a valid candidate was the harm, but I don't believe the courts would buy that.

IMHO, this case is dead on technical legal grounds. Someone might be able to sue after Obama is sworn in, but again, proving the standing is hard. McCain or Hilary might be the best bets. Hilary could even sue now, but I just do not see it happening.

Well, in addition to the political discussion, the thread has proven educational. I did not know there was a difference between a US national and a US citizen. I had never even heard of the two terms not being used as synonyms. I also have always thought our citizenship was derived automatically through either the birth in the US (legally there anyway, such as foreign bases and embassies) or through parentage. I was not aware there were any limitations on citenship derived through the parents. I had heard of problems during the Viet Nam war caused by this; a child of a soldier was a citizen so the moms were claiming soldiers as parents even if they did not know for sure.

All of the people I had ever met that had mixed citizenship like those mentioned had automatic US citizenship through one parent and automatic other country citizenship through the other parent. It suggests to me that we need to fix our laws as any US citizen who has a child should have a US citizen as a child, automatically.

I could be wrong, but the way I am reading this docket, the original petition for a writ of certiorari is still pending. The court will require a response from the other side before Dec. 1. This means the case overall is still alive, but nothing more. They could still reject the petition totally, reject it for some technical reason which could keep the case alive, or accept the petition. If they accept the petition, they could act as quickly or as slowly as they desire.

After the original petition, Berg filed an application for the equivalent of a temporary restraining order. This would have stopped Obama from being in the vote. Souter denied the TRO application. Berg modified it to try to show his harm as greater if the injunction were denied, but he did not get it set high enough and the modified application was still denied.

So, the case is still alive, but I would not give it much hope. I doubt they will accept the case overall. If they do, I think they will expedite hearing the case. Assuming they rule against Obama, it would have to be done before January to avoid real constitutional questions. If Obama is sworn in, what happens to all of the laws he signs or his EO's if he is found to not have been qualified? So, I doubt they will allow the question to occur.

But if they deny certiorari, the question also never arises. My hopes for the case are not high.

I have to admit that I agree with Annoyed Man on this issue. Obama is a natural born citizen since his mother was a citizen and all the rest is smoke and mirrors. But now I am curious as to why the SCOTUS would want to look further into it. I am going to have to read some breifs if I can and research it further.