TexasCHLforum.com

Probably a repost!

Apparently the SCOTUS has gotten wind of the fact 0bama may not be legal after all!

Obama Birth Certificate...the plot thickens...
Evidently its not a dead issue...

Berg filed in Pa...Judge shoots it down...

Berg File to SCOTUS...Souter denies his motion to stay/injunct the 4 Nov Presidential Election but does Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008.)

Evidently the SCOTUS want to see an ORIGINAL VAULT COPY of Obama's Birth Certificate NO LATER THAN 1 DECEMBER 2008 prior to the 13 DECEMBER meeting of the Electoral College meeting to certify the election...if Obama fails to provide the Birth Certificate then it would stand to reason that McCain would then be found as winner since Obama had not been sworn in yet and Biden could not then succeed him...

They want his Original Birth Certificate...not his COLB Certificate of Live Birth but the original doc on file from the State of Hawaii...the one with the Hospital on it, the one with the doctors name on it, witnessed, signed and dated...establishing once and for all that his is or is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN...

Docket for 08-570
Atlas Shrugs: WILL SCOTUS SOUTER TELL OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DECEMBER 1 UPDATED: /OR NOT
The Supreme Court and Obama’s Birth Certificate The Valley Truth

Search Page

Apparently they don't care if he gives them the Certificate of Live Birth..they want his ORIGINAL VAULT BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Either he provides it and we get more egg on our faces or he doesn't and his run for POTUS is NULL AND VOID!!!!

Oh yah...Sign the Petition

Pass it on!

WarHawk-AVG wrote:Evidently the SCOTUS want to see an ORIGINAL VAULT COPY of Obama's Birth Certificate NO LATER THAN 1 DECEMBER 2008 prior to the 13 DECEMBER meeting of the Electoral College meeting to certify the election.

Sounds like even the liberal Justices are starting to wonder why he couldn't provide a copy way back when this all started and head it off then. It really shouldn't be all that hard; given the things I've had to come up with one for, I can't imagine someone in politics not having a couple of certified copies on hand just in case.

It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

KBCraig wrote:It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

I am confused. If his Mother was an American Citizen then isn't he also an American Citizen?

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote:It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

I am confused. If his Mother was an American Citizen then isn't he also an American Citizen?

Yes he is. But the requirement is to be a natural born citizen. There is speculation that he was born in Kenya while him mum was on a trip there. Since he was not around in physical body at the time of the Adoption of the constitution, he doesn't get to rely on the "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constituion" clause. McCain is kind of, almost, in the same boat though. We know that he was born on a military base in the panama canal, but they had, back then, passed a law saying that anyone on born on the canal to us parents in the military, was considered a US Citizen.

If push come to shove, Liberty, you could get Bob Barr after all if both Obama and McCain were to be judged not Natural Born...

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.

John wrote:

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote:It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

I am confused. If his Mother was an American Citizen then isn't he also an American Citizen?

Yes he is. But the requirement is to be a natural born citizen. There is speculation that he was born in Kenya while him mum was on a trip there. Since he was not around in physical body at the time of the Adoption of the constitution, he doesn't get to rely on the "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constituion" clause. McCain is kind of, almost, in the same boat though. We know that he was born on a military base in the panama canal, but they had, back then, passed a law saying that anyone on born on the canal to us parents in the military, was considered a US Citizen.

If push come to shove, Liberty, you could get Bob Barr after all if both Obama and McCain were to be judged not Natural Born...

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.

I guess I never understood what a natural born citizen is.. One of my children was almost born in Germany, while I was serving in the Army. I was told that he would be a an American Citizen.. Are you saying that being born of American Parents isn't good enough?

Hey, I've never said I actuallty wanted Bob Barr for president .. just that I voted for him

KBCraig wrote:It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

A few corrections are in order here...

My father was an American citizen and my mother was French. I was born in foreign country which was, at the time, a French territory - Morocco. Because of this, I am an American citizen who has dual citizenship (American/French), and I am (or was at one time, anyway) eligible for Moroccan citizenship as well. Frankly, I would gladly renounce my French citizenship, but France, in her overarching cultural chauvinism, does not make that possible. There is literally no means by which a French citizen can formally renounce that citizenship. And there is no way on God's green earth that I would ever be interested in Moroccan citizenship.

The Constitution does make mention of natural born citizens, but it does not define the term "natural-born." However, the 1790 Congress, which included many of the men who wrote the Constitution, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (signed into law by George Washington), which said (among other things) that, "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Technically, that makes me eligible for the presidency, although you wouldn't want me. I used to smoke a lot of dope, and I inhaled. Besides, the American people have never appreciated true genius.



Now, under current U.S. law, if a pregnant Mexican national crosses into the United States, even illegally, and her child is born here, that child is an American citizen - whether or not you or I like it. There are plenty of arguments for changing that law, but as of right now, that is still the law. If that child's mother then marries a Russian national, who adopts him, and then moves the family to Kenya, that child does not then lose his American citizenship rights just because the adoptive parent is a foreign national and lives in a foreign land, anymore than I lost my citizenship because my father moved my family to France for a year and a half when I was 7 years old. That hypothetical child is still a natural born American citizen. There exists case law to support this, and any competent immigration attorney could dismantle any attempts to disqualify a candidate based on this argument.

Obama was born in 1961. Hawaii was admitted as a state in 1959. Even so, as a territory, the residents of Hawaii had the rights of U.S. citizenship prior to 1959, just as current citizens of Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) have all the rights of U.S. citizenship. Obama's citizenship rights were not revoked, just because his American mother later married an Indonesian national who adopted him - even if she had later renounced her own American citizenship.

Therefore, unless it can be shown that he was born outside of the U.S. or its territories and that both parents were non-U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, then according to the Naturalization Act of 1790, Obama is a natural born American citizen. There are lots of other reasons for doubting his legitimacy as president-elect, among them the massive voter fraud perpetrated by his grass roots organization, ACORN, and the media's overt efforts as the mouthpiece of his campaign; but he is a natural-born citizen, and is on that basis therefore eligible to serve as President if all other things are in order.

That's my 2¢.

John wrote:

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote:It's not just the birth certificate. If he was legitimately born in Hawaii, but adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, then his citizenship lies in Indonesia.

I am confused. If his Mother was an American Citizen then isn't he also an American Citizen?

Yes he is. But the requirement is to be a natural born citizen. There is speculation that he was born in Kenya while him mum was on a trip there. Since he was not around in physical body at the time of the Adoption of the constitution, he doesn't get to rely on the "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constituion" clause. McCain is kind of, almost, in the same boat though. We know that he was born on a military base in the panama canal, but they had, back then, passed a law saying that anyone on born on the canal to us parents in the military, was considered a US Citizen.

John, see my comments above on the Naturalization Act of 1790.

When doing a search for this issue, I think it is significant that it is well spread through blogs and forums, but I could not find a single reputable news source to back this up.

As proof that many of the results were just cut and pasted from one another, many contain the same misspelling of 'birth' as 'nirth'.

I could not find anything that verifies that the SCOTUS will be reviewing this any further, but am interested if anyone can find something I missed.

I truly believe that there would be serious civil unrest should Obama be disqualified at this point.

Mike1951 wrote:I could not find anything that verifies that the SCOTUS will be reviewing this any further, but am interested if anyone can find something I missed.

I think SCOTUS is a reputable source on their own cases:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note the most recent activity:
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

Thank you for finding that.

Its not over yet!

Um, yeah... it is.... You can't possibly think this type of thing is going to gain any traction? It is OVER.

CHLSteve wrote:

Its not over yet!

Um, yeah... it is.... You can't possibly think this type of thing is going to gain any traction? It is OVER.

What we think has nothing to do with it. We are all entitled to our dreams and fantasies aren't we?

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.

Let me back up and declare that I'm not saying the arguments are valid, only that I'm trying to explain what the arguments are.

During the primary season, there were people trying to claim McCain was not a "natural born citizen", which was obviously not the case. Both of his parents were U.S. citizens, so he is "natural born" by the Naturalization Act of 1790, even though he was born "out of the limits of the United States", in Panama. (Just for trivia fun, the first U.S. presidential candidate to face the same accusation was McCain's predecessor in the same Senate seat that McCain holds today: Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona when it was a U.S. Territory.)

There is also an argument, which I have not researched (so don't take it as valid), that if Obama was born in Kenya (or anywhere else outside of the U.S.), that his mother had not been a resident of the U.S. for the 5 years supposedly required after the age of 16, for jus sanguinis to apply.

Then there is the additional argument, which I casually referred to in my first post, that if Obama was legally adopted by his Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro, his U.S. citizenship (if any) was forfeited. This argument holds that Indonesia and the U.S. did not allow dual citizenship at the time, and that public schools like those Obama intended were restricted to Indonesian citizens. Thus, if he became a citizen of Indonesia, he was no longer a U.S. citizen. He would actually be an illegal immigrant at this point, an interesting twist on things.

Please understand that I do NOT hold that any of these arguments are valid; I am merely presenting them by way of explanation. I spent a couple of months of the GOP primary season swatting down the "McCain isn't a 'natural born citizen'" argument, even while I campaigned against him, and I've also spent much time making the same defense of Obama even though he obviously was not my candidate!

Philip Berg, the plaintiff in this case, is a lifelong Democrat. He supported Hillary Clinton, which is why he started these claims. I am not learned enough to know if his claims are valid, but I do try to present every option.

I should note that snopes.com, normally a reliable fact-checker, cannot be trusted on political issues, and has been shown to display a notable partisan bias in favor of Democrats.

Kevin