Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 10:40 AM Thread Starter
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...0,664988.story
By James Janega | Tribune reporter
December 4, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.



Related links
Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office
Barack Obama birth certificate Photo
Group's founder on WGN-AM: It's not about Obama Audio
See the group's ad The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.

Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."

The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.

.

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard—and not all of those ultimately were successful.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 10:46 AM
Num say'n? (tm)
 
JP135's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,702
I don't look for this to go anywhere. Although the case probably has merit.

DFWMustangs.net
JP135 is offline  
post #3 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 10:52 AM
BANNED
 
mustangguy289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP135
I don't look for this to go anywhere. Although the case probably has merit.

Of course it has Merit. If it was bogus Obama could prove it by simply showing his birth certificate.
mustangguy289 is offline  
 
post #4 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:05 AM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
I believe it has simply made it to the supreme court because it is the pinnacle of consideration available to us without following through with action. It is entirely out of the question to remove him as president elect, in our current economic turmoil the last thing we can endure is a full scale black riot (which would certainly ensue) because their candidate was elected but not eligible. I think the mere fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court is evidence enough that this should have been dissected well before now, and without question this is a disappointing example of the current state of judicial review, and it's seemingly backwards nature as of the last several decades.
CJ is offline  
post #5 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:08 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Looks like this one might go somewhere. This is the part they will stick with.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California.

This is why the other one got thrown out

federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue.\

I guess they are thinking that since Alan Keyes was on the ballot in Cali. then he has the right to sue to get the birth records out in the open. Remember the last case was thrown out because of "lack of standing" they never proved obama was a natrual born citizen.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #6 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:09 AM Thread Starter
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
i know itll get buried. the dems have WAYY too much invested in their beloved barack to let this come to fruition. im just surprised it made it all the way to the supreme court.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #7 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:16 AM
Lifer
 
BreedLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denton
Posts: 4,429
this will never go anywhere.

I'll show your president the same respect you showed mine.
BreedLove is offline  
post #8 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:19 AM
Num say'n? (tm)
 
JP135's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
I believe it has simply made it to the supreme court because it is the pinnacle of consideration available to us without following through with action. It is entirely out of the question to remove him as president elect, in our current economic turmoil the last thing we can endure is a full scale black riot (which would certainly ensue) because their candidate was elected but not eligible. I think the mere fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court is evidence enough that this should have been dissected well before now, and without question this is a disappointing example of the current state of judicial review, and it's seemingly backwards nature as of the last several decades.
Well put. Agreed on all counts.

DFWMustangs.net
JP135 is offline  
post #9 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:40 AM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
It is entirely out of the question to remove him as president elect
Do you think the US Constitution is something that can be ignored whenever expediate?
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #10 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:50 AM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
Do you think the US Constitution is something that can be ignored whenever expediate?
If you even remotely follow my posts in this forum you'd realize that question must be entirely rhetorical. I am not stating my own thoughts as much as stating the country's situation as a whole and the application of such. As I stated in my post, the absurdly late review of this situation is the point of contention, this should have been done before he even received the nomination, let alone the general election.
CJ is offline  
post #11 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:53 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of the Red River
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
Do you think the US Constitution is something that can be ignored whenever expediate?
It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

If we wanted to go ahead and rip our country apart at the seams this would be an excellent way to make it happen. Just sayin...

With this election we left ourselves hostage to many unwanted things.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand!
black01gt is offline  
post #12 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 11:59 AM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Lets focus on the real intricacies involved in this. If Barack Obama was in fact found ineligible, I believe Biden would become our president elect, and he would appoint his vice president (most likely from the cabinet). Don't think that if he becomes ineligible you would get McCain, that isn't going to be the case - so you must weigh this into your reasoning - The real concern here for conservatives is not necessarily Obama, it's the left as a whole, which this lawsuit will not avoid in any circumstance. The true justice this lawsuit could have yielded is no longer an option for us, which would have been a severely weakened democratic ticket, and a more than probably swing benefiting the Republican ticket in the general election, that is now out of the question. So, I see this lawsuit (as I stated early) being a disappointing example of the backward nature of our judicial review process.
CJ is offline  
post #13 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:00 PM
$uper $low
 
Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Plano
Posts: 5,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Lets focus on the real intricacies involved in this. If Barack Obama was in fact found ineligible, I believe Biden would become our president elect, and he would appoint his vice president (most likely from the cabinet). Don't think that if he becomes ineligible you would get McCain, that isn't going to be the case - so you must weigh this into your reasoning - The real concern here for conservatives is not necessarily Obama, it's the left as a whole, which this lawsuit will not avoid in any circumstance.
Something tells me Biden would do a better job, and would be much less racially charged.

Magnus is offline  
post #14 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:01 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
Something tells me Biden would do a better job, and would be much less racially charged.
But you must also weigh just how inflated that racially charged atmosphere would become if Obama was stripped of his position. Do we want a black president that african american's will follow with little question, or a white man filling his shoes which they will distrust? It's a difficult question.
CJ is offline  
post #15 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:05 PM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
So, I see this lawsuit (as I stated early) being a disappointing example of the backward nature of our judicial review process.
x2.

This situation was screwed up from the git-go.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
post #16 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:05 PM
GROWED UP WRONG
 
Chopped54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Box Babies Come In
Posts: 7,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
Something tells me Biden would do a better job, and would be much less racially charged.

Agreed + he actually has some experience behind him.
Chopped54 is offline  
post #17 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:08 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopped54
Agreed + he actually has some experience behind him.
You also have to consider the fact that you don't want 8 years of a democratic administration. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want 4 years of a man quite capable of ruining his party's reputation for decades, or do you want someone more qualified (like Biden) to half-ass his way into 8 years, and receive credit for pulling our country out of a recession and having his party dominate politics for decades such as FDR was responsible for. Think about that.
CJ is offline  
post #18 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Got Lateral G's??
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Your mirror about to pass your ass!
Posts: 9,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
Do you think the US Constitution is something that can be ignored whenever expediate?

That is a precedent that CAN NOT be set. If it were, all points in the constitution then become "guidelines" which then can be ignored or partially obeyed and our government and law enforcement would fail on a grand scale. It's also the first steps toward a dictatorship and falls in line with the rise of Hitler in Germany.

People in this country REALLY need to go back and take a few history classes of how Governments failed through time...and the catastrophes that occurred afterward. I watched a show on Stalin this past weekend and it was AMAZING how he brainwashed his citizens.... who ended up hating him, but still cried at his funeral. he even had prisoners in teh Gulag that were writing him asking for help as they couldn't believe Stalin was the one who ordered them to be put there.



Looking for sponsorships for 2010 on the car above... PM for details and schedule.

I'm a mod motor GOD! LOL!
aggie97 is offline  
post #19 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:14 PM
GROWED UP WRONG
 
Chopped54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Box Babies Come In
Posts: 7,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
You also have to consider the fact that you don't want 8 years of a democratic administration. The question you have to ask yourself is do you want 4 years of a man quite capable of ruining his party's reputation for decades, or do you want someone more qualified (like Biden) to half-ass his way into 8 years, and receive credit for pulling our country out of a recession and having his party dominate politics for decades such as FDR was responsible for. Think about that.

The man has a point!
Chopped54 is offline  
post #20 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:16 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by aggie97
That is a precedent that CAN NOT be set. If it were, all points in the constitution then become "guidelines" which then can be ignored or partially obeyed and our government and law enforcement would fail on a grand scale. It's also the first steps toward a dictatorship and falls in line with the rise of Hitler in Germany.

People in this country REALLY need to go back and take a few history classes of how Governments failed through time...and the catastrophes that occurred afterward. I watched a show on Stalin this past weekend and it was AMAZING how he brainwashed his citizens.... who ended up hating him, but still cried at his funeral. he even had prisoners in teh Gulag that were writing him asking for help as they couldn't believe Stalin was the one who ordered them to be put there.
I appreciate your enthusiasm as I believe it is certainly a scarce commodity with the populace today, but you must also understand the constitution is regularly under attack by interpretation. But, the failure of our government has already occurred - the man was elected by the people, the true injustice involved in this has already happened - read my previous posts about that. I would think myself to be the LAST person taking the position I have found myself in, but there is political strategy involved in it, and I think since the moment of action has already passed, now is the time to reflect on the benefits this error affords us as conservatives.
CJ is offline  
post #21 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:25 PM
T5-T56-Tremec specialist
 
thesource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heading back to Plentywood
Posts: 8,389
Wow I am surprised they are going to even hear it to begin with .
thesource is offline  
post #22 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:28 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesource
Wow I am surprised they are going to even hear it to begin with .
It's just to give a legitimate question the platform it should have deserved 6 months ago and squash it in the most public and supreme fashion.
CJ is offline  
post #23 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:33 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
I hope they deem him unfit for office. Just imagine what the two dinner plates I bought will be worth!
46Tbird is offline  
post #24 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:37 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangguy289
Of course it has Merit. If it was bogus Obama could prove it by simply showing his birth certificate.
Donofrio’s argument has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate. He believes that since Obama’s Kenyan father was a British citizen (Kenya at that time was part of the British Empire) that therefore Obama is a British citizen. Did the framers intend for someone who is beholden to the British monarchy to become President? Of course not. Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (and the divided allegiances that presumes) is an interesting constitutional question.

blownragtop is offline  
post #25 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:40 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
Donofrio’s argument has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate. He believes that since Obama’s Kenyan father was a British citizen (Kenya at that time was part of the British Empire) that therefore Obama is a British citizen. Did the framers intend for someone who is beholden to the British monarchy to become President? Of course not. Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (and the divided allegiances that presumes) is an interesting constitutional question.

mmm, I'm not sure if his father would have ended up a British citizen, considering he was part of the anti-british muslim revolt, and was a prisoner of war captured by the British and beaten.
CJ is offline  
post #26 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:44 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird
I hope they deem him unfit for office. Just imagine what the two dinner plates I bought will be worth!
Then you can buy the next plate in the series – President-elect Biden with ‘confused eyes’ and ‘befuddled smirk’.
blownragtop is offline  
post #27 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
mmm, I'm not sure if his father would have ended up a British citizen, considering he was part of the anti-british muslim revolt, and was a prisoner of war captured by the British and beaten.
Part II Section 5 of the British Nationality Act, 1948 states:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

And Obama argrees: From his website ‘FightTheSmears.com’

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Last edited by blownragtop; 12-04-2008 at 12:55 PM.
blownragtop is offline  
post #28 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 12:59 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Do we want a black president that african american's will follow with little question, or a white man filling his shoes which they will distrust? It's a difficult question.
I would like the candidate that is qualified to be president, be it Obama or Biden. Are we a land of laws or men? You are advocating anarchy over the constitution. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.

You think this would be the first constitution crisis in our history? If throwing out the second article of the constitution to prevent disorder is fine, why not throw out the 1st amendment too? That way people can complain about anything.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #29 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 01:10 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
I would like the candidate that is qualified to be president, be it Obama or Biden. Are we a land of laws or men? You are advocating anarchy over the constitution. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.

You think this would be the first constitution crisis in our history? If throwing out the second article of the constitution to prevent disorder is fine, why not throw out the 1st amendment too? That way people can complain about anything.
I don't understand where you get the assumption I'm anything but a constitutionalist. I also don't understand why you seem to think I'm under the impression this is the first constitution crisis since I've stated in 3 posts in this very thread that that isn't the case, I think you have neglected to read the material I've posted so far in this thread. I am not advocating ignoring the constitution, I am simply applying a rational viewpoint on the current situation and presenting a reasonable argument for why it may not be in our best interests.

Last edited by CJ; 12-04-2008 at 01:16 PM.
CJ is offline  
post #30 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 01:13 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
Part II Section 5 of the British Nationality Act, 1948 states:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

And Obama argrees: From his website ‘FightTheSmears.com’

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
I believed the real point of contention was whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, or in Honolulu seeing as the birth certificate and all the subterfuge revolving around that is pertinent to ones viability as a US candidate. In the article you reference it concedes he was a born in Honolulu, which in 1961 I assure you was part of the United States, his father's citizenship has no legal bearing on his son's (who according to your article concedes he was born in the United States) citizenship, and therefore ability to hold the office.
CJ is offline  
post #31 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
I am not advocating ignoring the constitution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
It is entirely out of the question to remove him as president elect,
.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #32 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 01:31 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog
.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that you did exactly what I figured you would do.

You're not reading any of the information I've posted, you've taken a single line of out context of the general idea and proceeded to attack it in an ignorant fashion. If you frequent the forums enough you should at least understand my strong political stance and attempt to give credence to this momentary lapse and consider my argument, which I believe is something you could agree with if you considered it.
CJ is offline  
post #33 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 02:01 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
I believed the real point of contention was whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, or in Honolulu seeing as the birth certificate and all the subterfuge revolving around that is pertinent to ones viability as a US candidate. In the article you reference it concedes he was a born in Honolulu, which in 1961 I assure you was part of the United States, his father's citizenship has no legal bearing on his son's (who according to your article concedes he was born in the United States) citizenship, and therefore ability to hold the office.
From Donofrio’s website:

"The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen."

"...that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject."


His legal stance hinges on the defintion of ‘natural born citizen’.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
blownragtop is offline  
post #34 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 02:30 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
From Donofrio’s website:

"The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen."

"...that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject."


His legal stance hinges on the defintion of ‘natural born citizen’.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Well, then in that case it seems to be an unfortunately flimsy argument which holds much less credence than the former. Any argument that revolves around the interpretation of a definition is historically doomed, especially when overturning it would cause social and political upheaval. I think the mere fact that it has reached the supreme court is even further evidence that this is being used as a public platform to squash it.

From my own limited knowledge the term "natural born citizen" I believed it was a pretty cut and dry statement which by case law was defined as someone being born in the united states, or on united states soil.

Last edited by CJ; 12-04-2008 at 02:39 PM.
CJ is offline  
post #35 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-04-2008, 04:52 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownragtop
From Donofrio’s website:

"The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen."

"...that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject."


His legal stance hinges on the defintion of ‘natural born citizen’.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
So, what this guy is saying is....

His dad was a British citizen. His mom was a USA citizen (he doesn't state that in the video, why?). Obama was born on USA soil. So, Obama is a duel citizen. A duel citizen can not be a natural born citizen?

That doesn't sound right. His argument seems to require both parents to be USA citizen and the child born on USA soil to be a natural born.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #36 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:21 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.

Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #37 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:44 AM
Lifer
 
Paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.

Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
Not surpirising, but definitely disappointing.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
post #38 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:45 AM
T5-T56-Tremec specialist
 
thesource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heading back to Plentywood
Posts: 8,389
I'm shocked that they turned him down ..... not really
thesource is offline  
post #39 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:51 AM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by aggie97
That is a precedent that CAN NOT be set. If it were, all points in the constitution then become "guidelines" which then can be ignored or partially obeyed and our government and law enforcement would fail on a grand scale. It's also the first steps toward a dictatorship and falls in line with the rise of Hitler in Germany.

People in this country REALLY need to go back and take a few history classes of how Governments failed through time...and the catastrophes that occurred afterward. I watched a show on Stalin this past weekend and it was AMAZING how he brainwashed his citizens.... who ended up hating him, but still cried at his funeral. he even had prisoners in teh Gulag that were writing him asking for help as they couldn't believe Stalin was the one who ordered them to be put there.

Here's a good read on that point, from Denny's boy Allan Keyes.


Quote:
The end of the constitutional republic?

Posted: December 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.

At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.

Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.

Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the president of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?

Relying on the results of the recent election, some will say "by the authority of the people," which is to say the majority of the people which elected him. But until now, the United States has not been simply a democratic republic (that is, a regime in which the sovereign power follows the will of the simple majority) but a constitutional democratic republic (in which the sovereign power follows the will of the constitutional majority, and is bound by the terms and conditions specified in the Constitution.) The best illustration of the difference may be taken from the very history Obama's election is supposed to culminate – the history of black Americans. In 1954, when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in the famous Brown v. Board desegregation case, the simple majority of the American people had repeatedly and continuously accepted or tolerated segregation, both in their election of representatives and in the legislation passed by those representatives. The Court held segregation to be contrary to the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) and therefore unlawful. Its authority to do so rests on the clear logic of judicial review succinctly articulated by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers:
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both: and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decision by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. (Federalist 78)
Though the results of any given election also represent the will of the people, the validity of those results rests on the substantive and procedural understanding arrived at by the people and expressed in the provisions of the constitutional compact. In it, the people have agreed that, first in its adoption and then in the adoption of any changes in its terms, a more comprehensive majority is required than that which decides the outcome of any other election prescribed by it. The need for this more comprehensive majority makes the Constitution a more permanent and durable expression of the will of the people than any subsequent action by a simple majority. In this context, those who compose the simple majority are, like the members of the legislature, subordinate agents of the constitutional majority.

Almost all the great advances of the civil rights cause in the 20th century depended upon this argument as to the authority of the Constitution. The concept of constitutional review has also been crucial in the protection of individual rights, including the property rights of those who might otherwise be despoiled by intemperate majorities, roused to injustice by ambitious demagogues.

If Barack Obama is allowed to assume the office of president without positively establishing his eligibility under the Constitution, it will set a precedent for exempting the allocation of executive power from constitutional restrictions on the pretext that majority support overrules constitutional authority, popularity supersedes the fundamental law. Obviously, this is a recipe for the establishment of democratic dictatorship, like that which characterized the revolutionary first republic in France and licensed its murderous excesses. It is the counterpart of the "democratic people's republics" in whose name countless millions were imprisoned and killed by oppressive party dictatorships in the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, etc.

In an era when the insecurity implied by the threat of terrorist attack already overshadows our liberties, only one thing may be more dangerous to our freedom than such a precedent – the fact that it comes about because of the ignorance, fear, or selfish ambition of those sworn to uphold the Constitution. If they lack the character to do so now, before abuses of executive power create an environment of physical fear and intimidation, what must we expect once those abuses produce their inevitable effect? The people mesmerized by his tinsel rhetoric may expect Obama to resist the temptations of demagogic tyranny, but if he assumes office knowing that in doing so he has already successfully set aside the Constitution, no reasonable person could agree with them. As Shakespeare wrote, "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." ("Macbeth," Act 3, Scene 2)

Since every government official in the United States is sworn to uphold the Constitution, all of them, at every level, have a positive obligation to make sure its provisions are implemented. With regard to the issue of Obama's eligibility to serve as president, a special responsibility falls upon the Supreme Court of the United States. Though in the end, the actual implementation of the Constitution must at this stage be left to the members of the Electoral College (who will also be bound by oath to respect the Constitution), the Supreme Court has the duty that falls to the judiciary in every case, to make sure the provisions of the law are clearly understood, and that relevant facts are presented and have not been falsified or fraudulently withheld. Since the case involves a general election, in which millions of citizens participated, prudence dictates that this be done in a way that assures those millions that the law has been respected, which means that relevant facts and evidence must be publicly presented to the fullest extent possible.

A failure of statesmanship in this matter could obviously have the gravest consequences. It would be inexcusable dereliction to permit a situation in which the putative authority of a sitting president is plainly contradicted by the authority of the Constitution from which the whole government derives its legitimacy. Citizens, sworn officials of government at every level, members of the military – all would be put in a position where their sworn duty to the Constitution is in opposition to their inclination to respect the decisions and actions of the president of the United States. Both intellect and conscience recoil at the prospect of such conflicting claims. I pray that the justices of the Supreme Court, and other officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, will do and be seen to do their duty. Otherwise Obama's vaunted promise of change will portend the demise of America's peaceful liberty.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #40 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:53 AM
Lifer
 
Mustangman_2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: D/FW
Posts: 8,912
I wish this case god speed.

Did you guys sign my petition?

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=377936

Quote:
Originally Posted by MR EDD View Post
it was not a problem to bring money to his house at 10pm.so why is it a problem to call and bitch.it wasnt a problem when we were all sitting around smoking pot together.yes i said it we all were smoking pot together.what now stupid.
Mustangman_2000 is offline  
post #41 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:56 AM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
I believed the real point of contention was whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, or in Honolulu seeing as the birth certificate and all the subterfuge revolving around that is pertinent to ones viability as a US candidate. In the article you reference it concedes he was a born in Honolulu, which in 1961 I assure you was part of the United States, his father's citizenship has no legal bearing on his son's (who according to your article concedes he was born in the United States) citizenship, and therefore ability to hold the office.


Even if he was born in Hawaii, there are still other issues...


Quote:
If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s eligibility.

1.)
In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship-Indonesian, Religion Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.

2.)
In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

3.)
Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of Senator Obama’s birth in 1961, (now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.

4.)
Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #42 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-08-2008, 09:59 AM
Got Lateral G's??
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Your mirror about to pass your ass!
Posts: 9,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine
Even if he was born in Hawaii, there are still other issues...

Seems to me this guy chooses to be whatever works at the moment....he's a fucking chameleon!!!!



Looking for sponsorships for 2010 on the car above... PM for details and schedule.

I'm a mod motor GOD! LOL!
aggie97 is offline  
post #43 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-09-2008, 07:08 AM
Packin' up...
 
Skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 18,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by aggie97
Seems to me this guy chooses to be whatever works at the moment....he's a fucking chameleon!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/...o/scotus_obama

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election."
Skidmark is offline  
post #44 of 67 (permalink) Old 12-09-2008, 11:14 AM
Frequent Flyer
 
AdamLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 9,148
There is no chance anything will come of this. If it's true or not, the government will sweep it under the rug to prevent mass hysteria.
AdamLX is offline  
post #45 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 09:15 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamLX View Post
There is no chance anything will come of this. If it's true or not, the government will sweep it under the rug to prevent mass hysteria.
Looks like it making a come back?
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89078

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #46 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 09:17 AM
BANNED
 
mustangguy289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,098
So if this is true... Biden would become our president. Do we really have anything to gain by this?
mustangguy289 is offline  
post #47 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 09:28 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangguy289 View Post
So if this is true... Biden would become our president. Do we really have anything to gain by this?
or would it negate the whole election?

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #48 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 09:55 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangguy289 View Post
So if this is true... Biden would become our president. Do we really have anything to gain by this?
A democratic ass-kicking in '10 and '12?

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #49 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 10:05 AM
BANNED
 
mustangguy289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
A democratic ass-kicking in '10 and '12?
This is true. I am all for it just for the fact of keeping the constitution alive .
mustangguy289 is offline  
post #50 of 67 (permalink) Old 02-17-2009, 10:22 AM
Lifer
 
slow06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,075
Wow, I though all of this was over after the SCOTUS made the decision in December.

If he is a Citizen prove it in court and shut the skeptics up. If not, kick Obama out, put Biden in his place, and we will continue on the same path with a new face.

I don't think much will change, but I believe he should be transparent and honest about the issue and end this stupidity.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

"A Republic, if you can keep it"
- Benjamin Franklin

The way to peaceably remove elected officials who deviate from the constitution of the United States of America...
www.blowoutcongress.com
slow06 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome