Patterico's Pontifications


Supreme Court Denies Cert in Birth Certificate Case (Updated x2)

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 4:56 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

ScotusBlog reports the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert today in the Obama birth certificate challenge that originated in New Jersey, Donofrio v. Wells, Secretary of State of New Jersey (08A407), and a similar Pennsylvania case, Berg v. Obama (08A391), was turned down in early November.

I’m not aware of any other Obama birth certificate cases that are pending but there may be a few. If so, please help me out by noting them in the comments.

UPDATE 1: It turns out there are other pending Obama birth certificate cases. See the comments for more information and links.

UPDATE 2: One other pending Supreme Court case is # 08A469 Wrotnowski, Applicant, v. Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State. The docket indicates it’s set for conference on December 12, 2008.


71 Responses to “Supreme Court Denies Cert in Birth Certificate Case (Updated x2)”

  1. IIRC, the Alan Keyes one here in the PRC is still on the books…

    redc1c4 (27fd3e)

  2. Was this the one filed by the Clinton supporters?

    JD (059bab)


    wrontnowski’s was helped by Leo and they had more time to work on it, if you went into the histroy of the sabotage by a law clerk of Leo’s case you’ll understand. they are similar, yet, even leo says better prepared cus they had more time to work on it.

    There is also the Alan Keyes suit….i’m told there are others to follow, making their way up through the lower courts,

    read the natural born citizen blog and the supplemental brief being driving down to be delieverd tomorrow to SCOTUS

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  4. if i remember the page count, leos was 20 pages and cort w. is 36 not counting the sup brief

    slizzle (4c3b4d)


    1. Philip J berg PA
    2. Leo C Donofrio NJ
    3. Chris Strunck NY
    4. Cort Wrotnowski CT
    5. Darrel Hunter TX
    6. Bowen V. lightfoot

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  6. It’s not over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!1111!!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  7. DRJ, we have Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469) as well as the cases Broe v. Reed‏ (in Washington’s Supreme Court) and Lightfoot v. Bowen (California Supreme Court docket number S168690), and the ever-popular SCOTUS case Berg v. Obama, et al, as well as the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California.

    Official Internet Data Office (1bb04c)

  8. Thanks, slizzle and OIDO, for the updates and links to other pending cases. I’ll update the post.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  9. I have asked this many times, but why does not Baracky simply produce the actual COLB or the original Birth Certificate and put an end to all of this nonsense?

    JD (059bab)

  10. BTW, there was a press conference that was held today on this issue, with Berg, rorly and another guy i cant remember, i heard it was a kick ass conference that these three guys tore the msm apart. the audio will be uploaded tomorrow, i’ll post link when i get it, also, leo will is suppose to be available for questions at the SCOTUS tomorrow on Cort’s case (which leo helped write)

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  11. Who is leo?

    JD (059bab)

  12. I think it’s Leo Donofrio, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case that was denied cert today.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  13. Oh. It he a nutjob?

    JD (059bab)

  14. This case was the goofiest of the lot, as it assumed BHO was indeed born in Hawaii in 1961, but argues that he isn’t a “natural born citizen” because his dad wasn’t.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  15. Xrl, so if he has duel citizenship, could he be pres? i mean, even his own website, fight the smears amiditted obama had duel citizenship

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  16. plus he’s not suing obama, he was suing the SOS, Calero was on the ticket there and he’s def not a natural born Cit. he from Nicuragua, calero was kicked off the ballet for that reason in other states….if thats the case, how did he end up on the nj ballot?

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  17. seems like you guys are a lil late to the party, this has all been hashed out before for a month now. if you want, leo will be on plains radio, only thing is, you have to put up with Ed hales dumb ass for about an hour. i know, ed…dipshit

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  18. JD,

    I don’t know anything about the New Jersey plaintiff. The only D’Onofrio I “know” stars in Law and Order: Criminal Intent, and I don’t really know him but I like his character.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  19. slizzle: Well why not? The constitution only requires a person be a natural born citizen, which he is, period. If he were citizen somewhere else that wouldn’t make him any less a natural born citizen and there is nothing in the constitution which disqualifies a person from holding our highest office for having dual citizenship now is there?

    Sean P (e57269)

  20. yes there is sean P

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  21. Comment by JD — 12/8/2008 @ 6:17 pm

    Some here would respond:

    Aren’t they all!

    Another Drew (e451ab)


    sim. case, first why would chester go through what he did, if he was eligable with duel citizenship, also, i’ll get you the difference between a naturalized citizen, a citizen and a natural born citizen

    slizzle (4c3b4d)

  23. DRJ – The D’Onofrio of which you speak is a nutjob. I suspect slizzle is too, but I could be wrong.

    JD (059bab)

  24. This Yahoo article on the Donofrio case indicates the Berg case is still pending at the Supreme Court. If so, I must have misread the ScotusBlog link but I’m too busy to track it down right now.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  25. This was posted on another blog from a very reliable source and verified. Links below with reference pages as well

    14th Amendment:

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

    What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers
    of the Fourteenth Amendment?

    We are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
    Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[1]

    Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

    Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[2]

    Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

    [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[3]

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[4] {added emphasis is mine}


    Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
    [1]. Id. at 2893
    [2]. Id. at 2895
    [3]. Id. at 2893
    [4]. Id. at 1291

    Obama is ineligible to be the 44th President of the United States as his father’s allegiance was NOT to the US but to Britain.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  26. PS to JD-

    Don’t spoil the character for me by making me dislike the actor. There are so few interesting characters on TV anymore.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  27. The Barack Obama Citizenship Question Simplified

    The point of the matter is a simple one.

    The Presidency of the United States is THE ONLY OFFICE that is required, by the Constitution, to be occupied by a genuine “Natural Born Citizen.”

    #1) – Natural Born means that both of your parents MUST be “citizens” (not natural born by the way but “citizens”) of the United States.

    #2) – Your birth MUST occur within the Unites States of America.

    Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore a citizen of Great Britain, which really isn’t even THAT important. What IS important is that Barack Obama SR was NOT a US Citizen.

    That’s it. End of story. Over.

    Although Barack Obama MIGHT actually be a “citizen” of the United States (and if so he could easily provide the proof by releasing the vault copy of his birth certificate) he does not qualify as a “NATURAL BORN” citizen.

    The framers of our Constitution SPECIFICALLY made the point that only “NATURAL BORN” citizens could occupy this nation’s highest office. Once they made that decision, they realized that they had disqualified themselves to hold that office because THEY didn’t meet the requirement that they were intending to set forth. So they included one provision that would make them, and their generation, eligible to hold this office. They simply added “at the time of the signing” of this Constitution.

    So unless Barack Obama SR was a US citizen OR Barack Obama JR is AT LEAST 232 years of age, HE DOES NOT QUALIFY under the “NATURAL BORN” status and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of The United States.

    There’s nothing to argue over. Either the Supreme Court upholds and defends the Constitution or they don’t. It’s in their hands now. All we can do is wait and see.

    ddlew (6ca90e)

  28. DRJ – Sorry, and I agree that Vicent D’Onofrio is one of the more interesting actors around, especially his character on Law & Order. But he had an end-stage case of BDS that nearly made him have a breakdown.

    Obama is ineligible to be the 44th President of the United States as his father’s allegiance was NOT to the US but to Britain.

    Cough … cough … bullshit … cough … cough

    JD (059bab)

  29. ddrew states:

    #1) – Natural Born means that both of your parents MUST be
    “citizens” (not natural born by the way but “citizens”) of
    the United States.

    #2) – Your birth MUST occur within the Unites States of

    What’s missing here is the “or”. To be a natural born citizen you must meet test #1 OR test #2. If you are born in the U.S. and neither of your parents are citizens you are still a natural born citizen of the U.S.

    If you are born outside the U.S. and both your parents are citizens, you are a natural born citizen even though you were born on foreign soil.

    Charles Harkins (971090)

  30. “#1) – Natural Born means that both of your parents MUST be “citizens” (not natural born by the way but “citizens”) of the United States.”

    Where did you get this?

    “#2) – Your birth MUST occur within the Unites States of America.”

    And this?

    imdw (7d28a1)

  31. Not true Charles…..That’s what Obama supporters would like to believe but that’s just not true. Even the framers of the Constitution set the “signed now” provision just to make sure THEY qualified.

    ddlew (6ca90e)

  32. DRJ – I kinda figured that the arguement I presented was well above your head so let me just point out to you the seminal point:

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[4] {added emphasis is mine}

    This was written by the man who is considered the father of the 14th amendment and is taken directly from the Congressional Debates.

    If this is too difficult for you to understand you might want to exit the conversation. If you REALLY want to know and understand the issue, do some research – it makes you look smarter.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  33. Good Allah. #32’s name is an oxymoron.

    JD (059bab)

  34. Wrong about having two non-citizen parents. The child would be considered a citizen but not a natural born citizen. There really is a difference whether you like it or not. Please see my previous post.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  35. JD – do you have a problem with me? Because I am only presenting facts and relevent primary sources. I am sorry if it doesn’t fit into what you “feel” is right or fair. I have been looking at this situation for quite a while and at first felt like it was ridiculous nonsense – researching the situation has altered how I see it now. I don’t really care what you think of me but I would encourage you to use an open mind and look at the evidence for yourself. Peace.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  36. Nice posts Thinkingmom. Nice posts. Let them wrestle with it and think for a while

    ddlew (6ca90e)

  37. ThinkingMom,

    I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I don’t think we’ve ever talked about this subject.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  38. I want to see ThinkingMom and ddlew take on Steverino is a cage match.

    ThinkingMom – I have no beef with you, I do not know you. I do have a beef, in general, with people that act all superior to others, like with your comment #32. The same problem that I had with steverino on another thread. Reasonable people can disagree and have discussions on a topic. Declaring your position to be beyond reproach and that people that disagree with you are teh stooopid and need to do research is not a conducive way to win friends and influence people. Just sayin’

    I am betting on steverino in the cage match.

    JD (059bab)

  39. DRJ – In its infinite wisdom, I suspect it directed its comment to you, when it meant to direct it at me. Initials seems to confuse the mental giants.

    JD (059bab)

  40. Comment by ThinkingMom — 12/8/2008 @ 7:15 pm

    I think I have my closing aregument for my thesis “I think, therefor I am’ does not hold true in the inverse”.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  41. I think I have my closing aregument for my thesis “I think, therefor I am’ does not hold true in the inverse”.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/8/2008 @ 7:27 pm

    Comment of the Day. Well done, racist.

    JD (059bab)

  42. That it will be completely misunderstood makes it even better.

    JD (059bab)

  43. ThinkingMom has a lot of things mixed up. Would it help her to read this case? I doubt it.

    nk (5a0e72)

  44. nk – She has thought about stuff. She knows stuff. Reminds me of steverino in that regard. Just the opposite side of the argument.

    JD (059bab)

  45. DRJ I am sorry – I did indeed get you mixed up with JD. Please accept my apology.

    SOOO JD – a beg to differ that was the one that came off all condescending first because I believe that you were the one that called what I said bullshit and proceeded to call me an “oxymoron.” So I was a little offended. Please, if you consider my comments bullshit or that I am an oxymoron, please elaborate further. I have no problem discussing issues with people who disagree with me but I don’t like being dismissed as an idiot or without any supporting information.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  46. For those who are interested one might check Supreme Court decisions as relates “jus solis” and “jus sanguinis”. I don’t know what Obama supporters might want me to think, but I know what my Con Law professor wanted me to think in 1965. Maybe he was setting me up to be a dupe for Obama (well before his birth) and McCain for that matter. Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen (presuming he was born in Hawaii) by jus solis (place of birth) and John McCain qualifies by virtue of Jus sanguinis (by blood). Both were citizens at birth and hence “natural born” rather than naturalized. Is there something else beside “natural born” and “naturalized”? Maybe un-natural born?

    Charles Harkins (971090)

  47. I guess a little mistake makes me a moron. I guess if I make a typo that will open me up to more riducule. Fine. Whatever. It would be nice to know why you guys don’t find what I posted at least interesting or relevent to the issue. I don’t claim to know everything about this but this, too me, seems pretty important to clarify things. I would love to be able to come back and see if you all have any thoughts on this. If I came across as condescending, I am sorry, but it seems that anywhere you go and try to have an intellegent discussion, you get attacked and ridiculed – thought you all might be different.

    ThinkingMom (c7f9d5)

  48. I guess a little mistake makes me a moron.


    Being a moron is what makes you a moron.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  49. Sorry, ThinkingMom. I was too harsh on you, and unfair. I simply disagree. I am indifferent to these lawsuits as they stand by themselves. In the political context, I am opposed to them to the extent that they will be used by the Left to paint all conservative and Republicans as Twoofers. I also think that Baracky should simply produce a live copy of the birth certificate for inspection, which leaves me at odds with basically eveyone.

    JD (059bab)

  50. Comment #164 [posted by “SatinDoll”] from a Free Republic thread on the Wrotnowksi case before SCOTUS:

    “There are a total of nineteen lawsuits centered on the eligibility issue. Six have made it to the Supreme Court. One was denied.

    Thirty states’ Secretary of State Offices have joined together questioning the eligibility qualifications of the Democrat Party’s two nominees for the offices they seek. They, the SOSs, plan on ambushing the Electoral College.”

    [emphasis mine]

    The first paragraph seems right. But does anybody know more about the topic of paragraph 2?

    Official Internet Data Office (1bb04c)

  51. slizzle:

    Xrl, so if he has duel citizenship, could he be pres?

    If the American people are dumb enough to elect him, yes. There is no constitutional bar to dual (note spelling) nationals serving as President. I happen to think there should be, but that’s neither here nor there.

    FWIW, the constitutional controversy surrounding Chester Arthur was not dual citizenship per se, but rather, it was rumored he was actually born in Canada rather than Vermont. Owing allegiance to multiple states doesn’t look good on a presidential resume, so I can’t say I fault him for concealing that, too, if indeed he did, but it is of purely political, not constitutional import.

    ThinkingMom: let’s assume, just for grits and shins, that your analysis of the 14th Amendment is correct. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say anything about who is vs. isn’t qualified for the Presidency. All it says is that anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. That’s a floor, not a ceiling, so at most, it means that Congress can pass a law denying citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. to non-citizens. It doesn’t mean Congress must pass any law, and it certainly doesn’t mean it has. So at most, you’ve proven not that BHO isn’t a natural born citizen, but merely that if it had wanted to, a pre-1961 Congress could have enacted a statute that would have precluded BHO from being a natural born citizen. It’s a bit late to call for that now.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  52. No problem, ThinkingMom, but since I’m here I might as well join in.

    First, in response to ddlew’s #27, I believe it would be more correct to say that there are two elected officials that must be “natural born citizens” — the President and the Vice President.

    Second, I agree with Charles Harkins #29 that there is a missing “or” in ddlew’s analysis. Specifically, there is no requirement that the parent of a President be a citizen, although the parent’s citizenship can be a way for a child to gain citizenship. But if there were a parental citizenship requirement, Chester A. Arthur would never have been Vice President or President because his father was born in Ireland on December 5, 1796.

    Third, I don’t know if it’s accurate but (as XRLQ notes above) there is an interesting parallel in the Wikipedia entry for Chester A. Arthur. It states that his political opponents circulated rumors that he was really born in Canada and thus ineligible to be VP or President, but no proof to support that was ever discovered.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  53. Actually, Xrlq, Congress cannot pass such a law for persons born in the United States. Not since 1896. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    nk (5a0e72)

  54. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” argument also propels part of the illegal immigration debate, in that, some believe that since the illegal-alien parents of “anchor babies” are not “subject ot the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States, and owe their allegience elsewhere, the “anchor baby” is then not a citizen; just as the baby of diplomatic personnel born in the U.S., is not considered a U.S. citizen (though I’ve never seen any mention as to whether or not any such child has, upon attaining majority, applied for citizenship under “native born” status).
    This is an area of law, like the Second Amendment, that the Court has long avoided, but must make a decision on, as it affects too much of society today.
    **question for grammarians…should that be “affects” or “effects”? never can keep that straight.**

    Another Drew (e451ab)

  55. I’ve updated the post with a link to the docket of another pending Supreme Court case.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  56. “The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” argument also propels part of the illegal immigration debate, in that, some believe that since the illegal-alien parents of “anchor babies” are not “subject ot the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States, and owe their allegience elsewhere, the “anchor baby” is then not a citizen; just as the baby of diplomatic personnel born in the U.S., is not considered a U.S. citizen (though I’ve never seen any mention as to whether or not any such child has, upon attaining majority, applied for citizenship under “native born” status).”

    It seems like they’re subject to the jurisdiction of hte US when they commit crimes and we want them imprisoned….

    imdw (f636ac)

  57. I don’t know why everyone freaked out today as if this particular denial of cert. ended the matter.

    I mean, it’s all but certain that the Supreme Court will deny cert. in the Berg case (for example), but it hasn’t happened yet. When it does, the world will be all like: I thought that already happened. And stuff.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  58. Comment by imdw — 12/8/2008 @ 8:26 pm

    Apples, and Oranges!

    Even diplomats are sometimes subject to our laws and regulations, and can serve hard time.

    Another Drew (e451ab)

  59. Patterico #58:

    I posted that Berg has already been denied and now you say it hasn’t. I can’t keep up with these cases.

    DRJ (b4db3a)

  60. NK, I wasn’t arguing that Congress actually could pass such a law, merely noting that this was the only logical conclusion of ThinkingMom’s theory, i.e., to the extent that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require citizenship under any particular circumstances, that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t pass a law conferring citizenship under those same circumstances anyway. It just means they don’t have to.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  61. I have asked this many times, but why does not Baracky simply produce the actual COLB or the original Birth Certificate and put an end to all of this nonsense?

    Why doesn’t the “press” ask that question?

    Roy Mustang (ad5f36)

  62. Why not simply produce the document?

    Well, I can’t read Mr Obama’s mind, but it seems reasonable that he’s laughing himself incontinent at all the bog-ignorant nirth certifikit!!!11!!! ultramaroons, whom his allies in what’s left (no pun intended) of the press will celebrate as representative of conservativism.

    If your enemies are making complete jack o’lanterns of themselves, you’d have to be pretty dumb to stop them.

    Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Phil Berg, and the Paulbots and Twoofers. And we thought Obama had some questionable associates. Lord have mercy.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (88bf29)

  63. Barring a catastrophe, Barack Obama is going to be our next president, and these suits aren’t going anywhere.

    Get over it, it’s going to be President Obama, like it or not.

    Dave Surls (501b57)

  64. From Amendment XII:

    “. . . and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”

    If electors are persuaded by a court ruling that The One Big Phony is ineligible and he does not get an Electoral College majority, or if many of his Electoral votes are not certified by a joint session of Congress when they first meet in January 2009, the new House must choose a President immediately, and only from up to 3 other candidates who have actually received one or more electoral votes.

    The only other person slated to receive any Electoral Votes right now is McCain–unless at least one Elector goes off the reservation and casts a vote, for example, for Hillary. If McCain, however, is the only other person to receive any electoral votes, then the House must choose him. If the House cannot produce 26 individual state votes for McCain out of 50 (“. . .a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. . .”) because of abstentions or disputes, then Biden is President (assuming he did receive an certified electoral vote majority) and not temporarily.

    Official Internet Data Office (d16625)

  65. I, for one, would not support a McCain Presidency under this scenario.

    While I find “The One” to be nothing but pimp in a white suit promising everything to everyone in order to meet his career goals of being re-elected — this ain’t no way to get it done.

    ** Gov of Illinois …. I am so happy. C what happin’s when Gov.t decides it knows best.

    Da'Shiznit (089453)

  66. I am convinced that Obama is eligible for the presidency and have never entertained any doubts. It is my belief, however, that absent a legislated process for determining eligibility, any citizen should be able to challenge a candidates qualifications. Proving that you meet the minimal qualifications set out in the constitution is not an onerous burden. My concern is Obama’s disrespect for the only process available to citizens to challenge his qualifications and the failure of the judiciary to simply resolve this matter in a straight forward way. Obama’s legal team should have proffered a certified copy of his birth certificate to the first court as conclusive proof that he meets the constitutional requirements for this office. Any citizen with a real concern would then have an objective ruling by an authoritative source to rely upon. Avoiding a ruling that he meets the requirements set out in the constitution by looking to standing and other means of avoiding the issue does us all a disservice.

    Charles Harkins (971090)

  67. Well, the question now is what will Gov. Hot-Rod squeel to?
    Will we now have to consider the very real possibility of President Biden?

    Another Drew (0c4ac4)

  68. ABC News also says:

    Told by two other advisers he has to “suck it up” for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this “motherf***er [the President-elect] his Senator. “F*** him. For nothing? F*** him.”

    The Land of Lincoln!

    Official Internet Data Office (d63971)

  69. ddlew and ThinkingMom and imdw —

    ddlew wrote: “#1) – Natural Born means that both of your parents MUST be “citizens” (not natural born by the way but “citizens”) of the United States.”

    This is an interesting theory. The problem, however, is that no court has EVER RULED that “natural born” refers to anything other than where you were born, as opposed to being made a citizen under legal process. As Scalia would teach you, dd, “If the Founder meant that only children of citizens could be ‘natural born’, they would have written that. They didn’t write that and what they did write doesn’t mean that.”

    As for the 14th Amendment argument, that is also an interesting spin. Except, again, no court has ever interpreted the 14th Amendment to NOT APPLY to any person born in the US just because their parents were not legal immigrants. The reason should be obvious: if the 14th Amendment applied as you say it should, it would have meant that NONE OF THE FORMER SLAVES OR THEIR CHILDREN wopuld be considered citizens, nonetheless “natural born citizens”.

    A hypothetical carrying out your “argument” explains why your theory is absurd:

    Barack Obama Sr. is not a citizen, so Barack Jr. cannot be president. And neither can Malia or Sasha because their dad was not a “citizen” in your view, because he had dual citizenship and was subject to the British Crown. And none of their kids could be president, either, because their entire genetic line is “poisoned” by non-citizen Barack Obama,Sr. . . . who neither Malia nor Sasha were alive to meet.

    B-Rob (3963e2)

  70. We know Obama was born August 4, 1961. This is what else I have learned from reading right wing blogs:

    1) Through a translator, his 86 year old aunt says she was present at his birth (which, presumably, happened in Kenya). She is to be trusted because ALL 86 year olds are entirely lucid.

    2) He was really born in Kenya. The fact that there is no evidence that his mother ever set foot in the country, or that his father went there between 1959 and 1965 just proves they covered their tracks.

    3) His real father was Malcolm X, because Malcolm X lived in Seattle around the time Obama was conceived and his mother may have lived there, too. Because Obama does not look like he is Luo (Barack Sr.’s ethnic group). The fact that there is no evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham and Malcolm X ever met is inconsequential.

    4) Even though there are birth announcements in two different Honolulu newspapers in the week after his birth, listing a child born to Mr. & Mrs. Barack Obama who lived at a Honolulu address, that proves nothing. His grandparents could have planted that in the newspaper.

    5) Under Hawaii law, the Department of Health issued Obama a Certification of Live Birth on high security forgery proof paper. They did not release the original Birth Certificate (which would be printed off old microfiche) because the Birth Certificate lists Kenya as his birthplace.

    6) Two anonymous document experts on the internet have proven that the Certification of Live Birth Obama released is a forgery. Both are highly skilled professionals with several degrees, but they chose to remain anonymous because they are fearful of reprisals from Obama-bots.

    7) A Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii is not nearly as official as a Birth Certificate from the state of Hawaii.

    8) To get a US passport, the government will not accept a Certification of Live Birth, only a Birth Certificate. Yes, they will accept an affidavit of birth (for people who have no birth records at all) and sometimes a Certification of Live Birth may “slip through the cracks” (like my daughter Maya’s did last year), but you need a Birth Certificate to get a US passport.

    9) The fact that Obama has a US passport proves he forged a Birth Certificate and may have committed a felony.

    10) Barack forged his birth certificate, which means that his applications to Harvard, his bar application, and everything he has submitted to the government is falsified, also felonies.

    11) The fact that Obama got his first passport in the 1970s proves that the forgery started long ago.

    12) Obama must have had an Indonesian passport in the 1980s when he traveled to Pakistan to see his mother, because US citizens were not permitted to travel to Pakistan.

    13) Obama’s stepfather renounced Obama’s US citizenship, so he should not have received a US passport. Stepfathers do this kind of thing all the time. The fact that his mother and stepfather would have secured him a US passport after renouncing his citizenship at age 5 to 10 proves nothing.

    14) The Hawaii officials who stated that his Birth Certificate was in their vault did NOT state that it listed a Hawaii birthplace.

    15) The fact that the Hawaii officials vouched for the Certification of Live Birth that lists a Hawaii birthplace does not explain whether Obama changed his Birth Certificate (which is in their vault) at some time.

    16) Obama has a birth certificate but refuses to release it because it says his parents were not married, or he is listed as white, or it says he was born in Kenya, or it lists his Muslim stepfather as having adopted him.

    17) The real reason Obama went to Hawaii before the election was not to visit his soon to be dead grandmother, but to get a new birth certificate created to cover his tracks. This could only be done in person. The fact that the Republican led state government never leaked what he was doing is due to the liberal who actually control Hawaii.

    18) Despite his doctored birth certificate, forged certificate of live birth, the passport issued under false pretenses,etc., the Bush administration gave Obama a security clearance in 2004 because they did not want to make waves by denying a security clearance to the anti-war junior senator from the minority party.

    19) Because Obama’s father was a British subject, Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though he actually was born in Hawaii. Courts have not recognized this argument because the question has never been asked, despite 150 plus years of the 14th Amendment and 200 plus years of naturalization by birth. Yes, we may have tens of millions of people who were born in the US of foreign born parents, but being born in the US does not mean they were “natural born citizens.”

    and most importantly . . .

    20) “Barack Obama is a mack daddy! He pimps white women and black women!”

    B-Rob (3963e2)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4182 secs.