Source: https://jbjd.org/2008/11/30/find-out-whether-barack-obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen-as-required-under-article-ii-of-the-us-constitution-and-stop-the-electoral-college-from-voting-for-him-if-he-is-not/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:17:47+00:00

Document:
FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!
By now, almost everyone paying attention to the election seems to know that under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President has to be a natural born citizen. But hardly anyone seems to know there is no provision in either federal or state law that says anyone, anywhere, has to check. That’s right. Nothing. Even so, voters in general have the right to express preference for a Presidential candidate without respect to qualifications for office. Of course, Electoral College voters must ensure he is at least Constitutionally eligible for the job.
Issue: Given that Article II of the U.S. Constitution says the President must be a natural born citizen, could Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention have certified that Barack Obama was “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party’s candidate for POTUS; and could the Party chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia then have submitted his name to state officials, along with Ms. Pelosi’s certification, to be placed onto the general election ballots; and could state officials have placed his name on the ballot and then certified the final number of votes cast for him; and can he receive the requisite votes for POTUS from the Electoral College (“EC”) when it meets on December 15 and then on January 20, be sworn into office, all without being a natural born citizen?
Answer: Yes, absolutely; if the EC fails to stop him.
In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.
Some have charged that even if being born on the base would otherwise have made him a natural born citizen, he wasn’t actually born on the base but in another hospital outside of the U.S. Zone and so, while he is a citizen, he cannot be considered natural born. (As I just explained above; whether he was born in the Zone or the country has no bearing on the analysis of his status as NBC.) Confronted with these accusations, McCain voluntarily handed over his original long form birth certificate to Washington Post reporters whose investigation confirmed he had been born in the hospital on the base where his mother, still alive, said she gave birth.
On the other hand, nothing has been confirmed about the natural born status of Barack Obama.
As with John McCain, questions have also been raised as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. As previously stated, McCain responded to these questions by producing his long form birth certificate for the press, which investigators used to confirm his legal status. Here’s what Obama did last June to respond to questions as to his own eligibility: he posted on his web site, “Fight the Smears,” a copy of what his campaign called his “Birth Certificate,” which seemed to indicate he was born in HI. Further, they insisted this document put to rest once and for all questions as to whether he is a natural born citizen. In fact, it did no such thing.
Even assuming the document Obama posted is real; it is still not a “Birth Certificate,” anyway. Its title is “Certification of Live Birth.” (Yes; Annenberg Political FactCheck.org says it’s a real “Birth Certificate.” But keep in mind, Annenberg FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who employed Obama as the Chair of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”), selected by Bill Ayers for that position, where he doled out to community organizations the millions of dollars donated by the Foundation in a failed campaign to increase the test scores of Chicago public school students.) FYI, according to the government web site of the State of HI, officials there will accept a “Certificate of Live Birth” as primary evidence of, say, Hawaiian birth; but they will not accept a “Certification of Live Birth” without additional documentation.
Of course, if he was born in Kenya – a paternal grandmother in Kenya claims to have been present at his birth there – then at no time would he have been a natural born citizen, since his mother had not satisfied the U.S. residency requirements after attaining the age of majority, to automatically pass on her citizenship status to her son.
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.
Bottom line, just because the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama as their candidate for President; and just because the state chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted his name to be placed on the general election ballot; and despite the fact that state officials in all 50 states and the District allowed his name onto the ballot and millions of voters cast their votes for him, this does not mean he is eligible to be President.
Of course, he is not the President; indeed, he is not even the President-elect.
Once the results of the state elections are certified by the appropriate state authorities in each state, the next step in the process of choosing a President is the vote by the Electoral College (“EC”) on December 15. And like every other deliberative body involved with this election, the EC is not legally obligated to determine the candidate’s eligibility, either. Under the United States Constitution and federal law, the electors may cast their votes for anyone they want. However, under the laws of a number of states, the electors in those states must pledge to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state’s Presidential election. And some states have enacted laws that require electors to honor their pledges or their parties. Yet, in the history of the EC, no “faithless elector” has ever been punished for voting for someone other than the Party candidate. But since electors are generally chosen by their respective Party based on criteria like Party loyalty and years of service, they rarely go against the will of the Party. On the other hand, the Presidential electors in each state are presumed to honor the conditions laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
So, what would happen if the EC voted for him and then his ineligibility is confirmed? Under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the worst that would happen is that Vice President Elect Joe Biden would be sworn in as President on January 20. Then, he would choose a VP of his own, subject to Congressional approval. (Note 01.08.11: this scenario presumes, Congress makes clear, it will not Certify the vote of the Electors based on the fact, they elected an ineligible President. Please see expanded analysis in QUALIFIED ≠ ELIGIBLE.) Of course, if EC voters receive information before December 15 that Obama is ineligible for the job, pledged or not, it is unimaginable they would still cast their votes for him. Only, how are they ever going to get this information?
Several citizens have already filed lawsuits in both federal and state court to address the issue of whether Barack Obama satisfies the Article II requirement that the President must be a natural born citizen. The stated goal in several of these suits is to get the court to compel state officials – usually, the S of S – to vet the candidate as to eligibility, by arguing such vetting is a requirement of the job. That is, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution these state officials must verify the candidate’s eligibility. However, while some state laws explicitly require the political party to submit only the names of eligible candidates for inclusion on the state’s general election ballot; as previously stated in this memo, no state law requires a state official to confirm the eligibility of the candidate the major political party submits. As such, most judges have already dismissed these suits, ruling that the nexus between swearing to uphold the Constitution and having to investigate a candidate’s eligibility for POTUS is too attenuated for the court to compel the specific performance sought in the suit.
Some of the lawsuits filed in state courts have also been dismissed for lack of standing. That is, the Plaintiff lacked the particularized interest in the case of, say, another candidate on the general election ballot. Able to circumvent this barrier to standing, Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan and candidate for POTUS under the American Independent Party filed a suit in CA attempting to prevent the Secretary of State from submitting California’s 55 electoral votes until Obama provides proof of his US citizenship.
The petition filed in August by Plaintiff Phil Berg, Attorney, in federal district court in PA is different. He asked the court merely to Declare whether Obama is a natural born citizen based on several documents he asked the court to order Obama to produce. He named as Defendants Obama, the DNC, and the FEC.
In Opposition to Berg’s Motion, Defendant Obama, joined by the DNC, insisted he does not have to produce evidence he is a natural born citizen. He pointed out that Mr. Berg is just one of millions of voters with no special interest in whether he is eligible. That is, as an individual citizen, he lacked standing to bring this action in the first place. Thus, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, he had failed to present a “case or controversy” for consideration by the federal court. Justice Surrick agreed, granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. It is this ruling against Plaintiff’s Motion for Declarative Judgment on the basis he lacks standing that Berg has appealed up to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking for Certiorari, meaning, an agreement to review the case. The SCOTUS has given Obama until December 1, 2008 to submit his arguments against Berg’s request for cert. But even if the court grants cert. AND rules in Berg’s favor on the issue of standing; the case will then be thrown back to the trial court for a new hearing, which could stall on deliberations over other procedural issues, without reaching the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS. In the meantime, the EC vote will already have taken place. Since they – like you – have no conclusive evidence Obama is not a natural born citizen, without demanding such proof, their vote for him is a fait accompli.
So, other than the EC, can anyone else prevent this from happening? Yes. You. You can bring the court case that will survive the challenge from Obama, the Plaintiff lacks standing.
Issue: Given that the President functions as Commander in Chief (“CIC”) of the armed services under the U.S. Constitution; that the CIC is authorized to order members of the armed services, including the national guard, into combat duty; that while serving combat duty such combatants may logically be required to inflict casualties on the enemy; and that causing the death of another under the color of law but not the rule of law could subject that combatant to criminal charges of murder and, on conviction, to execution for his crime; does a member of the military or national guard, currently deployed in or scheduled for deployment to a combat situation, have the particularized standing required by the federal court so as to create a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully petition the federal court to examine whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and rule on his eligibility to be POTUS?
The elements that would establish standing in federal court, and which Judge Surrick found missing in the Berg case; would be present in a case where the nexus between the injury that would likely result if Obama is not a natural born citizen is more direct. For example, if Obama is not a natural born citizen then he is legally ineligible to be POTUS. And that means any orders he issues under the color of law of POTUS lack the real authority of law. Commanding troops to go into combat where they will likely inflict casualties on the enemy, if illegal, thus exposes soldiers to the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, merely for doing what they believed was their job. (Conversely, under the Code, questioning the legitimacy of the President to hold this position once he is in office subjects soldiers to discipline under “Contempt for Officials.”) This nexus between Obama’s ineligibility and the likely harm that would result establishes standing, in the eyes of the law.
Mr. Obama also pointed out to the court that alleging a violation of Article II “fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because it fails to establish a cause of action.” Mr. Berg justified his presence before the court by citing the Declaratory Judgment Act. But as Obama successfully argued, this Act only affords a procedural remedy to an underlying cause of action. Thus, “a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction.” And there is no federal cause of action under Article II. But he was wrong.
There certainly is a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for soldiers who would be compelled to engage in conduct that could result in execution, deprived of due process of law because their Commander in Chief is ineligible for office.
be liable to the party injured in an action at law …. “In order to bring action under §1983, one must allege that defendant violated plaintiff‘s constitutional rights and the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1994). Under the definition of acting under state law, the defendant in a §1983 action must have exercised power ”possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.“ West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 ( 1988 ) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
And there’s a cause of action under that same law for all of the families of all of those members of the armed forces, including National Guard members who would be deprived of their loved ones under such a scheme.
The most obvious “person” subjecting Plaintiff(s) to this unlawful “deprivation” in a §1983 suit is the S of S in Plaintiff’s state. But Defendants could also include Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi; the DNC; and the state Party chair, since all of these people were inextricably bound up in the governmental function of carrying out the election to be deemed state actors in this enterprise.
In conclusion, no one has verified candidate for POTUS Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the EC is poised to cast their votes for him on December 15. Unless someone produces documentary evidence establishing he was born in Kenya, the only forum to conclusively decide his legal status lies in federal court. This means filing a suit that would survive a challenge to standing. Given the recent pronouncements by the court in the several cases pending, among the Plaintiffs who could establish standing necessary to force this inquiry are members of the military or National Guard scheduled for deployment or about to be scheduled for deployment to a combat zone; and members of their families.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 30th, 2008 at 14:00 and is filed under Uncategorized.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
92 Responses to FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!
Well that would automatically disqualify BO wouldn’t it and put McCain in his place?
What Happens if Obama is Declared Ineligible to be President….
LINK TO PETITION REQUIRING OBAMA TO PROVIDE PROOF. IF YOU WISH, SIGN AND PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR EMAIL FRIENDS.
with all the controversy about his Birth Certificate, he should be made to show it. If John McCain did then he ought to also.
The Director of the Hawaii State Health Department and the Registrar of Vital Records for the State of Hawaii have publically stated that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and on file. The information on the Certification of Live Birth that has been posted on the web since June is taken directly from the vault copy birth certificate.
JamesE: Become a more discerning reader when it comes to anything related to Obama. The opening salvo of your linked article reads, “The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.” This merely gives us the opinion of the writer. Now, let’s examine the quote on which, presumably, he based his conclusion.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.
As you can see, despite writing this article, this reporter fails to provide us with any conclusive information that would aid our analysis as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution and thus eligible for POTUS. And, as a lay person, you have (presumably unintentionally) compounded his mistake.
When I was a child, I was told that Hawaii became a state in 1959. I’m curious why you believe it belonged to the British Empire in 1961….
and citizenship status. It was supposed to take effect in all 50 States by May 2008, by all DMV.
If Obama has, or, renews his drivers license he must comply.
What about FOIA on Obama’s Children? Their BC would have to show the “Parent’s” info!
I have been “Searching” for the EXACT DATE when Stanley Ann Dunham, or her Parent’s, became Resident’s of Hawaii. So far, I have only been able to find that she Graduated High School from Mercer Island, WA in 1960. I’ve read that she was not to Happy to go Hawaii. If Ann was registered to go to the University of Hawaii she most likely would have started classes in September 1960.
Hawaii State Law’s require that a Resident has to have lived there for at least “one” year.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Ann Dunham (a minor) and. or, her Parent’s would have to have taken residence prior to August 04, or, 08 in 1960.
If they took residence in Hawaii “AFTER” August 04, 1960 she would not meet the one year residence that is required.
I have searched numerous website’s to no avail.
BC of Obama might not have been Legal.
If I recall correctly I think Andy Martin has done some research along the lines you’re speaking.
contrariancommentary.blogspot.com is one site to start.
I noticed that he used 338-18 in his “case”.
Maybe 338-17.8 should be added, and, or investigated.
Birth Certificate’s with the “Parent’s” , Full Names, Address, “RACE”, etc..
Maybe there are less restriction’s on getting the info in Illinois than Hawaii?
At 18 did Barack Obama register , as other American fellows who are citizens have to do?
I am not a fan of our president elect, I am much too pro- life , but are not his comments worthy of quote , in this instance , when he was asked about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy? Look it up , sensible sounding to me!
Whatever ! A Republic -Democracy may take a while but it is self- correcting ..
that will happen should the Lord think the nation is deserving .. and even if undeserving , should He be in a forgiving mode .
I can’t be happy about Obama’s obvious positions on abortion. Not a very natural action all the slaughter by abortion of white , black and other helpless babies. Wasted future citizens with the potential to contribute , having eyes ears hands and feet and other essential human qualifications for citizenship.
It is not all up to the heavens ..there is work to be done ..no need to freeze in fear or dismiss the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Racist garbage! This is an undignified attack by yet another pseudo scholar of the American Constitution! May God save us from such perverted claims to knowledge of the law!
There are several issues to address here. First, some insist Obama must be hiding something since if he would just produce his “long form” birth certificate it would answer all the questions. As the article noted, no official had the legal duty to verify Obama’s citizenship, thus he had no legal duty to provide it to anyone. Even if he did, it would not resolve the issue-first, because Obama’s enemies would insist the “long form” birth certificate was a forgery, and second, because they are now promoting the theory that even if he was born in Hawaii he is ineligible because he father was an alien. He also didn’t need to produce anything to get the cases against him dismissed because the paintiffs lacked standing-as an attorney, I never produce evidence if I can get a case dismissed as a matter of law.
Second, this is primarily a political issue which, Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, the SCOTUS is loathe to get involved in. Contrary to the article, it is not a slam-dunk that Obama Sr.’s alien status makes Obama ineligible for the presidency. No court has ever ruled that a person born on US soil to an American parent is ineligible to be president because another parent is an alien. Thus Obama is not ineligible as a matter of law-his enemies only have an argument that he is ineligible, an argument the courts will not hear. There has been, however, an extensive political process during which the issue could have been brought to the attention of the voters. Obama and Clinton were locked in an extended battle for the Democratic nomination during which she could have made the argument that he was ineligible, but she did not. McCain had months to campaign against Obama for the presidency but he also did not argue that Obama was ineligible. You can’t blame the MSM for not making an issue out of Obama’s father when his opponents didn’t even think it was worth mentioning. Now 67 million Americans have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified for the presidency, and soon 365 electors will cast their ballots for his election-so why would the SCOTUS risk a constitutional crisis when, through the many months of this presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and 67 million American voters all agree that Obama is eligible to be president?
The theory that members of the Armed Forces would have standing to challenge the election results because if Obama is ineligible for the presidency then any military action ordered by him as CinC would be illegal exposing them to criminal prosecution is also bogus. In order to be convicted of a crime, one must have the requisite intent, thus a soldier cannot be convicted of following the otherwise legal orders of a CinC who was voted president by the electoral college and sworn in as POTUS, thus they would not have standing.
This finally leaves the conspiracy theories: first, that Obama was really born in Kenya and forged his birth certificate, and second, that he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and thereby lost his US citizenship. The Kenyan birth theory is so far-fetched that even on the Texas Darlin blog (and nobody hates Obama more than they do), they have concluded that Obama almost certainly was born in Hawaii. A contemporaneous birth announcement was provided Hawaiian newspapers by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics which in turn received it from a Hawaiian hospital-it was not planted by Obama’s grandparents as part of conspiracy which started at his birth (don’t take my word, its on the Texas Darlin Blog).
The Indonesian adoption theory is based on a school record allegedly filled out by his stepfather stating Obama’s nationality is Indonesian. Obama’s enemies have failed to produce a single document showing Obama was actually adopted, despite the fact that both the Clintons and the GOP had months to conduct opposition research on Obama. Without such documents there is no reason to believe that a formal adoption of Obama by his stepfather occurred, or that even if he was adopted, they took whatever additional steps would have been necessary to make Obama a citizen of Indonesia (as the father of adopted children from China, I know that adopting children does not automatically grant them US citizenship).
You can’t hang your hat on a school record alone-I would hazard a guess that a school in a third-world country would not have demanded extensive documentary evidence that a child was actually a citizen. Heck, at about the same time Obama was being enrolled in school there, my mother lied about my brother’s age to get him enrolled in school in England.
In the extremely unlikely event that one of these conspiracy theories proves out, there is a political process available to resolve the issue-impeachment. There is also the next election, in 2012, when the voters can remove Obama from office themselves if they so choose. The courts are not going to get involved in an attempt to nullify the results of a presidential election. There is no constitutional crisis-the voters have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified to be president and there is no express definition of “natural born” citizen to the contrary. Your next best shot at getting Obama out as president is the next election four years from now.
Obama is definitely an illegal alien.
obama is a thug, why is this guy hiding his birth certificate, sealed all his transcripts? only one word FAKE. The guy is not a USA citizen and should be taken to gitmo for treason.
I think I will go to the El dorado Kansas court house Monday and file a motion to seek obama’s birth certificate. Wouldn’t that be appropriate since his commie mother stanley ann dunham lived there for a couple of years. google obama’s momma. I think you will be real surprised. Fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).
No matter how many times this garbage is debunked, you people keep bringing it back up.
You lost. Now get over it.
Slagtastic, the USA will lose if Obama gets sworn into office and is NOT eligible. Our national security will be compromised and he will be subject to blackmail from anyone who would KNOW his situation. He has teams of LAWYERS covering for him on this… so you bet there are people who know the truth.
All he has to do is release the records that have been covered up. If they come out OK, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief. If not, the sooner we know the better and the less damage done.
For me, it’s not about whether or not I like that he won, it’s about the integrity of our Constitution and the future stability of our country.
If we lay aside the question of Obama being born in Hawaii (he WAS born in Hawaii) and consider only the law cases that seek to disqualify him for reasons other than the location of his birth, we find that there are three approaches.
(1) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
(2) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
(3) Revolving around Obama allegedly not being a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).
Taking these up in order.
As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship.
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called “Bancroft Treaties” enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.
The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg’s parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.
Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.
As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.
Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.
This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue of jurisdiction is unclear. It is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.
More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have. So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes.
“Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!
Please do NOT give up! This is exactly what they want us to do – to give up and let them rob us of our freedon, our liberty and our country! If our founding fathers had given up their fight we won’t be enjoying our free country now.
We will seek justice to the end. We will do whatever it takes to uphold the Constitution. Nothing can stop us. The truth will prevail. We can overcome corruption, deceits and whatever they throw at us. The fact that they are resorting to such despictable tactics as using the “anthrax test” as excuse to delay the case show that they are really frightened that the case will be heard. We have made progress and we simply should not and cannot give up now. Leo, we are behind you 100%. Time and patience is on our side. Even if they managaed to drag it on they will only make it worse for themselves – an ineligible president will cause chaos. When/If that happens, we will have even stronger voices, greater strengths to wake up the waylaid Americans, put the traitors where they belong, and put our country back on the right track.
Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that Obama’s a natural born U.S. citizen?
Also, you do know, I trust, that Walter Annenberg was a Republican. Judge Surrick in Pennsylvania is a Republican.
Are Republicans in Obama’s pocket, too?
01.21.11: I am re-reading comments looking for something I said and found this incorrect statement regarding dual citizenship as a barrier to being natural born. I want to correct this mistake now. As I realized after I wrote this, without a ruling from the federal appellate court, no one knows what constitutes being a NBC.
In the time it took you to write that, you would have been better off having a beer and reflecting on what you were about to type.
1) You do realize that there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, right? The Swedish girl was declared a “citizen” .. nothing more.
2) No one is arguing that travelling on a foreign passport is automatic grounds for loss of citizenship. Indonesia, at the time in question, did not recognize dual citizenship. To get an Indonesian passport, you must be an Indonesian citizen. To have attended public school in Indonesia, he again must have been an Indonesian citizen. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand through this.
3) “the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA” – Wrong. That is referred to as a “native born citizen”. Refer to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and you’ll see the justices make a clear distinction between “native born” and “natural born”.
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
Maybe my approach is oer simplistic, but all I need is a certified long form birth certificate and college school records. If he was born an American citizen and went to school as an American citizen (after he turned 18), then I think he’s a citizen (able to run). If, on the other hand he wasn’t born a citizen or he went to school under the guise of being a non-citizen, foreign exchange or whatever (where I feel like he freely gave up any US citizenship he may have had) then he needs to admit he’s not eligible to run and step down. Either way, he needs to give up the paperwork and let us all move on. I don’t like almost everything about him. He scares me for our nation’s sake. Having said that, with the help of the main stream media (who should be VERY ashamed), it appears he bought the election and may be our president… if he is constitutionally eligible. If he doesn’t get with it soon though and give up the information, he’ll be crap to us all, and not our president, forever.
ONLY picture that has ever turned up of him with his “father” Obama Sr.
Hey jbjd – how about Soldier4Hillary who is a regular poster over at NQ? I think her name is Patty or Patsy. She was a passionate and vocal supporter of HRC but since campaigning for Barry and then accepting the SOS Soldier is not as enamored.
Larry and Susan would know how to get a hold of her. I think she is stationed either at Camp Lejeune or Fort Bragg. She might be interested. As well, she’s a young, black, extremely articulate and very thoughtful woman.
I think she’d be perfect too!
You know another person that comes to mind is the young fellow who posted a YouTube video telling the world why he as a young black man wasn’t going to vote for the one. He was very articulate and spoke his mind, which I found refreshing.
HE ADMITS OPENLY THAT HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN at the time of his own birth in 1961.
Neither Obama not McCain nor Calero are NBC.
Nor can any court defined them otherwise, or change the definition.
Because the definitin of a “natural born citizen” is a historical fact, not a legal determination, it is a truth of history and political philosophy.
You can no more change that definition of De Vattle’s, that you could demand that 1 +1 = 3 just because the Supreme Court says so.
Those who claim Obama is a NBC, have given themselves lobotomies, and abandoned all reason….in a word, they are MAD and INSANE for the sake of their political GOD.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who, I hope, knows the Constitution and all this legal stuff as well as anybody) has a hell of a decision to make on Jan. 20.
This is my response to any one who ever asks me to write another letter the existing Congress, Senate or Supreme Court. NOT UNTIL EVERY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CURRENT SLATE IS REMOVED WILL I WASTE MY INTEGRITY WRITING TO ANY OF THEM. THEY ARE TRAITORS—EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. I WILL IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACKNOWLEDGE OR VALIDATE ANY ONE OF THEM AS MY REPRESENTIVES IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AS THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED TO KEEP THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA!
You are in as much of a fog of confusion as all of us. On one hand you readily acknolwedge that our Congress and Senate has failed us by refusing to hear the calls and letters we sent them regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand you are asking us to write to our Congress regarding a new bill to be voted upon. It is apparent reality hasn’t hit us yet.
If Congress failed America on the most important issue in American history–the installation of a Usurper as President,– what on earth makes you think it is still OUR CONGRESS? We no longer have a Congress, Senate, or Supreme Court that gives a rats tail about us. I will never again write to a dead government.
The only issue left is terminating all our elected officials before their terms expire. WE must concentrate on finding every way to publicly expose them for the treason they committed against America and terminate them for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and treason. These elected officials are not politicians in office. They are criminals! They should be behind bars. We should be doing every thing in our power to indict all of them. We must constantly remind the public of Congress, Sennate and The Supreme Court’s betrayal of America! There no longer is a Congress that exists for the people!
John McCain was not born on a Military Base. His mother left the base and went into the city to a regular hospital. John was born off the base in the city and in a regular hospital.
Besides this was not a regular military base as we have today in most cases.
Even at that the military base would have to be sovereign land of USA.
SORRY I thought about this for a very long time. John McCain is simply not a natural born citizen.
1. I am required to obey “lawful orders”.
All persons in the military service are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.
2. I am required to disobey certain “unlawful orders”.
(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) Authority to issue general orders and regulations.
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).
4. I am aware (unfortunately) that significant doubt exists as to the constitutional elegibility of my current Commander in Chief.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(substantive due process- Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior ).
7. I assert that I am entitled to a CLEAR and UNAMIBIGUOUS chain of command as a Soldier subject to OBEYING lawful orders. I recognize the fact a military judge IAW the MCM determines the nature of lawful orders in the case of trials by courts-martial. I contend that a Soldier should know implicitly the legality of an order from the President PRIOR to military trial; such would require a determination by the highest civilian court of these United States.
(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time. An act performed pursuant to a lawful order is justified. See subsection (c) of this rule. An act performed pursuant to an order is excused unless the accused knew it to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful.
Anyway, jbjd, thanks for your reason and clarity regarding this constitutional crisis.
A. Plaintiff, an active member of the United States Armed Forces, has significant reason to believe defendant is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander in Chief and consequently is unable to issue “lawful orders” to said plaintiff.
B. Plaintiff is subject to punishment IAW military jurisprudence due to his awareness of defendant’s questionable eligibility to issue said orders. Plaintiff is required by military regulation to disobey orders that are understood to be unlawful (patently of a criminal nature).
C. Plaintiff can only prove defendants ineligibility through placing himself in peril of military courts-martial due to the regulatory constraints of active service in the Armed Forces. Plaintiff asserts that his 5th Amendment rights have been violated by the defendant regarding the immanent threat of deprivation “of life, liberty,…without due process of law”. Specifically, the defendant is uniquely capable of violating “substantive due process” by which the defendant’s executive orders have subjected plaintiff to laws that are not clearly understood by a reasonable (informed) person as to whether they are of a criminal nature due to the questionable lack of issuing authorities qualification.
D. Plaintiff has three courses of action (COA) for redress of grievances- violate his oath of enlistment to “obey the [lawful] orders of the President” and follow all instructions of his usurping Commander in Chief, disobey the orders of the President and await adjudication by a military judge as to the [lawful] nature of said order, or seek discovery by the highest civilian court of the United States. The first COA is contrary to all precepts regarding the military obligation of service members to disobey “unlawful orders” IAW the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The second and third COA would require defendant to prove his eligibility. The second COA unfairly subjects defendant to potential punishment IAW the regulations of the Armed Forces.
E. Does plaintiff have to risk loss of liberty (or life) to seek redress or is he entitled to discovery by civilian authorities to protect his constitutional rights? Plaintiff contends the third COA is the only reasonable method to resolve the issue of defendant’s constitutional eligibility to serve as plaintiff’s Commander in Chief.
The Washington Post article about McCain’s birth on some “Coco Solo medical facility” (with no documentation of it) is incorrect. There is a BC copy from the Live Birth Records of the Panama Railroad Company that shows McCain was born in Colon Hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama which was not – and still is not – part of the Canal Zone.
It was incorporated in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit in NH district court under case #1:08-cv-00009 but you have to dig to pull it out.
We are a military family, and we thank you for your attempts to have this Orly person change the terms of her contract. We have tried numerous times and our comments were deleted. We asked her to retract and apologize and she responded by calling us “cowards.” We are not cowards, many members of my family have died in the service of our country. My sons, ARE serving in Iraq. My daughter was deployed a few months ago. Yet, this woman had the audacity to call them, and their families “Cowards,” while they risk their lives, as I did in the past to protect our country. That was the last straw.
We contacted Central Command, and as per their instructions,we cannot comment any further on the matter, beyond what I have stated here.
JTX, that is a common mistake made as to the City of Colon being in the PMZ. Actually Colon and Panama City were specifically excluded in the treaty. The US had absolutely no jurisdiction over the city of Colon.Here is the Article relevant to the issue. There were changes to this treaty, but this part never changed. McCain is not at natural born citizen. He obtained his citizenship by statute.
The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark *with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.* The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said ….

References: §1983
 §1983
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v.