[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Warren Buffett has said: “I could end the deficit in five minutes.

FBI seizes Diddy tape showing Hillary Clinton killing a child at a 'Freak Off' party

Numbers of dairy cow deaths from bird flu increasing to alarming rates

Elites Just Told Us How They'll SILENCE US!

Reese Report: The 2024 October Surprise?

Americans United in Crisis: Mules Carry Supplies to Neighbors Trapped by Hurricanes Devastation in NC

NC STATE POLICE WILL START ARRESTING FEDS THAT ARE BLOCKING AIDE FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES

France BANS ARMS SALES To Israel & Netanyahu LASHES OUT At Macron | Iran GETS READY

CNN Drops Bomb on Tim Walz, Releases Blistering Segment Over Big Scandals in His Own State

EU concerned it has no influence over Israel FT

How Israels invasion of Lebanon poses risks to Turkiye

Obama's New Home in Dubai?,

Vaccine Skeptics Need To Be Silenced! Bill Gates

Hillary Clinton: We Lose Total Control If Social Media Companies Dont Moderate Content

Cancer Patients Report Miraculous Recoveries from Ivermectin Treatment

Hurricane Aid Stolen By The State Of Tennessee?

The Pentagon requests $1.2bn to continue Red Sea mission

US security officials warn of potential threats within two weeks, ramped-up patrols.

Massive Flooding Coming From Hurricane Milton

How the UK is becoming a ‘third-world’ economy

What Would World War III Really Look Like? It's Already Starting...

The Roots Of The UK Implosion And Why War Is Inevitable

How The Jew Thinks

“In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer" John Kerry in 2009

Jewish FEMA disaster relief handbook actually mandates prioritising non-Whites for disaster relief

A Comprehensive Guide To Choosing The Right Protein Powde

3-Time Convicted Violent Criminal Repeatedly Threatened to Kidnap and Kill Judge Cannon and Her Family

Candace Owens: Kamala Harris is not Black Â…

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Israel NOT Going To Win In Lebanon

Iran to destroy all Israel gas fields, power plants at once if Tel Aviv makes mistake: Deputy IRGC chief


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case
Source: obamawaffles.typepad.com
URL Source: http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/oba ... -in-obama-birth-gate-case.html
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: obamawaffles
Post Date: 2008-11-14 20:27:13 by randge
Keywords: Keyes, Obama, Birth certificate
Views: 3081
Comments: 120

November 14, 2008 Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case You gotta love this . . . while Michelle Obama is dreaming of new patterns for the White House china collection and Barack Obama is busy redesigning the presidential seal, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes—who is black and therefore cannot be dismissed as having a racist agenda—petitioned the Superior Court of California yesterday to require proof of Obama's birth certificate.

In his petition, Dr. Keyes points out that someone wanting to get a California drivers license must provide more proof of citizenship than Sen. Barack Obama has provided in his bid to be the next U.S. President:

Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS [Secretary of State], with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license.

Why should this matter? Keyes explains:

62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.

70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.

For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes eye-opening and well-written petition, click here.

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment: The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-71) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#72. To: noone222 (#71)

I have to agree..

When the simple wording of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, which applies to all of us and is our birthright, doesn't give us "standing" then something is wrong.

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   21:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Old Friend (#22)

[nc] Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California.

[OF] Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen.

He was on the ballot in California. He satisfied all requirements asked of him by California authorities pursuant to California law.

The election in California is governed by California law. The election is to select delegates to cast electoral college votes for the state of California. If a state chose to do so, it could have its legislature select the delegates and do away with the popular voting altogether, a practice not uncommon in the early days of the constitutional republic. Show the California state law that was not complied with. If they choose to accept the attestation of candidates, that is California's prerogative.

Votes are not cast for the candidates until the delegates to the electoral process do so. Those votes can be challenged when they are counted in congress.

The requirements of the Constitution apply to holding the office of president, not to appearing on a state ballot. There is no impediment to a candidate being 34 years old on election day if he is 35 on inauguration day.

Your imaginary ballot access requirements only apply in your imaginary world.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   21:19:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: All (#72)

PS: I guess a better way to put it is:

Which of us ISN'T harmed when the Constitution is subverted?

It's our highest law.. It governs all of us, from the poorest among us to the one guy we give the power to destroy the earth.

Which American doesn't have an equal stake in this?

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   21:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: noone222 (#71)

So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ???

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

Standing to sue doctrine.

"Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justicia­ble controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that con­troversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636.

Standing is a concept uti­lized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court; it is the right to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by court or jury. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, Okl., 653 P.2d 1230, 1232.

The requirement of "stand­ing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App., 331 So.2d 44, 50.

Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa., 358 F.Supp. 684, 695.

The doctrine emanates from the case or controversy requirement of the Consti­tution and from general principles of judicial adminis­tration, and seeks to insure that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness. Campaign Clean Water, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, D.C.Va., 361 F.Supp. 689, 692.

Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by govern­mental action complained of, and focuses on the ques­tion of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., D.C.N.C, 431 F.Supp. 203, 218.

Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it. Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2nd 244, 247.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   21:34:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: nolu_chan (#75)

It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court" ... each citizen should have standing to sue, but maybe since the election process has deteriorated so much that the "injury" is not cognizable.

Where's your birth certificate Barack ?

noone222  posted on  2008-11-15   21:40:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: farmfriend (#37)

If I understand the US code correctly (go to section 15), to challenge the electoral votes as they are being counted in Congress, requires a minimum of one House member and one Senate member from the same state, to submit in writing, during the time of counting, the reason for their challenge to the votes from a particular state being counted.

shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives

I do not believe they must be from the same state. It can be any senator and any representative.

While they must state what their objection is, there would appear to be no restriction on what the objection may be. If the objection is upheld, the vote is rejected.

As it would be a political question in the legislature, it would not be subject to any judicial challenge.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   21:47:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: nolu_chan (#75)

Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.

See Update on the constitutional crisis: Obama can't prove he is a natural born citizen

There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche

christine  posted on  2008-11-15   21:48:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: noone222 (#76)

It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court"

Nope... it is not the sufficiency of the injury or the severity of injury, but the particularity of injury and the particularity of interest in the sought after court remedy.

It is finding that there is no case or controversy properly framed before the court for adjudication. Berg and others could not get their case heard in Federal court.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   21:56:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: nolu_chan (#73)

Did you vote for Obama? Or are you to ashamed to admit it?

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:08:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: nolu_chan (#79)

I notice you don't quote the constitution. Just usurpers opinions. You think you know it all but in your arrogance you became a fool.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:10:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Old Friend (#80)

He's making a legal argument...

Either rebut with a legal argument or mitigate it with another argument of substance..

Don't just wave your ass at him..

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   22:12:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Jhoffa_ (#82) (Edited)

He's making a legal argument...

NO he is spreading usurper laywer doubletalk bullshit. They guy is in the can for Obama. Probably works on its campaign.

I agree with what you said above. 74 72

Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:14:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Old Friend (#83) (Edited)

Legally, I'm sure he's correct..

Morally?

Well, that's another question entirely.

Hit him there.. Don't taunt.

It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   22:16:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)

Morally?

Well, that's another question entirely.

Agreed Chan is immoral..............Ok you didn't say that I did.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:21:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)

It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.

No it makes Chan look like a statist Obama ass kisser.

Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing. Sure the courts shouldn't hear a million cases if a million are brought. Answering the question one time for one case would suffice.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:23:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Old Friend (#85)

Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated.

I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense.

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   22:24:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Jhoffa_ (#87)

Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated.

I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense.

Here is how the law works in reality imo. The supreme court is usually not anonymous. Why is that you think? If they were reading the law and interpreting it truthfully all the decisions should be anonymous shouldn't they? You get two people up there (lawyer scum) and they blab their mouth. Then the judge makes a decision based on their opinions and beliefs of right and wrong. Then they come up with some fancy words and rationalize it and say it is the law or some precedent or something. Well 3 other of the judges may have disagreed. So what it amounts to is a vote.

Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:28:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Old Friend (#88)

Chan- It's rote-speak. Experience.

U- Unsure how you work..

Me?- I deal in concepts..

~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2008-11-15   22:33:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)

U- Unsure how you work..

Right and wrong.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   22:36:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: christine (#78)

Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.

Continuing efforts in court will be a waste of time.

To prove Obama is a citizen only requires a showing that he was born in Hawaii. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.

Anyone wanting to invest $5 can submit that information to the authorities in Hawaii and get a letter of verification that the information is correct (or not) as on file.

hawaii.gov/health/vital-r...ecords/vital_records.html

Letters of Verification

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

Only the information provided is verified, but that is more than ample to prove natural born citizenship, or lack thereof.

Anyone wanting additional personal information from some "vault" record will have to get it from the state of Hawaii. They have the original official record. Nobody else does. There is no other source to obtain it from.

Andy Martin tried. He had standing there to try to obtain the information but the court found its release would be contrary to state law.

Suits brought in state court against the state officials will be tossed, possibly for being untimely after election day.

Berg certainly had no chance to obtain the documents in discovery as he attempted. You can only demand copies of documents actually in the possession of the person they are demanded from. What he asked for is in the possession of the state of Hawaii.

A court cannot very well order Obama to produce documentation he does not have.

A court will not demand that the state official now demand information that relevant state law did not require for ballot access in the first place.

A federal suit brought by an individual will be dismissed for lack of standing.

There is no federal official invested with any relevant oversight authority.

If there is to be a challenge to demand documentation from Obama, it would appear that it will have to be in the Congress.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   23:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: nolu_chan (#91)

. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.

Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-15   23:16:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Old Friend (#88)

Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".

You are, of course, entitled to claim your own system of law without precedent.

The American system, derived from the British system, cannot function without precedent. Absent recognition of precedent, the system would result in chaos with no predictability whatever.

The alternative is the "code civil" as in Latin countries or the state of Louisiana which retains the Napoleanic code system.

There is always your third alternative -- just invent your own body of laws and a legal system to go with it.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   23:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Old Friend (#92)

Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?

I surely know that you are a raving fucking lunatic.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   23:36:25 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Old Friend (#86) (Edited)

Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing.

The Constitution required the establishment of the Supreme Court and vested it with the judicial power of the United States.

If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ...

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   23:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: nolu_chan (#94)

In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-15   23:46:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: nolu_chan (#95)

Can you boil it down for us, NC?

Thanks much.

Iran Truth Now!

Lod  posted on  2008-11-15   23:46:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Old Friend (#92)

Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL.

Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain. The one produced for him has no seal and was verified by a railroad company employee as coming from the files of the railroad company. It shows him being born in Colon, Panama which is not the base and is not the Canal Zone. Do seals and signatures count with McCain?

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-15   23:55:22 ET  (3 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: lodwick (#97)

Can you boil it down for us, NC?

The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court as the ultimate authority for interpreting the Constitution.

Our system of law is derived from the British system or Common Law system (not to be confused with the body of common law). Britain has no constitution and the court evolved over time and a system of law evolved based on following precedent. Lower courts must rule in accordance with the decisions of higher courts. Precedent does not bind parallel courts -- a ruling in the 9th Circuit does not form binding precedent for the 3rd Circuit.

The Supreme Court is never bound by precedent because there is no higher court. It may reverse its own prior decisions but does so very infrequently.

Take precedent out of the system and you would not be able to predict if an act of yours, or your business, would cause a court to hold you liable until after the court ruled in your individual case. Each legal contention would have to be entirely litigated anew in each new case, without reference to preceding judicial rulings on the same set of legal facts, and with the lower courts empowered to rule contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-16   0:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Old Friend (#83) (Edited)

You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.

McCain was not born here.

The Constitution does not say one has to be born here to be President.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-16   0:29:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: bluegrass (#96)

In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?

As far as I know, the available information does not address which hospital Obama was born in, if any.

As long as Hawaii certifies he was born in Hawaii, legal challenges to his citizenship are not likely to succeed. The information may be in more detailed records held by the state, but that information is not required to prove natural born status.

Congress is empowered to challenge electoral votes. Upon a challenge, the houses act separately. It would appear either could reject ballots for whatever reason it deems sufficient.

For years, John McCain claimed birth on a military base in Panama. The bc shown in 2008 indicates he was born in Colon, Panama and not on base or in the Canal Zone. If he was born on the base in 1936, the botched up law of the time would seriously question his natural born status. If he was born in Colon, Panama then his natural born status would seem clearly established.

The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-16   1:06:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: nolu_chan (#101)

McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either.

Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2008-11-16   1:36:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: nolu_chan (#79)

I know that you and I see things somewhat differently regarding jurisdictional issues and now "standing". I think that Berg lacks standing because of his being a member in good standing of the socialist democracy rather than the Constitutional Republic. I also think this matter would have to be heard in an Article III court, not a "federal" District Court.

I believe that Washington D.C. is the (singular) federal STATE, and that the so- called STATES (AZ, AK, IN, IL, TX, CA, etc., are like counties within that STATE. I see them treated like "territories" wherein CONgress has plenary authority. (As we see STATES rights nearly mooted).

I also believe that the standardized statutory language used such as "in this state" is misleading and actually refers to Washington D.C., and its subsidiaries, the two letter all capital lettered STATES (STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF INDIANA ETC.,) and not the several states.

Definition: Territory 1. any tract of land; region or district.

Their "federal" districts operate contrary to the Constitutional coinage mandate even though the Constitutional monetary requirement has never been repealed. HJR 192 without repeal of Article 1 section 10 should/could only be relevant to enclaves under the plenary authority of congress. (In my very humble opinion.)

Where's your birth certificate Barack ?

noone222  posted on  2008-11-16   2:57:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Jhoffa_ (#72)

When the simple wording of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, which applies to all of us and is our birthright, doesn't give us "standing" then something is wrong.

Recent opinions such as Kelo or those cited relating to road blocks or check points radically violate the spirit of the CONstitutional intent. When the courts tell us that the reason we as individuals haven't been violated (or in the Berg vs. Obama matter that we lack standing) is because we're all being violated equally ... fuck the courts and their twisted logic.

www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm

This gentleman was one of the appellate lawyers for Timothy McVeigh. The ruling he received on appeal from the "federal" court caused him to reflect upon the whole notion of CONstitutional applications, ultimately causing him to reject his bar card and practice.

His determinations ring true with me and my own studies, even though at some point in time I don't think laws will mean anything to a system rotted to the core.

Where's your birth certificate Barack ?

noone222  posted on  2008-11-16   3:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: nolu_chan (#100)

McCain was not born here.

Good point. I said it wrong. You have to be a natural born citizen. Thanks for the correction.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: nolu_chan (#101)

The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.

Ok. Mr. Chan may I ask this question another way. You say correctly that courts have ruled that citizens have no standing. I believe that to be an incorrect ruling. We disagree on that point. Now here is the question. Do you think it is morally right to not have this question definitively answered?

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: nolu_chan (#98)

Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain.

McCains parents were both American citizens. So his birtplace is of absolutely NO significance.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: nolu_chan (#99)

The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court

Not true. The supremes gave themselves that power by usurption. If that is not correct cite the constitutional mandate for the Supreme court.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:33:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: nolu_chan (#95)

If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country.

That would have been very wise.

Your quote from the constitution doesn't say that citizens have no standing.

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: nolu_chan (#101)

I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?

Old Friend  posted on  2008-11-16   7:38:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: bluegrass (#102)

McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either.

Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.

The Senate issued a non-binding proclamation and has no particular authority to declare an individual to be a natural born citizen. It was just a feel-good proclamation.

Something about Obama may well be being shielded from the public, but it would not affect his natural born status unless the record made public is a complete fraud in the sense that it was not issued by the state of Hawaii at all.

If the document was properly issued, then it suffices to show that he was born in Hawaii.

If something is being hidden, it could involve something sensitive or personal such as paternity, but that would be irrelevant to his claim of natural born citizenship. Records at birth could, perhaps, show no claim of paternity, with a later record documenting a subsequent claim of paternity.

A birth in Kenya would not change to a birth in Hawaii.

The McCain campaign appeared far more sensitive to the issue, obtaining a Seante resolution, and a bi-partisan opinion of Ted Olson (R) and Larry Tribe (D), and with good reason.

The military base or in the Canal Zone generally was an unincorporated territory which was under the jurisdiction of the U.S., but not considered part of the U.S. for citizenship purposes.

An Act of May 24, 1934 granted citizenship to "[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States...."

The CZ/base was outside the limits, but not outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. For citizenship purposes, it was a legal no-man's land. In 1937, Congress passed additional legislation granting citizenship to children of U.S. citizens born in the CZ on or after February 26, 1904.

Were McCain born in the CZ, the "circumstances of his birth" would, pursuant to legislation in 1937, retroactively make him a U.S. citizen. It could not, however, make him a citizen "at birth."

Then one may argue whether a person who, some time after birth becomes a citizen due to the circumstances of birth is considered a "natural born" citizen, or is that status reserved for those who become citizens "at birth."

To add to the legal mayhem, there is a body of legal theory that as citizenship of those born overseas is granted or withheld according to statute, and those statutes appear within the body of law on naturalization, it is granted as part of the powers granted to congress under Article 1, Section 8 "[t]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Under this theory they may be considered not natural born but naturalized at birth.

Under the first laws, children born outside the U.S. of two U.S. citizens were considered citizens. But then they had to go and get into more detail....

Neither party wanted to touch this issue.

McCain long claimed he was on base in the CZ. The certificate which popped up from the Panama Railroad Company said he was born just outside the CZ in Colon, Panama. My inclination is that McCain was, indeed, born a few hundred yards outside the CZ and was a natural born citizen. The problem is likely that, for decades, he claimed he was born in a hospital on the military base, a hospital that did not exist in 1936.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-16   16:12:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Old Friend (#110)

I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?

Hawaii was admitted to the Union on Friday, August 21, 1959 pursuant to the Act of March 18, 1959.

www.hawaii-nation.org/admission.html

THE ADMISSION ACT.

An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union

(Act of March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed.

[...]

Far more fun is the state of Ohio, admitted pursuant to an Act of Congress of February 19, 1803.

It is considered admitted on Tuesday, March 1, 1803. Ohio authorities decided to get the original paperwork for display during the celebration of 150 years of statehood in 1953, only to find, through oversight, no proclamation had ever been issued. On August 7, 1953, Congress passed a law retroactively establishing Ohio's statehood at March 1, 1803, when Ohio first convened its legislature.

Better late than never.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-11-16   16:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (113 - 120) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]