Per Patrick at Yes to Democracy, one elector’s humble reply to a deluge of e-mails from Obama denialists, demanding that he refuse to certify Obama’s victory:
December 6, 2008
I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.
After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by “experts” or others whose qualifications and
motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship was worth my understanding.Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the “natural born” status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector. In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And has never been required by the United States government to become
“naturalized” or take the oath of citizenship. This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.If someone emigrates from another country to the United States, and wishes to become a citizen, that person must enter a legal process culminating in taking the oath of citizenship and being “naturalized.” This is why for example the current Governor of California cannot
claim “natural born” status and become the President of the United States. He was born an Austrian. He emigrated here. He sought citizenship. And he was “naturalized” in a ceremony conducted by United States officials.And there is also in the United States the use of Common Law as a part of our judicial system. Most of the time the law is codified by us, but in fact there are traditions and understandings which have not always been codified. My point here is that for example if you have a right of way from your property across another person’s property to a road, that person after a specified period of time (dependent upon a particular state’s statutes) cannot suddenly decide that you cannot cross his property anymore to get to the road. It is presumed after a certain period of time that this right of way is a right that you retain since he did not protest your crossing his property for years.
These are the two bases upon which I have rendered my decision. Even if some or all of the scenarios to which these concerned citizens have pointed regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship are true, two facts remain. The United States government has never required Mr. Obama to take the oath of citizenship, or even to render a decision at the age of majority between having U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship, or U.S. citizenship and Indonesian citizenship. And he has lived here and been reared and educated as a U.S. citizen. It would seem to me that 47 years is a sufficient amount of time to have lived here as a U.S. citizen, with no government entity challenging it, for us and for Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.
It issued him a Social Security number and a passport, obviously accepting his Hawaiian birth certificate without requiring a team of forensic scientists to examine it. He has lived in the United States as a U.S. citizen for his entire adult life. He has been not only a de facto U.S. citizen, he has been a de jure U.S. citizen. A citizenship conferred upon him by the United States government at his birth, and never questioned by any court, or executive branch official for 47 years. The United States government itself accepted his natural born citizenship when it issued him a passport without requiring him to take the oath of citizenship in a ceremony like all other immigrants to this country.
Therefore, as the Presidential Elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina it is my Constitutional determination that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is qualified to become the 44th President of the United States of America. I will cast my Electoral College vote accordingly on December 15, 2008.
Sincerely,
Wayne Abraham
In other words: signed, sealed, delivered.
Well done and well said, Wayne Abraham.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | December 6, 2008, 11:31 pmMr. Abraham is clearly part of the conspiracy. The same conspiracy that has you believing that the Reptilians aren’t in charge of government!
Posted by James F | December 7, 2008, 12:02 amSo in other words: “I’m a democRAT and I also voted for CHANGE. Therefore, I’ll also vote for him in the Electoral College vote because I’m blind as f***.”.
Great job indeed!
Posted by John | December 7, 2008, 12:32 amWhat is a Natural Born Citizen?
By Leo Donofrio
Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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;
That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“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.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.
As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.
Stop and think about that.
The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.
And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=359
Posted by Max | December 7, 2008, 12:34 amDID THIS GUY DO ANY RESEARCH BEFORE HE GAVE THIS TOTALLY IGNORANT REPLY?
Posted by Holly | December 7, 2008, 1:01 amHolly: did Donofrio? He’s likely blocked on a technicality from scotus, an eminently forseeable conclusion. And he’s against the great weight of academic commentary. I’ve tried to present that in my past articles; I’m sorry you’ve chosen not to read that, or credit the opinions of scholars smarter than Donofrio and I both.
Posted by Ames | December 7, 2008, 1:28 amHolly…real funny…. Ames … if his writ was denied why not post it Friday…as for your comment that he might be blocked/denied by a technicality…not fact…scary… Hey you all may be right & the Supreme Court punts the ball….Then a usurper will be the President. FYI Donofrio also correctly pointed out that since McCain was born in Panama he was also not a Natural Born Citizen & ineligible to become President. In fact McCain became a U.S. citizen by statue.
Posted by Max | December 7, 2008, 1:46 amSo a person born to two illegal immigrants is eligible to be POTUS? Is that what he is suggesting?
Posted by london | December 7, 2008, 4:08 amI believe so, London. You may now commence wailing in terror.
Posted by Gulik | December 7, 2008, 4:28 amI believe that a member of the electoral college should only vote for a candidate if he or she is one hundred percent positive about the eligibility of the candidate. As it stands, we are in the process of determining whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen as it is adheres to the law and intent of the constitution. There have been formal no decisions regarding this matter.
Therefore, at this time it is not possible to make a true and accurate assessment of Obama’s eligibility in this matter. Using probability is not acceptable. A member of the electoral college must wait to cast his or her vote until 100 percent assurance is possible.
This is not a game of chance. It is strict adherence to the law of the land.
I find it funny that you should issue this declaration now, 10 days before the electoral college is due to meet. Are you trying to influence the decisions of other members?
Sir it seems so.
Posted by nancy | December 7, 2008, 8:22 amWell Nancy, this particular member of the Electoral College is 100% certain about Obama’s eligibility and he just spelt out why. Obama is an American citizen born in the United States of America to an American mother, so therefore he is a naturally born citizen.
No government entity has challenged Obama’s status in his 47 years as a US citizen so this guy is happy that Obama meets the eligibility requirements to be President. It’s a simple and fair judgement and you would have to be crazy to dispute it.
Posted by Matt | December 7, 2008, 8:55 amThe choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.
Posted by Ted | December 7, 2008, 9:24 amTed, if what you’re saying is that you and your conspiracy theorist buddies are willing to take up arms in the name of the losing side of a textualist controversy, then I’d say you’re the bigger threat to liberty.
Posted by Ames | December 7, 2008, 10:16 amMax: Obama and several other senators passed that statute as a confirmation of what was already known, not as an affirmative act. And, if there’s one thing we know about SCOTUS, it’s that they’ll put prudential values above formalism when the rule f law is at stake. So if they kick Donofrio out on a technicality, it’s a tacit recognition that his claim is also meritlrss.
Posted by Ames | December 7, 2008, 10:19 amThis is a very possible interpretation of the term “Natural Born US citizen”. I have read another interpretation that says that at time of birth, both parents must be US citizens before one can be qualified to be the POTUS. See: http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php?topic=1518.0
I hpope this issue of POTUS qualification should be clarified by the SCOTUS once and for all.
Posted by jack | December 7, 2008, 10:26 amAmes…The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constution & must uphold it. Obama did that not for McCain but for himself because he is not a natural born citizen. Yes, the rule of law is at stake…Obama is not a natural born citizen & is ineligible to be President. If the Supreme Court does not hear the case, than the rule of law is broken, you have a usurper as President. all his acts as President, Commander-in-Chief are non binding, illegal.
Posted by Max | December 7, 2008, 11:57 amA natural-born citizen is a rather simple legal concept, meaning someone who is entitled for citizenship by jus soli (right of birthplace), and not by act of naturalization.
In accordance to the Black’s Law Dictionary term “natural-born citizen” is a synonymous of term “citizens at birth”. Thus read U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401:
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
Isn’t that clear enough?
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 1:17 pmIt’s a nice opinion piece, but it’s not based in law or the Constitution. None of it, anywhere is precendented law. Wong v. Ark is proof of that which shows the ignorance of this piece.
The Constitution clearly says what it says for a reason and that reason was expressly to insure that a usurper wouldn’t take office of POTUS, having dual loyalties. One look at Obama’s record and statements and he clearly does have dual loyalties and that’s exactly what the framers didn’t want. You look at Odinga, Obama’s vow to stand by Kenyans and the view he takes that it’s his RESPONSIBILITY to join as equal partners with them and you have no excuse writing this piece.
Nevertheless, the law is the law, it just hasn’t been firmly decided in the SCOTUS in reference to Donofrio v. Wells, but it should be. The SCOTUS does have a supervisory role and this is their job to decide, not yours.
Why don’t you just tell most of the ignorant crowd you’ve got going here that it’s now ok to throw away your sovereignty in favor of this NWO, because that’s exactly what you’re doing. Let the U.S. citizens pay the way towards YOUR goals that they don’t want any part of. Is this the new slavery now?
There is an outcry now of those who have been post-educated by Leo Donofrio, that had they known this, they would have never voted for Obama, so your populus opinion is garbage. The American people were lied to and you’re perputuating that lie even further now by trying to endoctrinate them into believing your synopsis for the Framers of the Constitution, which is flat out wrong. You have an agenda and it’s blaringly obvious.
No matter what happens here, you have a protest on your hands and you are completely at fault for sticking to the lies you’ve thrown at the American people in order to coax them into voting for ineligible candidates and you know it.
Citizen Cane, I see what you’re trying to do here, but you’re lying, too. No where in that link does it say that citizen at birth makes you a “natural born citizen”. YOU decided to say that. The law does NOT say that. There is a clear difference between citizen, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen that you suspiciously do NOT want the ignorant masses to reflect upon.
It is clear enough that YOU are wrong!
Posted by Lance | December 7, 2008, 1:35 pmThis piece of writing is just proof that we have a lot of stupid idiots at the controls in government.
A citizen doesn’t make you a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, idiot!
You presume a LOT for a person who is supposed to know better.
Posted by Lance | December 7, 2008, 1:44 pmThe Supreme Court Justices just said that I’m right by not granting certiorari. Now go and teach those ignorant about the law and stuff like that.
Listen again: the Constitution doesn’t even mention a dual citizenship or citizenship of the President’s ones parents: else quote me that part. On the other side Black’s Law Dictionary used to be cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases: “natural-born citizen” equals to “citizens by birth”, accordingly.
Donofrio’s arguments are not even legal ones, but quasi-moral ones: by his bizarre, irrelevant speculation Framers – most of them born as British citizens on a British soil – supposedly doubted in a loyalty of someone born on America soil, only because one of his parents wasn’t American citizen? If you can’t see a logical fallacy in this, that you’re delusional.
Do you know anything about your savior, Leo Donofrio?
http://odell.connect-2.co.uk/olsnewchapter.html
“I am not Lee D’onofrio or Burnweed.
Those are names of the body I have used as a spacesuit to appear here before you on planet Earth.
The Holy Spirit concept derives from the word “Paraclete” which translates as “advocate” or “lawyer.” I am a lawyer, God’s lawyer. They never told you “he” would come as a man, they lied about me denying me a place in the world of men. But Jesus made it clear he would send a man.”
____________________
Go on, keep on living in your parallel universe.
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 2:08 pmhttps://www.bluffmagazine.com/players/leo-donofrio/42071/player-profile.asp
“the ringleader of an esoteric critically acclaimed sonic indie rock band with electro splashes and bossa nova dreams called SCHIZO FUN ADDICT”
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 2:13 pmThe Supreme Court said no such thing, Citizen Cane. Go read. No decision has been made yet. Did they buzz your ear and not tell us? That’s what you’re alleging when you make such bold claims. Just because they listed 2 cases on Friday doesn’t mean they won’t list more on Monday or even Wednesday, it’s their prerogative, not yours. Again, you assume much. Then you make no mention of the slew of other lawsuits that are right behind Donofrio’s.
By calling Donofrio’s objection “not even legal ones”, you have just exposed yourself as an opposer to the Framer’s intentions when they wrote Article I, Section II of the Constitution. You are demonstrating not only a disrepect of our founding fathers, but anyone who relies on their intentions for this country.
You can keep it up with the savior BS, but the truth is, you’re the one who shoved Obama in everyone’s faces as “The One” and lied to them as to his eligibility and are now clouding the issue even further by enacting a clear discombobulatoin of the terms, “citizen, naturalized citizen and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.
Obama, McCain and Calero are ALL citizens. But none of them are natural born ctiizens, period. The requirement for POTUS in this country is that you BE a natural born citizen.
If none of this were true, then you explain why the Senate was trying to manipulate the Constitutiton back in April, 2008 by insisting that McCain was a natural born citizen, by way of a non-binding resolution, S.R. 511. Then explain why it was that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama co-sponsored that paper? I think the answer is quite clear. Because they ALL knew none of them were natural born citizens. The documents in the Senate speak for themselves. One doesn’t go around seeking a proclamation unless they know they are up a creek without a paddle.
Posted by Lance | December 7, 2008, 2:20 pmYeah, try to tar and feather Donofrio now by showing his hobbies. And you talk about conspiraists? Get a life.
Why don’t you put out your real name so we can dig up what you do for fun and poke at it.
Posted by Lance | December 7, 2008, 2:23 pmI have to say, you O-bots are the nastiest bunch of anti-American parisites I’ve ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
You care nothing of the Constitution. Only that which will brainwash the masses, just as you did the entire 2008 campaign.
Well no more. Even those who voted for Obama are screaming. You’re not going to silence us anymore. You don’t own this country and you won’t get away with what you’re doing. The Consitution has a remedy for that, too. You just remember that.
Posted by Lance | December 7, 2008, 2:28 pmLance, Donofrio’s case wasn’t on the list for the Friday’s Conference: therefore we can assume the Court denied certiorari. Got it? But okay, lets wait for the official announcement of Monday.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120508zr.pdf
Again, quote me that part of the Constitution mentioning a dual citizenship or citizenship of the President’s parents? Donofrio’s only argument is merely a subjective interpretation of the term “natural-born citizen”, without any substantial proof.
Thus I have to rely on Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition in U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401 and a common legal practice – about which you don’t have a clue.
Besides, there are only two sub-types of citizens by the law: citizens at birth (aka natural-born citizens) an naturalized citizens.
Here is how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explains the difference:
“The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.”
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 2:45 pmLance, quote it or STFU.
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 2:48 pmBTW, I wasn’t talking about conspiracy, but more about a pro bluffer with a messianic delusion.
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 7, 2008, 2:52 pmQuestion: where were all you self-appointed election experts when Bush actually did steal an election? When there’s no real secret fraud going on, you all seem capable of sustaining at least four poorly-written blogs. Imagine what you could have done with a real fraud.
Posted by Ames | December 7, 2008, 4:07 pmThis is a good article from Salon how these conspiracy theorists are…well irrational..
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
Talks about how these people’s “effort’s will come of nothing…and even though everyone has validated Obama’s citizenship, these people will always see a conspiracy in every piece of evidence no matter what’s said.
Posted by Oneiroi | December 7, 2008, 5:58 pmSo Matt you are saying that you believe a person born with dual citizenship at the time of birth without a doubt fulfills the “natural born” citizen clause of the Constitution. Is this correct?
Posted by nancy | December 7, 2008, 6:54 pmI apologize, Mr. Abraham–not Matt.
Posted by nancy | December 7, 2008, 6:59 pmOneiroi…Nice try….Again, it does not matter if was born in Hawaii or not….Since he was a British citizen at birth, he is not a natural born citizen. Obama on his website calls himself a native citizen, not natural. He knows he is not a natural born citizen. The whole Birth cert issue was a diversion from him not being a natural born citizen. He admitts on his obama fight the smear website that at birth he was a British Citizen…FACT
Posted by Max | December 7, 2008, 7:36 pmMax: if it’s too good to be true, it probably is. Obama wouldn’t have that on his website if he thought it dq’d him. Listen to your intellectual betters, in this thread and others: born on U.S. soil = “natural born.” The “dual loyalty” theory of citizenship has been repeatedly rebuked as uncontemplated at the founding, and uninstituted since.
It’s kinda funny that Riverdaughter is starting t pick up on this crap. There goes my last lingering respect for her.
Posted by Ames | December 7, 2008, 9:14 pmRe Citizen Cane’s comment above:
SCOTUS CAN’T grant cert in Donofrio v. Wells because Denofrio didn’t file a petition for cert. All he filed was something he titled “APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY”.
Unfortunately, a court can only “stay” an ORDER issued by a lower court. In Donofrio v. Wells, no such order was issued. (Typically, “stay” requests in the Supreme Court are sought to stop an execution or deportation). When a party seeks a “stay” they are saying, “some other court ordered something that will hurt me in a way that is irrevocable – please stop this while you hear my appeal).
What Donofrio WANTS is an injunction – and to get that he really needs to file an application for an extraordinary writ. Without getting into all the technicalities, if the Court was going to issue the relief he is asking for, they absolutely would have asked for Opposition from Wells (the NJ Secty of State). Basically the papers he submitted don’t even get him to first base in terms of doing what would be required to get the order he wants. So its really just a matter of printing up the “deny” list.
Posted by Common Cents | December 8, 2008, 5:26 amCC to CC: I just checked out Donofrio’s site; you’re right. Oh my, he’s even a worse dabbler than I thought initially.
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 8, 2008, 6:30 amFriends,
First, let’s back down from some of the harsh words we are using here. Too many people are attacking too many other people simply because we disagree about something. That’s not what the Framers intended for our nation.
Second, I am really struggling here. I don’t see how all the “facts” about Mr. Obama add up to disqualification. So here’s my list of the pertinent “arguments”, and I’ll be happy to accept CIVILIZED responses:
1) Mr. Obama is not a “natural born” citizen because he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Apparently, the certification by the Hawaiian state officials in charge of such things isn’t proof enough (and I suspect if he did release the long form BC, it wouldn’t be considered “proof” either).
2) Even if Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a British citizen because his father was. So his mother’s American citizenship (which I have yet to see disputed) doesn’t count. Interesting, but I have yet to see an American Federal law citation to back this up.
3) Even if Mr. Obama’s mother could have passed him dual citizenship, the Framers didn’t want dual citizens to run America, so he isn’t eligible. Again, a tight statement, but please cite the Article of The Constitution, or subsequent federal law, making this so.
4) Even if dual citizenship were ok, Mr. Obama can’t be president with the divided loyalty that dual citizenship implies. Sort of like you can’t live in DC and root for Dallas. This one really irks me, as Mr. Obama has done more to actively show his loyalty to the U.S. then many of the citizens posting here. How you ask, well there’s this thing called an Oath of Office for U.S. Senators. Mr. Obama has taken it in a public ceremony. It reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Seems to me that anyone who swears this, makes their loyalty pretty clear. Oh wait, VP Cheney swore the exact same oath, and then proceeded to trash the Constitution. Now I see why this isn’t evidence for people!
Posted by Philip H. | December 8, 2008, 8:56 amPhilip… I will make it real easy for you. In order for Obama to be a natural born citizen, He MUST of been born in Hawaii as he claims he was & to TWO U.S. CITIZENS. His father was not; therefore Obama is a U.S. Citizen not a natural born citizen. So no matter if he was born in Hawaii or not he can not be a natural born citizen.
Posted by Max | December 8, 2008, 9:30 amMax,
Please provide the statute or Article of the Constitution reference in which your assertion is based. If the challenge is going to be on a legal basis, these citations are necessary.
Posted by Philip H. | December 8, 2008, 10:06 amFrom Ames: Question: where were all you self-appointed election experts when Bush actually did steal an election?
(Insert rolling eyes here) Not to get this conversation off-track but in the fighting world there is a common understanding that you don’t complain about the results when you leave the fight in the hands of the judges. Basically, if you want a clear win, knock the guy out.
Gore was coming out of a fairly popular administration and the Left hated Bush. He couldn’t even carry TN or several other states that had been sure things for Clinton. At what point does he bear some responsibility for not winning? Let’s be honest, he ran a lousy campaign and if he had behaved like McCain did after November 4, the tone for the last 8 years might have been much different.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 8, 2008, 10:10 amActually, I’d be curious: Have you all seen John McCain’s birth certificate? (No, no you haven’t…) If you have, why do you trust McCain’s birth certificate and not Obama’s? Who was the doctor that birthed him?
Posted by Ian | December 8, 2008, 10:24 amGame, Set and Match
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.
_________________
Next….
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 8, 2008, 11:52 amIt looks like Michelle Malkin is in on the pro-Obama conspiracy….where, oh where will it end?
But a dangerously large segment of the birth-certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther) disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.
Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortuneteller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?) And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.
HT: Ed Brayton
Posted by James F | December 8, 2008, 12:40 pm@Lance: I have to say, you O-bots are the nastiest bunch of anti-American parisites I’ve ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
Projection: Not just for movie theaters any more!
When Michell Malkin thinks a right-wing cause is too crazy to support, it’s probably too crazy to support.
Or did they get to her? Dum dum DUM!
Posted by Gulik | December 8, 2008, 1:01 pm@ Gulik
That’s what I love about conspiracy theorists, everyone who disagrees with them becomes part of the conspiracy. They’re like disaffected high school rejects that are pissed that they weren’t invited to the party so they spread nasty rumors and anyone who comes to the defense comes under fire. Now of course there will be some grandstanding about sticking up for their beliefs but the truth is they just want attention and being obnoxiously obstinate is a good way to do it.
Posted by Jello | December 8, 2008, 1:25 pm@Max
I’m not “trying” anything.
I’m just saying this whole thing reeks of choosing an outcome you desire and trying to fit all the evidence to fit into it, even when it’s an unlikely theory. Most lawmakers and politicians have dismissed this out of hand for good reason. We saw the birth certificate, Hawaii has confirmed. That’s it. You can debate theory all day on what you think what means, what the constitution means, but obviously you and the people supporting this have an agenda in mind.
I mean, he’s president elect already. The league of lawyers that work for the government, the different government bodies that would come forth if anything was out of order….haven’t. It’s over. Better and more qualified minds have already looked this over and decided without hesitance.
Posted by Oneiroi | December 8, 2008, 2:03 pmAnd now we stand back and observe as the mob bends over backwards to rationalize the defeat. Because, hey, who are the highest court of the nation to say that they’re actually wrong, right?
Posted by Lanfranc | December 8, 2008, 3:51 pmFirst Obama is not President-elect yet. The electors vote on Dec 15, the Congress ratifies the vote, and then he is President-elect. As for choosing the outcome I desire is mistaken. I voted for McCain. Obama won ok. However, after reading Donofrio article, a light bulb went off in my head. Both McCain & Obama are not natural born citizens & under:
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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
& thus neither one can be President. We must follow the rule of law. Obama or McCain if sworn as President would be a usurpers. All their acts, orders as Commander-in-chief would be non-binding, illegal. Now if the Supreme Court rules that Obama is a natural born citizen then that is fine with me. I may not agree but they have the final say.
Posted by Max | December 8, 2008, 3:52 pmLaFanc you are the mob… What are you afraid off? I see many posts here that Donofrio case would be denied because of procedure not merit. Perhaps deep down you know something is not right about Obama but all will be ok. We must apply the rule of law. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama is a natural born citizen then I may not like it but I will accept it.
FYI WROTNOWSKI goes to conference this Friday. Now why not deny both today???
Posted by Max | December 8, 2008, 4:08 pmThere are two fallacies to your argument as an elector regarding Obama’s “natural born” citizenship.
1. Birth on U.S. Soil to two parents who are both U.S. citizens provides “natural born” citizenship status. Birth on U.S. soil to one parent who is U.S. Citizen and one who is NOT a U.S. Citizen provides “citizenship” status, but NOT “natural born” citizenship.
Since Obma’s father was Kenyan, Barack Obama Jr. acquired dual citizenship at birth (U.S. and Brittish)…. therefore under the clear intent of the signers of the Constitution….. He was NOT a natural born citizen.
2. If Obama was actually born in Kenya, and his mother was underage according to the law of foreign birth to U.S. parentage (1 parent). Obama may never have ever been a U.S. citizen and has been living here as an illegal immigrant all this time. (Hawaiian birth certificate notwithstanding).
And finally, the “Certification of Birth” document that Obama provided is NOT a birth certificate and is NOT even equivalent to it.
Especially in Hawaii, where “registration of birth” is practiced. It does not have any signatures of doctors or midwives making the delivery, or of witnesses.
The plain and simple fact is that a birth certificate is a simple document to produce, and will clear this matter up…… ONLY Obama refused to produce his. Which likely means, that it WILL NOT in fact prove his U.S. Citizenship in some way.
Therefore, you may be casting your fraudulent vote for a fraudulent Presidential candiate, and creating a fraudulent President elect, and an Impostor President !!
Why would you want to do that ????
Posted by Wordwaryor | December 8, 2008, 5:05 pmHow about you produce the documentation that indicates Obama was born in Kenya? That would be far more convincing.
Posted by Ian | December 8, 2008, 5:23 pm@Wordwaryor #1 above – I keep asking – where in the Constitution or U.S. Federal law deriving from it is this requirement for BOTH parents to be U.S. Citizens? I asked Max further up the stream, and he ducked it entirely. Can you clear it up for me with actual citations? Until you, or someone else does, I remain highly skeptical of that part of the argument.
As to the Birth Certificate/location issue, if the State Department issued him a passport based on his claim of birth in Hawaii, then I assume his documents are in order. State rarely gets that one wrong.
Posted by Philip H. | December 8, 2008, 5:29 pmWordwaryor wrote: “Birth on U.S. Soil to two parents who are both U.S. citizens provides “natural born” citizenship status.”
Again and again: can you quote that part of the Constitution where the above requirement is specified – and teach SC Justices and us – or forever stop with parroting that utter idiocy?
What some professional bluffer with messianic delusion like Leo Donofrio presumes that were “clear intent of the signers of the Constitution” is completely irrelevant. It’s only relevant what is specifically written in the supreme law of the United States.
Even if that is irrelevant: what makes you presume that Framers – none of their parents was US citizen and none of them was born in the USA – could possibly doubted in a loyalty of someone only because one of his/her parents wasn’t US citizen???
Posted by Citizen Cane | December 8, 2008, 11:57 pmThe problem with these wingnuts is that they have everything backwards:
They think that Obama has to prove the facts of his birthplace, when in fact it is their burden to disprove it. (The short form Hawaii birth certificate meets all legal requirements according to the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, & the State Department standards for passport issuance – it is prima facie evidence of Obama’s birth and presumed valid).
They think that if they come up with a new theory about what “natural born Citizen” means that has never been ruled on by the courts, then that means that Obama can’t be validly elected President — when in fact that is an admission that there is no law precluding Obama’s election. Obama could only be disqualified if there was clear, pre-existing law to the contrary.
I’m sorry that there are so-called lawyers filing these frivolous law suits, because if feeds into these false perceptions. When the Supreme Court receives a 2nd application for stay, it is the normal procedure for them to refer it to the full court and calendar it for the conference. I doubt that any Justice ever looks at them –these things are always pre-screened by the Justices’ law clerks, and on their face there is no validity because they haven’t even set for the basics that would give the Supreme Court proper jurisdiction.
Posted by Common Cents | December 9, 2008, 12:02 amI also like the National Review/David Horowitz’s take on it: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
Saying….do you really want to undermine a democratically elected candidate that would upset the whole government and transition based on some vague and nearly certainly wrong theory?
Posted by Oneiroi | December 9, 2008, 11:56 am