WWTBAM Bored

Not to question wheteher Obama is a citizen or not, the judges ruling on why the case was dismissed is concerning.
Who would have standing if not an American citizen? What if there were a candidate that wasn't elibible? Who could file a lawsuit or challenge a person's elibibility?
This is scary. Reminds me of the old USSR.

Remember, this guy was the former Asst. Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and a lifelong and active Democrat.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship

Oct 25 03:37 PM US/Eastern
201 Comments


PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

He was born in a manger--I don't care how many times he denies it!!!

BackInTex wrote:Who would have standing if not an American citizen? What if there were a candidate that wasn't elibible? Who could file a lawsuit or challenge a person's elibibility?

I think the Judge is probably right here. In Texas, a suit challenging one's eligibility for office must be brought either by the District or County Attorney in the county served by the office, or by the Attorney General.

Case that arose out of my home county

BackInTex wrote: Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Aren't you a natural-born citizen if you are born in the US? Hawaii became a state in 59, and Obama was born...uhh, some time in the 60's I think.

marrymeflyfree wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Aren't you a natural-born citizen if you are born in the US? Hawaii became a state in 59, and Obama was born...uhh, some time in the 60's I think.

There is at least some reason to believe that he was not born in Hawaii. If his mom was a US CItizen at the time, then that doesn't matter anyway.

The other theory is that if he became the citizen of another nation (Indonesia) and later repatriated, that would mean that he is no longer a "natural born citizen" but a naturalized citizen. That is, his current citizenship status would be based on his repatriation and not on his birth.

I do think it's a valid question to ask, but if on e is going to seek redress in the courts, one has to follow the proper procedures.

This is the case that daniel and I discussed a couple weeks ago.

Phil Berg is a local character in suburban Philadelphia, who has a history of filing interesting lawsuits.

He's the guy who wanted to recall three Supreme Court justices after the 2000 election and accused Bush and Cheney of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

There are a couple more interesting lawsuits but I keep forgetting to look them up.

I said at the time that I thought the suit had already been thrown out because he did not have sufficient supporting materials.

Most of what he had was hearsay and nothing more.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

marrymeflyfree wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Aren't you a natural-born citizen if you are born in the US? Hawaii became a state in 59, and Obama was born...uhh, some time in the 60's I think.

There is at least some reason to believe that he was not born in Hawaii. If his mom was a US CItizen at the time, then that doesn't matter anyway.

The other theory is that if he became the citizen of another nation (Indonesia) and later repatriated, that would mean that he is no longer a "natural born citizen" but a naturalized citizen. That is, his current citizenship status would be based on his repatriation and not on his birth.

Interesting. I hadn't heard any conspiracy theories about the place of his birth, and did not realize that one would, at least in the eyes of some, no longer be considered a natural born citizen under those other circumstances. The whole issue of dual citizenship is very confusing. The Naughty Norwegian and our daughter both have it, and we've heard many different stories as to what is legal, overlooked, required, etc. And of course we're hesitant to ask anyone official about it for fear of drawing too much attention, but I think we're ok nevertheless. But, to be topical, I think it would be really unfortunate and illogical if someone were to 'revoke' Nina's natural-born status if she were to live in Norway (or anywhere else) at some point, or revoke it just because she has two passports.

I do think it's a valid question to ask, but if on e is going to seek redress in the courts, one has to follow the proper procedures.

Of course. If there is a legitimate question, then it's fair game to inquire about it. Properly, of course. It does seem ironic, though, that a bigger deal was made of his living a few years abroad than of Senator McCain's Panamanian birth. (For the record, I don't think McCain's place of birth should disqualify him either...just sayin'...)

If McCain was born in the former Canal Zone, then it was US territory.

Regarding dual-citizenship, the only caveat I'm aware of is that if one has dual-citizenship and wishes to join the military, one must give up the non-US nationality. Both for loyalty (security clearances) and UCMJ reasons.

Anyone smarter (which is pert near everyone) than me on dual-citizenship?

marrymeflyfree wrote:Of course. If there is a legitimate question, then it's fair game to inquire about it. Properly, of course. It does seem ironic, though, that a bigger deal was made of his living a few years abroad than of Senator McCain's Panamanian birth. (For the record, I don't think McCain's place of birth should disqualify him either...just sayin'...)

Being born abroad to US Citizens would still make one a natural-born citizen even if the place of birth is not a US territory. There are a few forms to fill out upon return to the US, but if US Citizens happen to be abroad when they have a child, if they meet the relatively minor paperwork requirements, then the child is considered a natural born citizen.

So, if I understand correctly, the citizens of the country must rely on the legal defenders appointed by the folks they elected? In other words, only the AG of the US could, on behalf of the US, file such a lawsuit? U.S. of A. vs Barak Obama? Or could individual states do it to keep him off their ballot?

BackInTex wrote:In other words, only the AG of the US could, on behalf of the US, file such a lawsuit? U.S. of A. vs Barak Obama?

It's ironic that BarackInTexas keeps misspelling Barack.

TheConfessor wrote:

BackInTex wrote:In other words, only the AG of the US could, on behalf of the US, file such a lawsuit? U.S. of A. vs Barak Obama?

It's ironic that BarackInTexas keeps misspelling Barack.

It's ironic you saying its ironic. Actually its just me typing fast, and thinking slow, and not caring enough to make the change.

But I'm glad it entertains you.

BackInTex wrote:So, if I understand correctly, the citizens of the country must rely on the legal defenders appointed by the folks they elected? In other words, only the AG of the US could, on behalf of the US, file such a lawsuit? U.S. of A. vs Barak Obama? Or could individual states do it to keep him off their ballot?

This question appears to be an interesting blend of State and Federal issues. I'm not sure what the Federal Rules say about quo warranto proceedings.

From a quick and dirty search, I think the US A.G. could file a proceeding in Federal Court (probably in the D.C court). However, I'm not sure if individual states' A.G.s could file to have him removed from the state ballot.

Let me respond to this thread by linking to a post I made a while ago (I'd have copied it here, but I couldn't copy the links properly):

viewtopic.php?p=111796#p111796

Note especially the 1961 Obama birth announcement from a Hawaiian newspaper at the bottom of the FactCheck.org page I linked to. It was apparently dug up by a Hillary supporter looking for dirt but who came up short. It seems highly unlikely that the Obamas would be able to scam the hospital and the newspaper way back when and/or go back and nefariously alter the newspaper and all archives thereof. But I know some people will never be satisfied with any such evidence, because they want to believe the worst about Obama no matter what.

Um...BiT...you might want to read the judge's ruling in the McCain case earlier this year (when someone sued to say McCain was born in Panama and therefore not natural-born).

The judge there said essentially the same thing.

I'm torn on this because on the one hand I think the idea that voters "don't suffer injury" is ridiculous.

OTOH, I don't want any Tom, Dick, or Harry that hates a candidate to be able to bring a lawsuit against him like this.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

marrymeflyfree wrote:Of course. If there is a legitimate question, then it's fair game to inquire about it. Properly, of course. It does seem ironic, though, that a bigger deal was made of his living a few years abroad than of Senator McCain's Panamanian birth. (For the record, I don't think McCain's place of birth should disqualify him either...just sayin'...)

Being born abroad to US Citizens would still make one a natural-born citizen even if the place of birth is not a US territory. There are a few forms to fill out upon return to the US, but if US Citizens happen to be abroad when they have a child, if they meet the relatively minor paperwork requirements, then the child is considered a natural born citizen.

I may be incorrect on this point, but as I recall, at the time of Obama's birth, there was not the statute saying that a child born outside of the US, with only parent who was a citizen, is a natural-born citizen. (The citizenship rules were not nearly as broad until recent years.)

It is the reason why the rumor (whatever the worth) that Obama actually was born in Kenya, while his Mom and Dad visited, and then returned to Hawaii shortly after the birth, made any difference.

Of course, it makes no difference to me. I fully favor amending the Constitution to expand the Presidency to those other than natural-born citizens.

BackInTex wrote:Not to question wheteher Obama is a citizen or not, the judges ruling on why the case was dismissed is concerning.
Who would have standing if not an American citizen? What if there were a candidate that wasn't elibible? Who could file a lawsuit or challenge a person's elibibility?

Another candidate.

The Supreme Court over the last couple of decades has taken a rather narrow view of standing in federal court. This ruling is entirely consistent with that precedent. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Not to question wheteher Obama is a citizen or not, the judges ruling on why the case was dismissed is concerning.
Who would have standing if not an American citizen? What if there were a candidate that wasn't elibible? Who could file a lawsuit or challenge a person's elibibility?

Another candidate.

The Supreme Court over the last couple of decades has taken a rather narrow view of standing in federal court. This ruling is entirely consistent with that precedent. --Bob

In Texas, another candidate doesn't have standing, as was stated in the case opinion I linked.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Not to question wheteher Obama is a citizen or not, the judges ruling on why the case was dismissed is concerning.
Who would have standing if not an American citizen? What if there were a candidate that wasn't elibible? Who could file a lawsuit or challenge a person's elibibility?

Another candidate.

The Supreme Court over the last couple of decades has taken a rather narrow view of standing in federal court. This ruling is entirely consistent with that precedent. --Bob

In Texas, another candidate doesn't have standing, as was stated in the case opinion I linked.

I don't think the case goes quite that far. It does say that a losing candidate has no standing. It does not address the issue of a candidate who sues before the election. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Another candidate.

The Supreme Court over the last couple of decades has taken a rather narrow view of standing in federal court. This ruling is entirely consistent with that precedent. --Bob

In Texas, another candidate doesn't have standing, as was stated in the case opinion I linked.

I don't think the case goes quite that far. It does say that a losing candidate has no standing. It does not address the issue of a candidate who sues before the election. --Bob

It is true that the case I cited is a post-election suit. It is possible, but not clear, that a pre-election suit to declare a candidate ineligible might be sustained if filed by an opposing candidate.

I've never thought that these claims about Obama's lack of citizenship (that he was born in Kenya) had much merit, but they do underscore something that should give people pause. Here's a guy with as slim a resume as any major presidential candidate, and he refuses to reveal (and the "media" refuses to inquire about):

His birth certificate
His educational records
His medical records
His Illinois Senate records

What do we know about the guy? Nothing, other than he can give a fancy speech off a teleprompter detailing Democratic talking points which he may or may not believe in.

It's interesting that the New York Times has been able to dispatch reporters to inquire about Sarah Palin's college days but no one has ever checked up on Obama.

silverscreenselect wrote:I've never thought that these claims about Obama's lack of citizenship (that he was born in Kenya) had much merit, but they do underscore something that should give people pause. Here's a guy with as slim a resume as any major presidential candidate, and he refuses to reveal (and the "media" refuses to inquire about):

His birth certificate
His educational records
His medical records
His Illinois Senate records

What do we know about the guy? Nothing, other than he can give a fancy speech off a teleprompter detailing Democratic talking points which he may or may not believe in.

It's interesting that the New York Times has been able to dispatch reporters to inquire about Sarah Palin's college days but no one has ever checked up on Obama.

We do know he has attended a very radical anti-white (i.e. racist) church for 20 year, even having the pastor marry him and baptize his kids.

We do know he has associated with (though the extent is debatable because we don't know much about his past to begin with) a known and unrepentant terrorist. While we know he has said publically that the acts of this man are 'despicable' he has not said the man is (remember the man has not apologized for his acts, only stated that he didn't do enough or go far enough).

We do know he thinks the wealth of this nation should not be kept by those that earn it, but should be taken by the government and distributed to those who don't.

We do know his campaign gave $800,000 to an organization for a 'get out the vote registration' drive that has resulted in thousands of illegal voter registrations.

We do know his running mate has said within the past year that he is not qualified to be president.

-----------------
So why won't Obama release his college records? Because there is nothing to hide? Because there is something that would help his campaign? Hmmmm... So what could it be? I'm sure its more controversial than the D in Constitutional Law.

Whatever it (or they) is, it is obviously something that Obama himself thinks would derail his campaign. He HAS something to hide.

TheConfessor wrote:

BackInTex wrote:In other words, only the AG of the US could, on behalf of the US, file such a lawsuit? U.S. of A. vs Barak Obama?

It's ironic that BarackInTexas keeps misspelling Barack.

He's never been much for that elite spelling thing....

Appa23 wrote: I may be incorrect on this point, but as I recall, at the time of Obama's birth, there was not the statute saying that a child born outside of the US, with only parent who was a citizen, is a natural-born citizen. (The citizenship rules were not nearly as broad until recent years.)

It is the reason why the rumor (whatever the worth) that Obama actually was born in Kenya, while his Mom and Dad visited, and then returned to Hawaii shortly after the birth, made any difference.

Of course, it makes no difference to me. I fully favor amending the Constitution to expand the Presidency to those other than natural-born citizens.

I'm not sure when it went into effect, but I know that the law for people who were born in the 1950's (i.e., before Obama) who were born overseas to US parents were 'natural born citizens,' but in order to retain their citizenship they had to return (or come to) the US and live here for a certain number of years: I think that they had to move here before their fourteenth birthday, and had to live here for five years, or something like that.

Anyway, that rule was already in place before Obama was born, so it presumably would have applied to him (if he had been born in Kenya, as the conspiracy nuts have claimed). I know that Obama did spend some time outside of the US (the Indonesian period), but I do not know for sure when he came returned to the US and began his permanent residency (or, if he was born in Kenya, when he actually moved over here and for how long before moving to Indonesia), so IF he had been born in Kenya, and IF he was relying upon his mother's nationality for his status as a 'natural born citizen,' then MAYBE it would be an issue IF he didn't come to live here in time and/or IF he did not live here long enough to qualify. But since (1) the people who make the claim that he was not born in Hawaii seem to be a bunch of jackasses, and (2) jbillygirl's citation of the contemporeaous, um, contemporariyness, the birth announcement that was published in Hawaii around the time of his birth saying that he was born in Hawaii seems pretty much dispositive.

For the jackasses who do argue that Obama was actually born in Kenya and his mother or someone else published then newspaper notice as a fake, well, that raises the question as to why she or whoever it was would have done that: why would she or they have thought that it would be important-- 47 years later-- that he was actually born in Hawaii, unless she knew that he would be running for President, and also knew at the time of Obama's birth-- a time when she was still married to the Kenyan guy and before she had even met the Indonesian guy whom she later married-- that Obama would be moving to Indonesia and would not be spending enough time in the US before whatever the trigger dates were in order to 'retain' his citizenship.

That's one of the (many) problems with whackjob conspiracy theories-- they always assume that the conspirators are diabolically brilliant and anticipate all sorts of things that no sane person would ever even think of in advance and are able to get lots of other people to collaborate in the scheme, and yet, despite the fact that none of the conspirators ever spills the beans, these diabolically brilliant people make some minor error that the conspiracy theorists, alone, are able to detect and so unravel the conspiracy.

wintergreen48 wrote:

Appa23 wrote: I may be incorrect on this point, but as I recall, at the time of Obama's birth, there was not the statute saying that a child born outside of the US, with only parent who was a citizen, is a natural-born citizen. (The citizenship rules were not nearly as broad until recent years.)

It is the reason why the rumor (whatever the worth) that Obama actually was born in Kenya, while his Mom and Dad visited, and then returned to Hawaii shortly after the birth, made any difference.

Of course, it makes no difference to me. I fully favor amending the Constitution to expand the Presidency to those other than natural-born citizens.

I'm not sure when it went into effect, but I know that the law for people who were born in the 1950's (i.e., before Obama) who were born overseas to US parents were 'natural born citizens,' but in order to retain their citizenship they had to return (or come to) the US and live here for a certain number of years: I think that they had to move here before their fourteenth birthday, and had to live here for five years, or something like that.

Anyway, that rule was already in place before Obama was born, so it presumably would have applied to him (if he had been born in Kenya, as the conspiracy nuts have claimed). I know that Obama did spend some time outside of the US (the Indonesian period), but I do not know for sure when he came returned to the US and began his permanent residency (or, if he was born in Kenya, when he actually moved over here and for how long before moving to Indonesia), so IF he had been born in Kenya, and IF he was relying upon his mother's nationality for his status as a 'natural born citizen,' then MAYBE it would be an issue IF he didn't come to live here in time and/or IF he did not live here long enough to qualify. But since (1) the people who make the claim that he was not born in Hawaii seem to be a bunch of jackasses, and (2) jbillygirl's citation of the contemporeaous, um, contemporariyness, the birth announcement that was published in Hawaii around the time of his birth saying that he was born in Hawaii seems pretty much dispositive.

For the jackasses who do argue that Obama was actually born in Kenya and his mother or someone else published then newspaper notice as a fake, well, that raises the question as to why she or whoever it was would have done that: why would she or they have thought that it would be important-- 47 years later-- that he was actually born in Hawaii, unless she knew that he would be running for President, and also knew at the time of Obama's birth-- a time when she was still married to the Kenyan guy and before she had even met the Indonesian guy whom she later married-- that Obama would be moving to Indonesia and would not be spending enough time in the US before whatever the trigger dates were in order to 'retain' his citizenship.

That's one of the (many) problems with whackjob conspiracy theories-- they always assume that the conspirators are diabolically brilliant and anticipate all sorts of things that no sane person would ever even think of in advance and are able to get lots of other people to collaborate in the scheme, and yet, despite the fact that none of the conspirators ever spills the beans, these diabolically brilliant people make some minor error that the conspiracy theorists, alone, are able to detect and so unravel the conspiracy.

Actually, if you went with the allegation that Obama was born out-of-wedlock to a citizen mother and non-citizen father, In Kenya, then one needs to look at the mother's residency (not Obama's residency as a kid), as there were requirements for mimimum residency prior to the birth for her under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

I do not question that Obama meets the minimum qualification to be President.

However, this thread does allow me the chance to break out a couple related jokes:

Why hasn't Barack Obama produced his birth certificate?

* The ink is not dry yet.

* He does not want anyone to discover that is was not a Virgin birth.