Friday, November 7, 2008

Constitutional Crisis: Unfinished Business

There is still an outstanding lawsuit against Barack Obama. Attorney Philip Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari and requested an injunction against the election. Justice Souter denied the injunction request and as we all know Obama won the election. However, Justice Souter's legal clerk also demanded that Obama respond to the Writ of Certiorari by 1 DEC 08.

The Court is demanding that Obama submit an authentic certified birth certificate by 01 DEC. Should Obama continue to play games the Supreme Court will not be impressed. The constitution says a President must be a natural born citizen. If Obama refuses to produce proof to the highest court in the land we are sure to have a constitutional crisis. If Obama turns out to be a fraud our country is in deep trouble. Should Obama fail to produce this vault copy birth certificate the Supreme's will in all likelihood have to decertify the election. Should Obama not be able to prove he is a natural born citizen there is no way Obama will win the electoral college because he would be ineligible. Seems the birth certificate crisis refuses to go away. Seems that once and for all we will find out what the "Chosen One" has been hiding.

5 comments:

HeyJude said...

Very interesting. I knew about Souter's decision, but was not aware that there was still a demand for the birth certificate.

Thanks Lizard! We'll be watching.

smrstrauss said...

First, the certification of live birth is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved that you had money in the bank. The certification has now been accepted by at least one court.

Then, IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.

I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. They are thus confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)

Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. 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: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”

The Lizard said...

Say what you wish. Here are some facts. The Supreme Court says Obama has until 1 DEC to respond. It certainly appears they are demanded Obama show the vault copy of his birth certificate.

Now, the COLB only says there is a vault copy on record. It is not proof Obama was born in Hawaii only proof that there is a birth certifiacate on file in Hawaii.

The Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama's birth certificate just after Obama's latest visit and just prior to the election. So taking their word for means nothing.

Just answer one question: Why is Obama hiding this record?

If you can answer that answer this: Why is Obama hiding all of his records?

There is very little doubt Obama is hiding something in his past that he does not want to get out. Whatever he is hiding will eventually come out. better to have a scandal now than four years from now.

Unfortunately, this is a case where Obama is obligated to show proof. This is not a case where the innocent until proven guilty. Obama has to legitimately prove he is eligible.

Bottom line Obama has been told to come up with the proof prior to 1 DEC. If he refuses to show proof do you really believe the Supreme Court will look the other way?

Tired of being called racist said...

To constantly state that a COLB is proof is idiotic, at best.

Regardless of what anyone says, a COLB is NOT proof of Natural Born Citizenship.

You get a COLD AFTER the birth. The actual Birth location is the question. NOT where it was registered AFTER the birth.

That's why Mr. Berg asked for possitive proof of Obama's Natural Born Citizenship status.

Besides, since Obama was a Constitutional professor, he would know exactly what this all means, right? Therefore, he should have provided such proof to the court for verification.

Instead he posts jpg image on a web site? And you don't find this suspicious?

Can I interest you on a bridge I have for sale in Broolyn????

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

smrstrauss: I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Speaking of which, does anyone know what documents Sandy Burglar stole? Whatever happened to that case?

Why not show the REAL birth certificate? If it was me, I'd tell the Hawaiian courts to release the REAL birth certificate and just put the whole matter to rest.

It's such a reasonable request, and I (if I was Obama) would be happy to produce it and simply put the whole matter to rest. It would be so easy.