Without hysterics, the Obama eligibility issue


In a conference today [December 5, 2008] the Supreme Court will reconsider together whether to take on a suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president of the United States under a sometimes-arcane  section of Article II of the Constitution.

Is Barack Obama a “natural born” citizen of the U.S.?

In the building where “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved high over the front door, poker-player Leo Donofrio’s challenge will be examined to see whether at least four of the nine justices of the Court think he has enough of a case to actually merit a hearing.  Justice David Souter rejected Donofrio’s case earlier, so this is a hail-Mary play on the part of Obama’s opponents.

Equal Justice Under Law, the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme court. AAPF image

Equal Justice Under Law, the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme court. AAPF image

The Court takes seriously the principle engraved over the door, however.  This is the same Court that ruled earlier this year an accused terrorist and all-around bad guy held at Guantanamo Bay has the right to a writ of habeas corpus over the objections of the Most Power Man in the World, U.S. President George W. Bush.  The humble, gritty, or even unsavory history of litigants does not limit their rights under the law.

Leo Donofrio in his usual office. Leo Donofrio image

Leo Donofrio in his usual office. Leo Donofrio image

So the question is, what sort of case does Donofrio have against Obama’s eligibility?

Would Justice Clarence Thomas have agreed to bring this case to the conference if it doesn’t have a chance to succeed?

I’ve not lunched with Thomas in more than two decades, so I can’t speak with any inside knowledge.  Historically, the Court, and indeed all the federal courts, have agreed to examine cases like this often simply to provide an authoritative close to the issue.  In this case, the outright hysteria of the anti-Obama partisans suggests the issue should be put to bed if possible.

Under usual Court procedures, we won’t learn the results of the conference until Monday.  I would not be surprised if the results are announced today, just to promote the settling of the issue.

Does Donofrio have a case?

I don’t see a case.  It’s clear that Obama is a U.S. citizen now.  Donofrio’s argument is rather strained, and sexist.  He claims that Obama’s father having been a British subject in 1961 (Kenya was not yet independent), Obama had dual citizenship at birth — and, further, Donofrio alleges, this dual citizenship trumps both Obama’s birth on U.S. soil (which should be dispositive) AND Obama’s mother’s U.S. citizenship, conferring a special status that doesn’t meet the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

Donofrio’s claim is odd in that it would grant a lesser-status to children of legal immigrants than is allowed by law to children of illegal immigrants, or temporary visitors.  It also is bizarre, to me, in the way it dismisses Obama’s mother’s existence as a factor in Obama’s citizenship status — and while equal rights for women were not wholly obtained in 1961, no one has successfully argued that the citizenship of the father trumps that of the mother in citizenship cases.

Donofrio is arguing that Obama’s dual citizenship at birth disqualifies him from holding the presidency, technically, in a very narrow reading — though Obama would have absolutely every other right of a natural born citizen.

A couple of observations:

First, this is not an easy issue to litigate. Standing is the easiest way for a federal court to avoid a decision — what harm can a citizen claim from letting Obama be president?  It’s difficult to find an injury even were Donofrio’s claims valid.  No blood, no foul.  No injury, no standing to sue.  It is upon this basis that most of the cases against Obama’s eligibility have been tossed out, as Donofrio’s has been tossed, twice already.

Second, it is unclear what entity enforces the eligibility clause of the Constitution, or indeed, whether any entity can. For most of the summer Obama’s critics were pressuring the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to do something, even though the FEC lacks a quorum of members to do anything.  More to the point, there is nothing in any law that confers on the FEC the function of checking the citizenship status of any candidate.  Sometime in October they finally figured out that state secretaries of state might have a role, since they set up the ballots in each state.

I admit I thought that, until I reflected on the issue of the electoral college.  In U.S. presidential elections, voters do not vote directly for president and vice president.  Instead, we vote to elect people who will be the electors who decide — electors of the electoral college.  The history of this institution can be found elsewhere.  For the sake of these suits, however, it means that the secretaries of state have no role at all in the eligibility of the candidates.  They rule on the eligibility of the electors, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Some states even list the electors on the ballot.

But in any case, it means Donofrio is suing the wrong entity, even if we can’t tell him what the correct entity is.

Third and most important, Donofrio is asking for U.S. citizenship law to be overturned in a most inconvenient time and place. Dual citizenship is a bar to very little in American life.  There is an assumption that people who hold that status are fully American citizens, absent a showing of contrary facts.  There are no contrary facts in evidence from Donofrio, nor from anyone else, despite promises of the revelation of conspiracies.

In short, Donofrio is arguing that there is, somewhere, somehow, some information that Barack Obama is not the shining patriot his life story reveals.  Donofrio doesn’t know what that information is, or where it might be found, but he thinks maybe the State of Hawaii is complicit in a conspiracy to hide this information, which is hidden on the hand-written records of Obama’s birth in 1961.  You might think Donofrio has watched “National Treasure” a few too many times, and whether it’s that movie or some other source, you’d be right — paranoid suspicions of conspiracy are not the stuff good court cases are made of.

The dozen or more cases against Obama’s eligibility all suffer from this astounding, dramatic lack of evidence.  Is there an affidavit from someone who alleges that Obama’s citizenship should be called into question?  If so, they’ve not been presented to any court.  (Obama tormentor Corsi claims to have interviewed Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, and he alleges she said through an interpreter that Obama was born in Kenya; oddly, he didn’t bother to get an affidavit from the woman, nor from anyone else — and others who listen to the tape think she thought Corsi was asking about the birth of her son, not grandson.  This is not solid evidence.)

I argued earlier there is a long chain of evidence creating rebuttable presumptions that Obama’s a natural born U.S. citizen.  To contradict this chain of evidence, contestants should provide extraordinary, clear evidence of contradiction.  What is offered by Donofrio is neither extraordinary, nor clear, nor necessarily contradictory to the presumptions.

This is not an issue solely for the hysterical.  Lawyers and scholars have looked at the issue through the years, and intensely this year, and arrived at the conclusion that Obama is perfectly eligible for the presidency.

Will sanity ever prevail?

Resources you may want to consult:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

164 Responses to Without hysterics, the Obama eligibility issue

  1. Jim says:

    Every once in awhile an old thread gets bumped. Where was I for all this fun? Oh goodness, this was a treat.

    Ed, Nick and a couple others absolutely shredded this supposed “paralegal”. Man, I wish I had been aware of it. I would have popped popcorn and everything.

    Malice of forthought. Oh my…

    Ed, can I borrow an “oy”?

    Jim

    Like

  2. *points at Para and laughs again* You presume that a) that’s any kidn of insult, and b) that I hold your opinion in enought esteem to be insulted by you.

    So, once again… Teehee! You’re a failure!

    Like

  3. Nick Kelsier says:

    Serioulsy, Para, it’s time you and your fellow birthers give it up. You have no evidence, you have no facts. The only “evidence” ever offered by any of you jokers is that fraudulent birth certificate offered by that Russian bimbo Orly Taitz and anyone with a basic understanding of political geography from the 1960’s could see through that thing.

    Either in 2013 or in 2017 Obama will no longer be President. Deal with it.

    Like

  4. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh and when you talk about Obama violating states rights I’m sure you can show evidence for your claiming the same about Bush, right? After all, under the common tenthers thinking, the so called “No Child Left Behind” is a violation of the 10th admendment. Not to mention any attempt to federally ban gay marriage. And lets not forget that whole Terry Schivao incident the Republicans tried engaging in. Which was a violation of more then just the 10th Admendment.

    And like I said before, Para, that you are resorting to personal attacks and only that now is only you admitting you’re wrong. You’re a paralegal or at least you claim you are. You do know what the phrase “ad hominem” means right?

    Oops..and there’s also Bush’s wholesale violation of Article 2 of the US Constitution regarding his “win” in the 2000 election.

    Like

  5. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:
    Blah, blah, blah . . . I offered substantive interpretation of the facts and law . . . lawyers rely on my research to help people win cases . . . you are just a blow hard.

    You still offered no evidence, no proof, and without those why should we give your “substantive interpretation of the facts and law” any credibility?

    Oh and by the way the phrase “substantive interpretation of the facts and law” is a dressed up way of saying “my opinion.” And while you’re perfectly entitled to your opinions, your opinions don’t fact or law make.

    *shrugs* My degrees are in political science, little one. What? You thought you were trying to snow over common everyday citizens? Sorry, no.

    Like

  6. paralegalnm says:

    “Tee Hee”? . . . you laugh like a baby girl.

    Don’t worry about my career. I didn’t study law to be a paralegal for an attorney. I keep busy.

    Like

  7. Teehee… Para, if this is your standard for reading comprehension, it’s no wonder you’re a failed paralegal.

    Like

  8. paralegalnm says:

    Sure . . . from your photo, you look like a big baby

    Like

  9. Blah, blah, blah . . . I offered substantive interpretation of the facts and law . . . lawyers rely on my research to help people win cases . . . you are just a blow hard.

    Shorter Para: Waah! I’m taking my ball and going home if you won’t let me win!

    Like

  10. paralegalnm says:

    Blah, blah, blah . . . I offered substantive interpretation of the facts and law . . . lawyers rely on my research to help people win cases . . . you are just a blow hard.

    Like

  11. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para, I have enough “sense of my heritage” regarding being a republican to know that the Republican party that exists today isn’t the Republican party that existed when my dad was my age. And it certainly isn’t the Republican party that Abraham Lincoln created. Nor is it the Republican party that Teddy Roosevelt presided over.

    You said something about Obama violating states rights when it comes to health care reform. I seem to recall that claim being made about Lincoln regarding slavery…that he was violating the rights of the states to allow their citizens to own slaves or not.

    And as for Teddy roosevelt, he hated the power and the abuses of power that big businesses had. If Teddy Roosevelt was alive today the health insurance companies wouldn’t survive it. And Eisenhower warned us against the power of the “military industrial complex” and yet there you have..the Republicans joined at the hip with that “military industrial complex” always defending it, always protecting it, always doing what it wants. Starting wars for it. And there you have the Republicans letting businesses walk over the people at whim, not protecting the people from the abuses of power that big businesses engage in way too much nowadays. And you have a Republican leader saying the country would have been better off if a segregationist had won the Presidency.

    You can defend the Republicans all you want, para, but on way too many things for the last 40 or so years they are indefensible.

    And it’s a pity that you have such a low sense of your own heritage that you think to be a Republican means you follow blindly.

    Like

  12. Nick Kelsier says:

    and para, you didn’t respond to the rest of my comments not because “they’re not worth it” but because you can’t.

    Who do you think you’re dealing with, Para? A couple of children? No. Both Ed and me know the games you’re playing, we have no trouble identifying them and counteracting them. You’re not arguing against amateurs here, para.

    You’ve shown no evidence of your claims, you simply can’t defend them. You’ve lost and an honest person would admit that.

    Like

  13. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:
    I’m sorry you have no sense of heritage from your father.

    That my father is a republican is not “heritage” para. It’s simply what political party he belongs to, just as I used to belong to it until it went so far to the right and went batsh– crazy on way too many things. Neither is “marxist” part of heritage. I’m not required to be republican simply because he is.

    But let me point something out to you, Para.

    You call the President’s mother a slut because the President’s father “ran out” on them when the President was then 2 years old. But now you want to claim that the father had such an great influence on the son that the son is a marxist even though the father had no contact with the son between the age of two and whatever age Barack Obama was when he met his father as an adult. Would you like to make up your mind?

    If you want to play this “sins of the father” bullsh–, Para, then I get to wham George W Bush with the sins of his father and the sins of his grandfather. After all, W’s father was involved in propping up Saddam Hussein during the 80’s. Hell, there is a rather famous photograph of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over in Baghdad shaking Saddam’s hand at the height of when Saddam was gassing his own people. Then there is their involved with the Taliban, who at one time was nothing more then the people we armed to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

    Oh and lets not forget George W Bush’s grandfather’s business involvement with Nazi Germany.

    If all you have are slurs of the President then you have nothing. None of your claims have you even attempted to show any evidence for. It’s time for you to set aside your hatred of the President, Para. You don’t have to agree with him, you don’t have to like him. But your hatred of him is way too deep into the realm of irrational. And it’s destroying you.

    Like

  14. paralegalnm says:

    Wow.

    What color KoolAid are you drinking?

    Obama, Sr. was an avowed Marxist, a philanderer, a bigamist . . . An Alcoholic Muslim.

    He was, technically, under U.S. immigration law a person of ‘bad character.’

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    I’m sorry you have no sense of heritage from your father.

    Not only are we not going to let you put the sins of the father on the son, we’re not going to let you slander the father.

    You’ve not provided an iota of evidence that Barack Obama, Sr., was anything other than a loyal Kenyan government official. Your claim was Marxism and radical Islam — which are mutually exclusive and consequently make me laugh every time I see it — but you can’t evidence either one.

    Slanders aren’t becoming in elections, and less so now.

    Like

  16. paralegalnm says:

    I’m sorry you have no sense of heritage from your father.

    As for the rest of your comments, hardly worth responding to.

    Like

  17. Nick Kelsier says:

    Tell me, Para, what does the college thesis of the father have to do with the son? Or are you forgetting that Barack Obama sr. was not part of the President’s life after the age of two?

    Do you really want to play this “guilt by association” game? Do you really want to pretend that the Republicans aren’t just as susceptible to that reasoning?

    Like

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    I don’t have a dog in this little rabbit trail, but I would like to be sure the history is accurate:

    Who fillibustered the Civil Rights Act? Democrats.

    The Democrats have always been more broadly based than Republicans. The Democratic filibuster would have been impossible without the support of almost all the Republicans, includng Barry Goldwater who put his campaign for the presidency on hold to be sure to be seen voting against rights for African Americans.

    Who passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964? Lyndon Johnson, with the help of racist and segregationist Democrats who, as a favor to him and the nation, backed down at crucial moments.

    Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln? The first Republican prresident.

    A favorite of Teddy Roosevelt, who kept a bust of Lincoln on his desk at Sagamore Harbor. Why the Republicans abandoned Lincoln’s policies is a mystery I’ll never know the answer to. Democrats should celebrate Jeffereson-Jackson-Lincoln Day dinners.

    Who fired all blacks from federal jobs? Woodrow Wilson.

    Stupid, no? He also backed the amendment that gave women a federal right to the ballot. Bright man, but racist. Go figure.

    Who sent the Cherokee Nation on the murderous Trail of Tears? Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat president.

    Jefferson was the first Democrat president. After Jefferson, America’s freedom was secured with a chain of Democratic-Republicans, including especially James Madison and James Monroe. Both Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson ran for that party, against each other. Democrats were so broadly based they provided their own opposition after the collapse of the Federalists.

    Trail of Tears was unconscionable genocide. What does that have to do with this issue?

    We have one black Supreme Court justice, a staunch conservative and Republican nominee . . . how about Condaleeza Rice?

    The first African American Supreme Court Justice was Thurgood Marshall, educated by the legacy of Mark Twain, NAACP’s best lawyer, who won Brown v. Board of Education over the complaints of President Eisenhower, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Kennedy, then to the Supreme Court by President Johnson. When Marshall died, Thomas was the nation’s only black Republican on a bench with any chance of making a case to get on the Supreme Court. Democrats have to pick and choose the best from a crop of jurists in those cases.

    I don’t think you can make a rational case that the Republican Party is the party of civil rights, nor the party of racial equality in federal positions. It just doesn’t work.

    How about Condileeza Rice? Where did she go wrong? She could have been a great politician on the Democratic side.

    Like

  19. Nick Kelsier says:

    Obama’s father’s thesis has no relevence to the son. My father is a Republican, I’m not.

    And as for “radicalism” oh you mean like how Sarah Palin is involved with a bunch of traitorous Alaskan’s who want to violently secede from the country? You mean like how George Bush got himself mixed up with a bunch of neocons who think torture is a good idea? And that the government should be able to wiretap it’s own citizens when it wants without having to show probable cause much less get a warrant?

    You couldn’t name a single damn thing Obama has been radical on.

    And as for health care, child, you can claim that it’s a violation of the 10th admendment all you want but I can all but guarantee that when it comes time for you to collect medicare you’re going to take it. You can pretend its a violation of the 10th Admendment from here until doomsday but you’re lying.

    Sorry, I have an inante problem with the health insurance companies causing 60% of all bankrupticies, killing half a million people in the last ten years, and raising premiums 150% in the last ten years. All the while forcing other companies to stop providing health care benefits to their employees because it costs too much.

    You’re not going to get anywhere with me on the subject of health care, Para. I can kick your ass on that subject just as easily as I’ve been kicking your ass on the birther subject.

    Since your side has no answers/solutions on how to fix the actual problems with health care in this country then your side has no right to bitch about anything the Democrats do. Oh and by the way.. a public option, despite whatever insanity you’re suffering from, is not a “government takeover of health care.”

    Every other industrialized country on the planet has some form of government paid for/run health care. Every other industrialized country on the planet gives its people better health care then we do and every other industrialized country on the planet does it for a lot less.

    Unless you’re rich on the order of Bill gates, para, and if you’re a paralegal I doubt that..at some point you are going to face this choice. Either you are going to pay for your family’s health care..or you are going to pay for your family’s house. Because with premiums increasing at the rate they are you won’t be keeping your health care for long. It will simply bankrupt you.

    Unless you have some solutions to the health care problems in this country..solutions that actually work then do yourself a favor and shut up and sit down.

    Like

  20. Nick Kelsier says:

    Curious is it not, Para, that only two of your examples…a Supreme Court Justice and a Secretary of State are from within the last 30 years. Oh by the way you also forgot Colin Powell.

    Of course the other examples you list is from the time when the Republican party was downright liberal. Especially compared to todays Republican party.

    By and large, Para, the Republican party since the time of Nixon has been, as I said, racially insensitive.

    Lincoln if he was alive today would be absolutely aghast at what the Republicans have become.

    I know history better then you, little one. I know politics better then you. I apparently know the law better then you.

    Like I said, it was George W Bush and his cronies who sunk John McCain’s 2000 campaign by claiming that he had a half white/half black out of wedlock daughter. And please don’t claim it’s the “out of wedlock” part there. Because if that was the thing they were touting..then there would have been no reason to mention the fact that the child isn’t white.

    That and the fact that the daughter they were talking about is one Senator McCain and his wife adopted.

    The ones who fillibustered the Civil Rights act were Democrats, yes, at the time. Then when the Democrats turned around they bolted to the Republicans. Democrats turned Republicans like Strom Thurmond.

    But if the Republican party is so racially sensitive then have fun explaining exactly how a couple republicans putting out posters of Obama made up to look like an African tribal chief is racially sensitive. Or a poster showing the President growing a watermelon garden in front of the White House. Or calling the President “boy” and “uppity”.

    See, para, I was talking about now. When I said what I did I wasn’t talking about what was going on 40+ years ago. 50+ years the Republicans were an honorable party..at least to some degree.

    The Republican party of today is nothing like the Republican party of the times you mention. The Democrat party grew up…the Republican party devolved.

    Like

  21. Scott Hanley says:

    Who fillibustered [sic] the Civil Rights Act?

    That would be people like Strom Thurmond, who led the racist exodus from the Democratic Party to the Republican once Johnson pushed the Dems toward racial equality. Also, here is a video of Patrich Buchanan boasting of how he brought the racist George Wallace’s followers into the GOP.

    Like

  22. Who fillibustered the Civil Rights Act? Democrats.
    Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln? The first Republican prresident.
    Who fired all blacks from federal jobs? Woodrow Wilson.
    Who sent the Cherokee Nation on the murderous Trail of Tears? Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat president.
    We have one black Supreme Court justice, a staunch conservative and Republican nominee . . . how about Condaleeza Rice?

    That might hold a bit more water if you had more than two examples that wasn’t from fifty years ago or more, if the Republicans hadn’t spend every year since Nixon came along perfecting the Southern Strategy, if the Republicans hadn’t made a habit of associating themselves with the Confederate flag.

    As to the rest of it, if I can borrow a phrase from /b/: GTFO, troll.

    Like

  23. paralegalnm says:

    Republicans ‘racially insensitive’?

    Who fillibustered the Civil Rights Act? Democrats.
    Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln? The first Republican prresident.
    Who fired all blacks from federal jobs? Woodrow Wilson.
    Who sent the Cherokee Nation on the murderous Trail of Tears? Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat president.
    We have one black Supreme Court justice, a staunch conservative and Republican nominee . . . how about Condaleeza Rice?

    You said you studied law? Surely you know that prima facie evidence, once challenged with reasonable alternative evidence, has the burden of proof or is essentially impeached.

    Conspiracy? Well, I do suspect McCain and the Republicans of ignoring Title 3 U.S.C. § 15. I wasn’t the only citizen to make Republican Senators aware of the issue. A challenge to Obama’s Article II eligibility January 9th, 2009 would have resulted in McCain being president, but also riots in black neighborhoods and a firestorm of idiocy in the media.

    I suppose you still think SCOTUS chose G.W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000?

    So, you like Obama’s abject radicalism? His associations with Ayers, Wright, and twenty-years of James Cone’s insane ‘black christ theology’? His college and attorney associates all radicals, Marxists, and avowed Communists?

    How about Obama, Sr’s economics thesis, that all personal income and profit was property of the state, to be dispensed to citizens at will by the state, i.e., a 100% income tax and state control of all business.

    And you doubt the father is the natural source of filial allegiance? Look at what Obama is doing to heathcare. He is trying to convert it, in violation of the 10th Amendment, State’s Rights, and Contract, making doctors and healthcare workers the subjects of involuntary servitude.

    The fraud in Medicare is out of control and in the billions of dollars . . . so increase that fraud by 1000% putting health dollars under federal control.

    Obama has a history of being a criminal, enabling criminals. Who was Rezco? He got special political favors from Obama, and is now in federal prison.

    Like

  24. Nick Kelsier says:

    And it’s still absolutely preposterous for you to go around claiming that a woman 40+ years ago, the republican party, the democratic party, the Clinton campaign, the McCain Campaign, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service and the Bush administration are all engaging in some grand conspiracy regarding Obama’s place of birth.

    What? His mother was able to forsee the future and therefor she knew her yet to be born son would run for President and therefor she had to engage in the rigamarole of giving birth to him in one country and that very same day fly all the way to hawaii to get a birth certificate and place an advert in an Hawaiian newspaper announcing the birth?

    And please don’t go claiming that the Republicans are scared that if they did something about it during the campaign the blacks would have rioted. If the Republicans were that scared of what blacks might do they would 1: better serve the interests of the blacks and 2: not have sunk John McCain’s campaign 10 years ago by claiming that John McCain had an out of wedlock child with a black woman.

    The republican party is hardly known for it’s racial sensitivity.

    Like

  25. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:
    You might want to look up ‘libel’ while you’re at it. The defense is that you are telling the truth . . . which I am.

    Oh you mean like how you libeled the President, the President’s mother and more then a few other people? If you were saying the truth in your claims you’d be able to prove it, para. You haven’t. You haven’t even tried. You’ve shown no evidence whatsoever.

    Para writes:
    Obama, meanwhile, continues to fight those who demand the truth. His $2 million in legal fees atest to his preference to litigate rather than exercise his campaign promise of transparency.

    Again, twit, his choice to defend himself is not proof of your claims. That claim that “if you defend yourself you’re admitting guilt” only works in countries like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

    You keep on claiming he isn’t a natural born citizen. It’s up to you to prove your claim. Neither he nor his campaign, I or anyone else have to prove you wrong. Because you haven’t proved yourself right.

    The state of Hawaii and his campaign released his birth records. That you want to pretend that he didn’t is no fault of his.

    You wouldn’t know how to tell the truth, Para, if your soul depended on it.

    Oh wait…it does. Sucks to be you then.

    Like

  26. malice of forethought.

    Ahahahaha… And you expect us to take your legal chops seriously?

    You might want to look up ‘libel’ while you’re at it. The defense is that you are telling the truth . . . which I am.

    No, you claim to be; given that just about everything you’ve posted thus far is easily rebutted, your defence is hardly solid.

    Obama, meanwhile, continues to fight those who demand the truth. His $2 million in legal fees atest to his preference to litigate rather than exercise his campaign promise of transparency.

    *sigh* You have officially descended into joke territory. Source for your ridiculous claim?

    Like

  27. paralegalnm says:

    Sullivan is in every school textbook on the constitution . . . malice of forethought.

    You might want to look up ‘libel’ while you’re at it. The defense is that you are telling the truth . . . which I am.

    Obama, meanwhile, continues to fight those who demand the truth. His $2 million in legal fees atest to his preference to litigate rather than exercise his campaign promise of transparency.

    Like

  28. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:
    Obama’s presidency is the insult to the law, not my legal analysis.

    and yet you cite no law that his presidency is in violation of. You show no evidence, you offer no proof.

    All you do, Para, is insult someone who isn’t here to defend herself. Oh you must feel like such a big strong man right now.

    In actuality, you’re a coward and a pussy, Para, for insulting a woman like that. Especially one that’s been dead 15 years.

    Thank you for admitting your argument/position has no grounds and that you’re nothing but a fraud and a small little man.

    Don’t play games you don’t have the intelligence to win, little boy.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    Insults to Obama’s mother are uncalled for, even if name-calling is the strongest evidence you have. Consent age being 16 in Hawaii means that, very simply, you’re wrong on the law once again. Your inability to calculate human gestation means you’re wrong on any facts you can establish in court.

    Plus, were Obama a bastard, all your talk about his allegiance to Britain would be legally gone. You must choose between your untenable legal case, and your completely bizarre, insane calumny case. They are mutually exclusive.

    No facts, no law, all you can do is insult the man’s mother. Birthers are not only poor in reason and data, they’re poverty struck in manners, too.

    If you have a case, make it. Making up facts, stating the laws contrary to what they are, assuming things that are not even alleged, is nothing more than vicious gossip — and in most cases, as you’ve shown, vicious gossip without the gossip.

    While you’re studying law, take a look at Times v. Sullivan, and consider the meaning of “malice” in the ruling there that public figures are generally free targets.

    If Obama were as litigious as you claim, your bank account would be completely drained by now.

    Like

  30. paralegalnm says:

    Speaking of ‘crazy,’ maybe you should do a quick read on the Stockholm Syndrome. You are entirely too endeared to the Obama presidency.

    Obama, Sr. was already married to Kezia in Kenya when he f—ed Dunham in Hawaii. She was 17 at the time. The marriage was a sham and void ab initio.

    In some states, that’s statutory rape for which one can only avoid jail by marrying the underage slut.

    Obama’s presidency is the insult to the law, not my legal analysis.

    Like

  31. […] claims to know more about the law than any federal judge including the Supreme Court has resurfaced here, at this post.  He seems bent on making a case against President Obama’s eligibility for the presidency no […]

    Like

  32. Ed Darrell says:

    In Obama, we have a definite loyalist to his father’s Luo and Marixist roots, plus that of Islam. Those three are a virtual ‘trifecta’ of anti-Americanism.

    That’s a special brand of crazy, you know? I’d love to see you try to make a case from Obama’s books (both bestsellers), his legislation, and his writings, that he’s a Marxist. In fact, that would be a good idea for you to do (it’ll keep you off the streets until you come to your senses).

    However, Obama was a bastard, wasn’t he?

    No, not under any law. Any child born in wedlock is, by legal operation, not a bastard.

    Is there any legal operation by which you should not be known as a bastard? Off hand, I can’t think of one, at least, not for the colloquial definition. Your insults to the law, to Obama, to lawyers, to America, to Hawaii, to the Constitution, to voter and other Americans, are really beyond the pale.

    Like

  33. paralegalnm says:

    The child of an alien father is provided right of citizenship of the mother, or jus solis; in cases of abandonment as a child, or at the age of decision choosing one society over the other.

    Otherwise, a condition of apartheid would exist which is an anathema to natural law.

    However, dual citizenship is a contradiction of terms. You enter a society physically, but not mentally? You consent to some aspects of the father’s society, but take advantage of those of the mother’s?

    Does Article II permit a patrilineal Loyalist to the presidency just because he was born of an American woman, or on U.S. soil?

    In Obama, we have a definite loyalist to his father’s Luo and Marixist roots, plus that of Islam. Those three are a virtual ‘trifecta’ of anti-Americanism.

    His mother was, by law, a U.S. citizen, but a radical to the degree of procreating . . . putting a new life on the planet . . . from an alien philosophy. It is a breach of the social contract to force an alien into that society, thus the wisdom of a wife’s derivative naturalization to that of the father.

    However, Obama was a bastard, wasn’t he? Of an alien father to boot? The majority of Americans were fooled into voting him into the presidency, but by fraud and deceit.

    Current polls strongly indicate remorse. The question is ‘do we have time for his term of office to expire,’ or ‘is the law enforceable to remove him.’

    It is like the eviction laws in California. The time and expense to evict an unlawful tenant creates a condition more akin to homesteading squaters; a violation of natural property rights.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    Read your own citation: End of first paragraph — “A study visa is a good example of a non-immigrant visa.”

    Under 8 U.S.C. 1101, a student visa confers only ‘alien’ status. The student is considered under foreign jurisdiction.

    You can argue with me to the end of tarnation, but the constitution only allowed British subjects presidential eligibility if born prior to adoption of the constitution, and willingly naturalized by its adoption.

    So it is your contention that a child born in the U.S. with a British father cannot ever be eligible for citizenship that leads to the presidency, and that Chester Alan Arthur was president illegally.

    Right?

    In the U.S. for the past 200 years, we’ve considered the children of British subjects born in the U.S. to be U.S. citizens. Why, do you claim, we should not do that for Obama, as we did for the other 40 million or so kids? Why do you single Barack Obama, Jr., out for separate treatment?

    Like

  35. paralegalnm says:

    Read your own citation: End of first paragraph — “A study visa is a good example of a non-immigrant visa.”

    Under 8 U.S.C. 1101, a student visa confers only ‘alien’ status. The student is considered under foreign jurisdiction.

    You can argue with me to the end of tarnation, but the constitution only allowed British subjects presidential eligibility if born prior to adoption of the constitution, and willingly naturalized by its adoption.

    The U.S. citizenship at birth from Obama’s mother, or native-birth, does not qualify for natural born citizen status. Sole allegiance was only guaranteed by the U.S. citizenship of the father . . . the modern concept of dual nationality did not exist prior to the 1920’s and is only tolerated . . . it is not a lawful condition.

    Eventually, for purposes of military service, taxes, property rights, legal domicile and inheritance the ‘dual national’ has to choose one citizenship.

    In Obama’s case, it was chosen for him under 1952 INA § 301. His Indonesian citizenship was effectively ‘renounced’ by his meeting the statutory 5-year continuous residency.

    In contrast, if Obama was spending summers with his mother in Lahore, or Jakarta, he would have lost U.S. citizenship instead, but had the right to apply without going through the green card process based on his U.S. citizenship at birth via 8 USC 1409 or 1401.

    The essence of Naturalization Law is ‘De-Alienage.’ A dual national has an alien nationality which must be removed . . . therefore, one might say that even though a citizen at birth, Obama was a citizen by naturalization. Unlike a natural born citizen, he had a choice of two nationalities (Indonesian being a third) upon reaching the ‘age of decision.’

    That is as far from a natural born citizen under Article II as you can get.

    As an attorney and senator, and even moreso president, Obama has a professional responsibility to comply with ethical standards of conduct. One of those standards is to assiduously avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing.

    With these questions concerning Article II eligibility, Obama has a professional duty to comply with legal demands for production . . . even to the point of personal due diligence.

    He has not only ignored Article II, and signed documents of false attestation, but blocked legal inquires from interested parties demanding proof.

    At least Clinton waited until he was in office before committing perjury.

    Like

  36. paralegalnm says:

    1) I was referring to Obama, Sr. being an alien under the law. Jr.’s long-term residency indicated domicile and resulted in his not losing U.S. citizenship at age 19. However, there is evidence that Obama was passing himself off as an Indonesian in school, and also using an Indonesian passport.

    The difficulty in Pakistani travel, and having a Pakistani room-mate in a college dorm are all prima facie evidence of having an Indonesian passport.

    I also stated difficult, but possible ways of getting a U.S. passport without a birth certificate. The C.O.L.B. was not sufficient, but added weight to his other records.

    2. The treaty was constitutional and lawful, ending the war allowing European and U.S. ships to proceed unmolested, but the admission of being a non-Christian country was a condition made by the Muslims in order to save face for cessation of hostilities.

    As I said, the Constitution is not a religious document, but the new country was initially populated by those seeking religious freedom.

    This country, from the Pilgrims and Quakers; wass a religious experiment. Standish, Fox, Penn, and Williams were the great religious and political progenitors to the founding fathers. It was a Protestant experiment.

    The Protestants were NOT persecuting Catholics during that time. You are mixing up your history with the ‘troubles’ in Ireland. The Huegonots were mass-murdered and chased out of France . . . Wm. Penn was locked up in the Tower of London . . . If you were found in possession of a Bible, you were arrested.

    “Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
    not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
    New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
    any translation of these books.”
    – The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

    Index of Trent
    (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) of 1559.
    “Whoever reads or has such a translation in his
    possession… cannot be absolved from his sins
    until he has turned in these Bibles…Books in the
    vernacular dealing with the controversies between
    Catholics and the heretics of our time are not to be
    generally permitted, but are to be handled in the
    same way as Bible translations…”

    Why did Hugo Black create, out of whole cloth, the ‘separation of church and state’? It had nothing to do with what Jefferson was promising the Baptist, nor what Roger Williams wrote in his sermon Jefferson relied on. Black was trying to quell deep distrust of Catholics still prevalent in U.S. Protestant society.

    This is a Christian country. Those are its roots, and the source of its freedom comes from Christian principles of biblical jurisprudence.

    Like

  37. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para, last time I checked, those studying here on student visas are legal residents of the United States.

    The first paragraph.

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    The treaty was ‘lawful,’ not the Law per se. There is a big difference.

    If you missed Constitutional Law, and International Law, and Conflicts of Laws, you could come to that conclusion only by completely ignoring the Constitution.

    See Article VI of the Constitution, for the Supremacy Clause:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    I think that’s rather dispositive.

    You are aware that Berg’s gotten the stuffing knocked out of his case at each hearing, right? I’m not sure that your having advised the guy is exactly a shining example of anything right now.

    Under U.S. law, a student here on visa is merely an ‘alien.’ There is no lawful domicile or intent to immigrate.

    Your own status doesn’t matter here. Obama was not attending school on a visa. U.S. citizens don’t need visas to attend school. Hawaii is a state of the U.S.

    Your implied allegations are utterly and completely without foundation. There is no hint of an iota of a scintilla of evidence that Obama was not natural born.

    Like

  39. Nick Kelsier says:

    the US, dimwit, is not a Christian country. It’s a secular country with Christians, among others, living in it. If you want to live in a theocracy, Para, I suggest Iran.

    If not then you’ll just have to deal with the fact that your being a Christian, and considering some of the things you say I very much doubt that, does not make you any more special then anyone else.

    The Founding Fathers were scared to death of morons like you.

    Like

  40. Nick Kelsier says:

    First off, child, it shows the founding fathers intent regards to Muslims. Secondly, have fun choking:

    Article 6, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Oh and by the way, little one, do keep in mind there was quite a bit of oppression of Catholics by protestants going around.

    And you’re still ignoring the fact that his mother is a US citizen and no matter who is father was, his mother’s citizenship grants him US citizenship.

    As for my claim that you’re operating from racism…the problem with argument of yours is that it is you who has no substantive argument. If you did you’d show the evidence for it. You have none. The second I backed you into a corner you went straight for the anti-Muslim and anti-Black bit.

    Show the birth certificate that shows he was born in another country. Cite the US law that says he isn’t a natural born citizen.

    If you refuse to then you are admitting that 1: you have no argument and 2: you’re a moron.

    Like

  41. paralegalnm says:

    Under U.S. law, a student here on visa is merely an ‘alien.’ There is no lawful domicile or intent to immigrate.

    As for racism, that is the fallback position of someone lacking substantive argument.

    Like

  42. paralegalnm says:

    If there is any reason for the Supreme Court to invalidate the Tripoli Treaty . . . in the case of a determination of law that the U.S. is, indeed, a Christian nation . . . albeit, the government this treaty was made with no longer exists . . . or did Tripoli speak for Islam?

    Yet, history speaks for itself. The U.S. was formed by Protestants fleeing religious persecution from papism and the Church of England. As for the incorporation of the Republic, that was not religious per se.

    Your citation of the Tripoli Treaty is dispositive of nothing, considering inalterable history.

    As my blog relates, the 1st Amendment has its limitations. A religion who’s main eschatology and organization is geared to destroying or undermining our constitution as a way to destroy a Christian or otherwise Infidel government is, by law, not protected by the 1st Amendment.

    Like

  43. Wow, Para. For someone who claims to be all about the Constitution, you sure as hell don’t seem to know much about it.

    Like

  44. paralegalnm says:

    The treaty was ‘lawful,’ not the Law per se. There is a big difference.

    Back before the election, I contacted Phil Berg and under the facts and law he did not consider proved that Obama was, indeed, a U.S. citizen. Whether born in Kenya, or Hawaii, the law makes him a ‘citizen at birth.’

    Now, applying facts and law, I also remind you that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.

    If you read my blog on a New General Order 11, you’ll discover that I have my facts, law, and religion correct.

    A private business, although heavily regulated, has a right to refuse service to anyone. The airlines have just cause to deny service to Muslims based on cost:benefit and security reasons. For the safety of their passengers, Muslims can be denied access to flight.

    You accuse me of being a bigot? Fine. But note: I suggest the Injunction be stayed, or on Probation, until the Muslims and amicus briefs come forward and argue their position through an Order to Show Cause.

    While you guys are cowards and traitors, cowering before the idol of Political Correctness, I only suggest confrontation and support of the Constitution, i.e., defense of the Constitution and the General Welfare.

    Like

  45. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para, that treaty was still US law. All treaties are in effect US law. And you’re still ignoring the fact that article of the US constitution I quoted you. That treaty was signed by President John Adams and ratified without dissent by the Senate. do you know how rare it is for treaties to be ratified without dissent, Para?

    And you’re still ignoring the fact that Obama is the son of a US citizen, born in Hawaii, all of which makes him a US citizen.

    Just acknowledge it. You have no facts on your side, you have no evidence on your side. All you have is the the racist blatherings of an idiot. Let me guess, you’re wearing the robes and pointy hat of a member of the KKK as you read this right?

    Not once have you shown any evidence that he was born in some other country. Not once have you shown any evidence that he’s a Muslim, and even if he was it doesn’t matter. Not once have you shown any evidence that he is anything other then a US citizen and perfectly eligble to be US president.

    All you have is a lot of stupid innuendo and conspiracy theories. And that’s all you will ever have. it is time for you to shut up and go away.

    Like

  46. paralegalnm says:

    Hmmmm . . . a Treaty for an end to the war in Tripoli . . . one party gives in to some things, the other party to other things . . . Jefferson et al wrote those things to offer the Mohammedans a way out . . . to save face.

    It means nothing.

    Read my blog at http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/is-a-new-general-order-11-against-islam-justified/

    You can’t justify the son of a British subject taking the presidency which violates Article II. So, they didn’t want the blacks to riot . . . the Republicans are hoping he will be voted out before he does too much damage . . . I say, let the blacks burn down their own neighborhoods and kill themselves . . . Obama is a fraud and a criminal.

    The Constitution comes first.

    Like

  47. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:
    In addition, he is the son of a Muslim. The founding fathers were not deluded, as current politicians are. They knew Muslims were mortal enemies with whom they’d never reach accord except through military force.

    Oh really? Then pray tell why does the Treaty of Tripoli have this in it’s 11th clause:

    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    Before you say anything, let me point out a couple facts for you. 1: That treaty was negotiated under President George Washington by, among others, Thomas Jefferson. 2: It was signed by President John Adams. 3: It was ratified without one vote of dissent by the Senate of 1797.

    You know what you are, beyond a racist pig, when you say what you do about Muslims, Para? You’re a traitor. You’re a traitor to what this country stands for. Secondly, you’re a traitor because you’ve surrendered to the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. You’ve bought hook line and sinker into what they want you to believe. That they represent the entirety of Islam and that this is a war against Islam. No, little one, this is a war against a bunch of religious whackjobs twisting and abusing Islam for their own interests. Just as the KKK twists Christianity to its own uses. Just as Adolph Hitler twisted Christianity for his own uses.

    There are Muslims living peaceful lives in this country. There are Muslims that are US citizens. There are Muslims that defend this country.

    And by painting them with all one brush, you have become just as monstrous, just as evil, just as depraved as the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. You are as much an enemy of this country, Para, as they are.

    Like

  48. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh and by the way, Barack Obama’s father was a student at the University of Hawaii. Which is where he met Barack Obama’s mother. Last time I checked, attending an University in the US makes one a resident of the US. Barack Obama was born in an Hawaiian hospital, there is more then enough evidence to prove that. And you have no evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for you, your paranoid delusions don’t work as evidence.

    In this country, para, citizenship flows from both the mother or the father. To suggest otherwise would be a wholesale violation of the 14th Admendment’s equal protection clause. And even if what you say was true, as you say…Obama was “technically abandoned” so therefor you’re rather contradicting your own argument.

    His mother is a natural born US citizen. He was born in Hawaii. Nothing you say changes either of those facts and nothing you say makes you right.

    But thank you for confirming that this is really about you’re throwing a racist hissy fit.

    Like

  49. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:

    In no way can Article II, in context of its diction or the political realities of a recent revolution breaking from Great Britain, be interpreted to allow a son of a British subject, even if native-born, to be eligible for the presidency.

    First off, twit, Obama is the son of an American citizen..his mother. That under the law makes him a natural born US citizen.

    Secondly, child, you do realize your position disqualifies any President we had who was born before 1776 right? That would mean the first 8 Presidents of this country, according to your logic, weren’t qualified to be President.

    Like

  50. Nick Kelsier says:

    Para writes:

    With no certified or original copy of a birth certificate, a U.S. passport can be obtained with something as vague as ‘early school records,’ or a Certificate of Citizenship if born overseas, FS-240 or DS-1350.

    Of course you’re ignoring the fact that I already showed you a certified birth certificate..the one from Hawaii. And the Republican governor of that state said himself that it is the certified authentic one.

    You want to claim he was born in some other country? Then show that other country’s birth certificate, Para. Its your claim, it’s up to you show the evidence for it.

    Like

  51. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh and by the way, child, there are quite a few Christians who believe that it is our God given duty as Christians to overthrow the world and force convert non-Christians to christianity.

    Pat Robertson for one. Look up the term “Christian dominionist” sometime.

    Like

  52. Nick Kelsier says:

    para writes:

    In every college I attended, the foreign students were domiciled in International Houses, not the general dorms.

    Not in my university, Hamline University. Nor at the University of Minnesota, St. Thomas University, St. John’s (Minnesota) or Concordia University. And probably not at most of the other University’s in my state.

    Like I said before, if you want to claim he was born in some other country…provide the evidence of it. The birth certificate of that country. Until you do you’re only spouting hateful bulls–t. And all because you’re scared and pissed off that a black man is President.

    Para writes:

    Obama is from a family of Muslims and Marxists.

    Going to ignore the “Marxist” bit since he isn’t, his family isn’t and it’s a stupid charge. I doubt you could even define “Marxism” accurately. As for the Muslim bit…so? First off, Obama is Christian. Second, even if he was Muslim it doesn’t matter. Or are you blithely ignoring Article 6 Section 3 of the US Constitution? You know..the one that reads “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Meaning, para, being Muslim isn’t a disqualification for holding office in this country. After all that would be a “religious test” and that would be unconstitutional. One of the US Congressmen from my state, Minnesota, is Muslim. You going to raise a ruckus over that? Because if you do you’re only acknowledging my charge that the birthers are racists.

    Quit confusing Muslim extremists for the entirety of Islam, twit. Quit pretending that Osama bin Laden and his ilk represent the entirety of Islam. They don’t. No more then Christian extremists like the two jackasses that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma represent the entirety of Christianity. You’re forgetting, little one, that Turkey is by and large Muslim and oops..a democracy.

    You’re letting your fear and paranoia cloud your judgement.

    Like

  53. paralegalnm says:

    With no certified or original copy of a birth certificate, a U.S. passport can be obtained with something as vague as ‘early school records,’ or a Certificate of Citizenship if born overseas, FS-240 or DS-1350.

    In 1981, a U.S. citizen could get a free 30-day visa at the Pakistan border, but required a special visa if traveling to India overland from Pakistan.

    Of course, Obama’s original Indonesian passport would have made all these travel restrictions irrelevant.

    Indonesian law used derivative citizenship, an automatic naturalization of children of a foreign woman marrying an Indonesian citizen, AND, residing under Indonesian jurisdiction.

    PROOF? No proof is available because records have been denied. However, the questions are valid and as yet unanswered by such documents as a certified copy of a birth certificate, or passport files (the subject of a major CNN news story and a murder prior to the election). So much for “transparency.”

    Nevertheless, Obama admits to being born under British jurisdiction under the British Nationality Act a natural born British subject.

    In no way can Article II, in context of its diction or the political realities of a recent revolution breaking from Great Britain, be interpreted to allow a son of a British subject, even if native-born, to be eligible for the presidency.

    The nationality of the mother is moot. Her nationality only benefits the child under cases of abandonment, death of the legal father, out-of-wedlock birth (which is technically Obama’s bastard condition), or child of rape.

    These conditions allow for U.S. citizenship of the child through application, by the 14th Amendment, or by election of the child upon reaching the age of decision . . . or automatically by virtue alone of 5-year continuous U.S. residency between ages 14 and 23.

    If there is no continuous residency, the adult with inchoate U.S. citizenship at birth must formally apply with the State Department and take the Oath of Allegiance, dealienge the result of the oath and renouncing the foreign nationality . . . in this case being the Indonesian naturalization as Barry Soetoro.

    This tangled mess is as far from a ‘natural born citizen’ as you can possible concoct under the guise of fiction.

    A natural born citizen requires two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil, with only exception being a foreign diplomat or active military in a foreign country.

    Like

  54. Ed Darrell says:

    Who was Mohammed Hasan Chandoo?

    A wealthy Pakistani who attended Occidental College — not clear if he’s Muslim. Check out this article in The Seattle Times about people afraid to talk about Obama because they fear people will do what you’re trying to do now, smearing Obama with innuendo. The story notes Obama’s friends pursue the traditional American dreams: “Chandoo is a self-employed financial consultant in the New York area.”

    Why do you ask a question about a college roommate with such dark undertones? Do you suspect something else? Of course you have no evidence of anything more than the reporters have pulled out – so anything you have is pure speculation, unseemly gossip, designed to smear the reputation of Obama, our president.

    If you don’t have anything about Chandoo, why even mention him? You know that nothing you have makes your case, right? You know that a smear is the best chance you have.

    On what passport did Obama travel to Pakistan? It wasn’t a U.S. one.

    Sure was. Otherwise there would have been a whole bunch of hoohaw from the State Department when he switched. There probably would have had to have been a hearing, which would be public record. Put up or shut up time: Where was that hearing? What was the result? Who has the transcript?

    You can’t find such a hearing? Normally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this case, it surely is.

    This is one of the six presumptions that you refuse to face head on. The State Department’s records on such hearings are open and public. The legal presumption is that Obama traveled on a U.S. passport. Why? Because State has never made a fuss about it. Because FBI didn’t make a fuss about it when Obama got top secret clearances to look at our nation’s defense secrets when he was named chair of the subcommittee that oversees NATO. Under Senate rules, all Senators must undergo a security clearance. The clearance procedures get much tighter for those who are members of committees dealing with major U.S. secrets. You can count on the fact that Obama got that assignment means that he passed a much tighter security clearance than you have ever imagined.

    You don’t deal with facts. You suggest innuendo. Your innuendo doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny.

    What is your evidence Obama didn’t travel on a U.S. passport? Are you going to raise the old hoax about travel to Pakistan being banned by the State Department? You know that’s not true — travel to Pakistan has never been banned by State, and especially not in 1981, as the Reagan administration wooed Pakistan as an ally against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

    In every college I attended, the foreign students were domiciled in International Houses, not the general dorms.

    Not the case at my undergraduate school, the University of Utah. International students were dotted through all the dorms. Not the case at the University of Arizona where I did graduate study. There were too many international students there. From the international kids I’ve known who attended Columbia, Amherst and Florida State, not so there. At George Washington, where I attended law school, international students in the dorm was one of the recruiting claims — as it was at Georgetown, Catholic and American.

    At our oldest son’s school, UT-Dallas, international students didn’t have special housing at all. Every class, graduate and undergraduate, is an international experience. It’s a benefit of the school. Same thing at our younger son’s school, Lawrence University.

    I don’t know where you attended college, but few American colleges try to isolate international students. That’s the opposite of what they want to achieve. Why you assume international students would have been isolated at Occidental is beyond me, a trace of bigotry perhaps you don’t even realize you have. Do you have any evidence at all for the claim? It runs against my experience and good education theory. Why do you allege that?

    Obama is from a family of Muslims and Marxists.

    No Marxists. You’re making that up because it scares innocents. My guess is that you wouldn’t know a Marxist if he barked at you. Again, a hoax assertion without evidence.

    His grandparents, who raised him during the formative years of his life, were Kansas progressive Christians. Obama’s twig is not bent the way you claim.

    Just because Jefferson crafted an inclusive right doesn’t open the door for a religion that espouses overthrow of all gentile governments and respects no jurisdiction other than Allah. See 8 U.S.C. 1424

    Jefferson specifically crafted a right that opens the door to inclusion in our society of Moslems. Read the piece again. Read the law produced, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

    Heck, for that matter read the treaties the U.S. and its predecessor made with those Barbary states. Each of those treaties — about seven, as I recall, covering more than 30 years of American diplomacy from 1786 through 1816 — notes that the U.S. is not unfriendly to Moslems. The most famous, the Treaty with Tripoli proposed by George Washington and John Adams, explicitly states that the U.S. is not in any form a “Christian nation,” and, therefore, with no inherent enmity to nations that claim to be Islamic. Each of the other treaties makes a similar claim.

    Laws against overthrow of the government apply to all religions.

    But most critically, this claim of yours is wholly innuendo, a conscious and vicious smear of Obama. He is not Muslim. He knows Islam better than you or me, and he can speak some Indonesian — a big plus in our relations to the largest Islamic nation in the world — but Obama himself is Christian, an active Christian.

    On one hand you claim Obama was abandoned by his father, then on the other you claim Obama’s father’s religion takes precedence over the rest of his life, the decade he spent with his grandparents, the decades he’s spent as a Christian.

    The ugly thing is that you do that all without evidence.

    You don’t have a case against Obama in any form.

    Obama passed himself off in word and deed as a foreigner into his college years.

    That claim is patent bulls–t.

    That would kybosh any consideration by the founding fathers of U.S. citizenship if born prior to the adoption of the constitution and, born of a British subject, any hint of eligibility under the natural born citizen clause would be denied.

    More patent bulls–t.

    You don’t have a case.

    I suspect you understand now how weak your case is. You don’t answer any of the reasonable evidence questions I ask. You don’t have the evidence to make a case.

    Like

  55. paralegalnm says:

    Who was Mohammed Hasan Chandoo?

    On what passport did Obama travel to Pakistan? It wasn’t a U.S. one.

    In every college I attended, the foreign students were domiciled in International Houses, not the general dorms.

    Obama is from a family of Muslims and Marxists. Just because Jefferson crafted an inclusive right doesn’t open the door for a religion that espouses overthrow of all gentile governments and respects no jurisdiction other than Allah. See 8 U.S.C. 1424

    Obama passed himself off in word and deed as a foreigner into his college years. That would kybosh any consideration by the founding fathers of U.S. citizenship if born prior to the adoption of the constitution and, born of a British subject, any hint of eligibility under the natural born citizen clause would be denied.

    Like

  56. Ed Darrell says:

    Bovine excrement. I call “BS” on the New Mexico paralegal:

    Obama continued to pass himself off as an Indonesian citizen after reaching the ‘age of decision.’

    Not according to the kind of scholarship he got at Occidental. Not according to the kind of scholarship he got at Columbia. Not according to any reliable source. That’s one of the presumptions I listed, which you refuse to answer. The State Department issued him a U.S. passport. Tough to pass yourself off as Indonesian after graduating from a U.S. high school, attending two U.S. universities, and traveling on a U.S. passport.

    BS. Pure, uncomposted BS from the birthers.

    In addition, he is the son of a Muslim. The founding fathers were not deluded, as current politicians are. They knew Muslims were mortal enemies with whom they’d never reach accord except through military force.

    That’s not what Jefferson said. Jefferson said (the significance being that Jefferson was the president who actually fought the Barbary pirates):

    The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.

    And Morris was never a governor. Your descent into insults is most unpleasant, but probably indicative of your realization that you have no case, and you’re really out of possibilities to get a case. You just don’t have any evidence for anything you allege.

    Gouverneur was his name, not his title.

    Like

  57. paralegalnm says:

    The founding fathers would welcome Obama?

    Even if born prior to the adoption of the constitution, per the subordinate adjective clause a ‘citizen at the time of adoption,’ Obama continued to pass himself off as an Indonesian citizen after reaching the ‘age of decision.’

    Any resident of the 13 ratifying states who continued to pass himself off as a British subject would not be considered a U.S. citizen, but a Loyalist . . . a Tory.

    In addition, he is the son of a Muslim. The founding fathers were not deluded, as current politicians are. They knew Muslims were mortal enemies with whom they’d never reach accord except through military force.

    If born after the ‘time of adoption,’ he was the son of a British subject and therefore a Natural Born British Subject, accorded U.S. citizenship only by statute for those born on U.S. soil.

    Your psychosis is exhibited in your denials . . . Gov. Morris was perfectly in order and wise in his analogy.

    Obama was born primarily of foreign nationality . . . only laws favoring the issue of out-of-wedlock births, jus solis births under U.S. jurisdiction, or of women abandoned by the father of their child, of foundlings and those children adopted conferred U.S. nationality on Obama.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    Hamilton was naturalized, just as all the founding fathers, by the subordinate adjective clause of Article II, ‘citizen of the United States at the time of adoption.’

    He was eligible.

    And so would the founders have welcomed Obama to run. As I noted, the history the this stuff is that the founders were worried about Hapsburgs and Bourbons, not Obamas and Hamiltons. They wanted the Obamas and Hamiltons. They wanted to avoid the trouble that comes with Hapsburgs and Bourbons, especially on the issues of succession. Americans, humbly-born Americans, can do the job, they reasoned.

    Obama fits the mold they cast.

    You call Gov. Morris a bigot? His logic and analog was quite concise. A foreigner was welcome to the table, but not before the altar as priest. There are limits to inclusiveness.

    I don’t think him much of one, but you cast him in that role. What I said was that I don’t think you cast him correctly. Morris was not concerned about people like Obama. Morris would have welcomed an Obama then (he did, in Hamilton), and would welcome Obama now.

    Vattel was highly regarded as a jurist and expert in international and conflict of laws. His discourse on natural law was seminal and explicitly lauded by the founding fathers, who possessed at least three copies.

    ‘Law of nations’ is a general term, as used in Vattel’s title, several times in the constitution. ‘Common Law’ is only mentioned once as a principal of future adjudication.

    Yes, “law of nations” is a general term — it’s also the name of Vattel’s book, which he largely borrowed in the first edition, from another book with the same title. You claimed Vattel’s views should hold. That the phrase “law of nations” appears in any deliberation between 1776 and 1800 is not necessarily an endorsement of Vattel’s views. I asked you specfiically why you think Vattel’s views should survive (and let me make it clear that I haven’t looked at the book at all — frankly, I don’t trust you to quote him correctly; but for the sake of argument . . .). What court has endorsed his views on this matter? What law?

    You dither back into ambiguous claims. ‘Well, the founders used a phrase like the title of his book.’ That’s not legal research. It’s not logical. It’s an unfounded assertion.

    Why should we take Vattel’s word over U.S. law? You don’t answer. Do you have an answer that makes sense?

    In the first two weeks of my study of Phil Berg’s filings, I was invited to be an expert guest on the Rusty Humphries Show explaining why Obama was, indeed, a Natural Born Citizen.

    Bully for you. The Wingnut Gallery must love you a lot.

    In my first week of research, I found the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 USC 1409 that disproved Berg’s claim Obama was not a citizen if born in Kenya.

    There are two huge holes in your case. First, Obama wasn’t born out of wedlock. The wedding license is known, is on record, the ceremony took place. That’s why a divorce was necessary — the marriage had occurred and was valid.

    So, under U.S. law — and international law (check Vattel, you’ll see I’m right), Obama was born in wedlock. The law you cite doesn’t apply.

    Second, Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. You’ve refused to offer even a half-baked argument for ignoring the six legal presumptions I’ve listed that show Obama’s a natural born citizen under U.S. law — any of them left standing, you have no case. You don’t even touch one of them.

    I suspect you don’t because you can’t. Each presumption requires that you come up with some extraordinary evidence — not a hunch, not a hypothetical, but real stuff. You can’t do it, nor can anyone else.

    It is true that if Obama had been born to a citizen of Tuva and a citizen of Tuvalu, in Tasmania, he would not be eligible to be president. It is true that if he had been born of an Inuit and a Frenchman, in Lapland (any part of Lapland) he’d be ineligible for the presidency.

    The facts are that he was born of a U.S. citizen mother in Hawaii. He’s eligible to be president. All the hypotheticals in the world don’t change the facts.

    <blockquoteAt the last moment I informed Humphries I was wrong. Obama was NOT a natural born citizen.

    You should call him an apologize, don’t you think? You’ve misled the guy. Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in wedlock, in Hawaii, of a U.S. citizen. All of your disqualifications don’t apply.

    I mistook a statutory provision to confer U.S. nationality at birth for natural born citizenship. The way naturalization law works, a natural born citizen must be free from alienage.

    Yeah. The Wilson case in 1931. If you owe your allegiance to God instead of the U.S., so that you can only defend the U.S. in a just war, instead of any war, you can’t be naturalized.

    But that doesn’t apply to citizens born as citizens, as Obama was. He didn’t need to be naturalized, just as a kid born on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in New Mexico does not need to be naturalized to be a U.S. citizen.

    There is no legally effective alienage to change Obama’s status. He has never owed any special duty to any other government at any time. He has always been a U.S. citizen. He did not need to be renaturalized at any time.

    All of your hypotheticals do not apply to Obama.

    That is what the founding fathers intended, and it is how Article II is written. It can be interpreted no other way.

    So then you agree it’s an evidence issue? Then the issue is settled, since you have none of the evidence necessary to contradict the law.

    Like

  59. paralegalnm says:

    Hamilton was naturalized, just as all the founding fathers, by the subordinate adjective clause of Article II, ‘citizen of the United States at the time of adoption.’

    He was eligible.

    You Obamatons are obviously suffering delusional psychosis, unable to grasp reality . . . exhibited by a highly defensive bias, a cognitive disorder.

    You call Gov. Morris a bigot? His logic and analog was quite concise. A foreigner was welcome to the table, but not before the altar as priest. There are limits to inclusiveness.

    Vattel was highly regarded as a jurist and expert in international and conflict of laws. His discourse on natural law was seminal and explicitly lauded by the founding fathers, who possessed at least three copies.

    ‘Law of nations’ is a general term, as used in Vattel’s title, several times in the constitution. ‘Common Law’ is only mentioned once as a principal of future adjudication.

    Your mental illness has become ‘brittle,’ as in ‘brittle diabetes.’ You are unreachable by logic or the law.

    My research is disciplined and utterly reliable. That is my job . . . I don’t submit it unless it is reliable.

    In the first two weeks of my study of Phil Berg’s filings, I was invited to be an expert guest on the Rusty Humphries Show explaining why Obama was, indeed, a Natural Born Citizen.

    In my first week of research, I found the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 USC 1409 that disproved Berg’s claim Obama was not a citizen if born in Kenya.

    At the last moment I informed Humphries I was wrong. Obama was NOT a natural born citizen.

    I mistook a statutory provision to confer U.S. nationality at birth for natural born citizenship. The way naturalization law works, a natural born citizen must be free from alienage.

    That is what the founding fathers intended, and it is how Article II is written. It can be interpreted no other way.

    From those first two weeks, all of my research has amplified and supported that position; alienage and dealienage in a child of dual nationality, and the lack of alienage and dealienage of naturalization law in a natural born citizen.

    It is that simple . . . even though your psychosis creates a massive subconsciously driven twisted logic denying it. I am not being facetious about the psychosis. It is part of cognitive bias, or all or nothing thinking. You have a disorder . . . deal with it.

    Like

  60. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, the Hamilton gambit. That doesn’t work.

    Oh, the ignore-the-response-and-hope-the-judge-was-sleeping gambit. That doesn’t work against the hard fact that the founders did not endeavor to disqualify people like Alexander Hamilton from the presidency. Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. His connection to U.S. citizenship would have been through his father, but Hamilton was a bastard.

    Ultimately we have to face reality: The founders were not trying to wreak vengeance on Alexander Hamilton. Under your tortured reading of the law, you claim people like Hamilton could not be considered citizens, even, let alone natural born.

    The founders wanted to avoid the Habsburgs (or Hapsburgs, pick your spelling). They liked Hamilton, and they had no brief against Obama. Especially the founder known as Hamilton liked Hamilton.

    A Hawaiian kid . . . sounds so innocent. He was by birth, through his father, by British common law and natural law vis a’ vis Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations (a resource considered a ‘God-send’ by B. Franklin) a natural born British subject.

    Why do you think Vattel should rule here? Where is the precedent? Vattel was Swiss. I find it amusing that you wish to replace U.S. law at every turn, with British law if it suits you, or with Swiss interpretations of Roman law.

    We have laws here that we made ourselves. We have a tradition of common law with roots in England. U.S. law would rule in a U.S. court on such a matter — why do you think Vattel would apply, especially invalidating U.S. law?

    Based on the abandonment of the father, under both British and U.S. law, the Obama lost status as ‘legal parent’ and the mother’s nationality assumed full jurisdiction.

    Here you go assuming things that did not occur. It was a divorce. We have the divorce papers to prove it up. There was no abandonment, legally — and by your reading, had there been, Obama’s hold on “natural born” only gets stronger.

    Under the 1855 Act onward, her nationality was conferred to the child. Under later laws, her nationality was inchoate at birth.

    Poppycock. You’ll have to do better than that for an argument to overcome the powerful presumption that is created by his having been born on U.S. soil. His mother’s U.S. citizenship only strengthens his claim, not weakens it.

    Gov. Morris had a flair for flambouyancy? Here are two quotes:

    “Gouverneur Morris said ‘he would let them (naturalized citizens) worship at the same altar (with native citizens), but he did not choose to make priests of them’ and this was the sentiment which finally resulted in the provision that the President must be a natural-born citizen. ” (Madison’s Writings, IV, 159)

    So Morris was a bigot. Obama was never a foreign national, never needed to be naturalized. Morris would have been happy to have Obama as a priest, if that was his criterion.

    And Gov. Morris himself — “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those *** Citizens of the World *** as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal bias in favor of that of England.”

    Hint: What president called himself a ‘citizen of the world’?

    Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Wilson, and Coolidge. Were there others?

    They meant they were attuned to events in the world. No one has ever suggested any legal import to such a statement.

    Obviously, again, Morris was referring to Europe’s troubles with succession of rulers. Over the previous couple hundred years Europe had been wracked by wars over who got which throne, most often with some candidate from out of the country who did not even speak the language. See for example the War of the Spanish Succession (Queen Anne’s War on this side of the Atlantic). It was followed by the War of the Austrian Succession.

    Neither war would be possible with a simple rule that the ruler come from the people born in that nation.

    You read too much and too little into the history and the law at the same time, working hard to exclude the very sort of man the founders intended to include in eligibility for the presidency. You need to get your nose out of the law books for a while, look at the decisions, and pay attention to history.

    Finally, which of the following quotations to you give weight to in supporting the definition of ‘natural born citizen,’:

    When the constitution was being composed, John Jay asked George Washington, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen …”[1]

    And what was Washington’s answer? Did Washington act to exclude his friend, his “like a son” former aide Hamilton?

    The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”[2]

    Bingham was working to secure citizenship rights for ex-slaves, for African Americans. It’s almost unseemly you claim it cuts against Obama.

    In any case, there’s nothing to suggest Obama owed allegiance to any foreign power at any time in his life.

    Recently, however, Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst commented that, “The law was [sic] always been understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”[3]

    Obviously, you are as oblivious as Goldstein.

    Or we pay attention to the courts and history. All is yellow to the jaundiced eye.

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    Based on the abandonment of the father, under both British and U.S. law, the Obama lost status as ‘legal parent’ and the mother’s nationality assumed full jurisdiction.

    We haven’t done it that way in the U.S., under law, since about 1860. Did we do it prior to 1860? No.

    Obama’s citizenship status did not change when his parents divorced. He remained a natural born American citizen.

    Like

  62. paralegalnm says:

    Oh, the Hamilton gambit. That doesn’t work.

    A Hawaiian kid . . . sounds so innocent. He was by birth, through his father, by British common law and natural law vis a’ vis Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations (a resource considered a ‘God-send’ by B. Franklin) a natural born British subject.

    Based on the abandonment of the father, under both British and U.S. law, the Obama lost status as ‘legal parent’ and the mother’s nationality assumed full jurisdiction. Under the 1855 Act onward, her nationality was conferred to the child. Under later laws, her nationality was inchoate at birth.

    Gov. Morris had a flair for flambouyancy? Here are two quotes:

    “Gouverneur Morris said ‘he would let them (naturalized citizens) worship at the same altar (with native citizens), but he did not choose to make priests of them’ and this was the sentiment which finally resulted in the provision that the President must be a natural-born citizen. ” (Madison’s Writings, IV, 159)

    And Gov. Morris himself — “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those *** Citizens of the World *** as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal bias in favor of that of England.”

    Hint: What president called himself a ‘citizen of the world’?

    Finally, which of the following quotations to you give weight to in supporting the definition of ‘natural born citizen,’:

    When the constitution was being composed, John Jay asked George Washington, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen …”[1]

    The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”[2]

    Recently, however, Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst commented that, “The law was [sic] always been understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”[3]

    Obviously, you are as oblivious as Goldstein.

    Like

  63. Ed Darrell says:

    Under what law, or what premise, would John Jay or James Madison, Wilson, Jefferson, etc., consider the son of a British subject born out-of-wedlock and to a U.S. mother, a ‘natural born citizen.’

    I have never found any indication that any of these men thought Alexander Hamilton ineligible for the presidency. You suggest that they would have reflexively opposed Hamilton on the basis of his paternity, but I doubt it. There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest these great men were lunatic enough to be birthers.

    Had Hamilton run, I suspect they’d have supported or opposed him on his policies, not because of his birth.

    Why did the constitution single out a natural born citizen as the prime eligibility standard for president in the first place?

    No great reason. Have you checked the debates on the point? I suspect that the odd wording was a result of Gouverneur Morris’s attempt at flair, and not much more.

    The founders thought foreigners should not come to the U.S. as carpetbagging candidates for the presidency. They were not trying to keep a Hawaiian kid from the presidency.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: