to question, or investigate, an obvious non-American Communist, friend of terrorists, seizing the office of POTUS.
Posted on 11/01/2008 1:55:10 PM PDT by thekansascitian
Lots of news on Barack Obama's citizenship status.
First, the third circuit court of appeals has rejected Philip J. Berg's appeal. The judge in the case upheld the lower court ruling on Berg's lack of standing.
DENIED. For the reasons ably expressed by the District Court —and not addressed in Plaintiff-Appellant’s Emergency Motion— it appears that Plaintiff-Appellant lacks standing to challenge Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff-Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.
A similar case in Ohio has been tossed out. The judge ruled the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to prove Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not on Obama to prove he is.
“The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation,” Hasselbach wrote in his decision .
David M. Neal, the plaintiff, wrote on his website that when he enrolled his child in public school he had to produce a birth certificate for his son to prove eligibility... "[Barack Obama] is running for president of the United States." the implication being the applicant bore the onus to prove citizenship and not the school to prove non-legal status.
Finally, the Associated Press is reporting that Hawaii officials declared Barack Obama's birth certificate as genuine. But that's not exactly what the Hawaii officials said.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
A statement of fact of which we already knew. The question is not whether they have his original certificate, but whether that certificate indicates he was actually born in the U.S. and not born the child of a Hawaiian citizen abroad. The latter of which is what has been alleged by Philip J. Berg based on an eyewitness account of Obama's birth in Kenya from his paternal grandmother.
We know Dr. Fukino did not actually see Obama's birth certificate, because "she says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest." Emphasis added.
If Barack Obama ultimately wins on Tuesday, this issue is not going to go away without the official "vault" birth certificate being produced. Arguments that the people do not have standing to enforce the Constitution sets a dangerous president and requiring challengers to bear the burden of proof when the Constitution specifically requires natural-born status of presidential candidates creates a constitutional crisis that patriots simply can not allow.
Of course this entire issue would go away if Barack Obama would simply authorize the release of the document. Why does he continue to fight this issue and not just put it to rest?
Didn’t Hawaii just release his BC????
NO!
No, They sealed it.
It sure appears as though Americans not longer have “standing” in our “courts.” I guess illegal aliens and Islamofascist terrorists took up all the “standling” places.
Put a fork in it, this one’s done.
who the hell has standing then? the FEC? It is ridiculous that a citizen does not have standing to ensure that the person running for the presidency is qualified.
To have standing you must suffer a definite and substantial harm, and it must be reperable only by the action sought. I don’t see how making sure that the leader of a democratic (well technically democratic-republic) system is answerable to his citizens does not constitute a harm, nor how making him present the BC does not fix it
and no, HI didn’t release anything. What they said doesn’t mean anything.
There are three constitutional standing requirements:
Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (global warming caused by EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts’s alleged injury of loss of coastland).
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
A little late on old news. It’s being appealed to the Supreme Court.
The XX Amendment Section 3 says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify". That tells me that once a person has been elected to be President, then it is incumbent on the President elect to prove he is Constitutionally qualified.
Perhaps that's when he can be challenged and forced to prove he is qualified.
The FEC already weighed in and said they don’t have standing. Apparently we the people no longer have a say in making sure our constitution is upheld.
No fears, the politburo is making the right choices for us comrades.
Hmmm any idea why the FEC disavowed it? what is the point of it if not to enforce the election laws?
How can a person verify something if they have not seen it?
That does not make sense.
Obama needs to release his bc. McCain has. We should not elect a person to be POTUS if they can not prove they are a citizen of the US.
The courts are wrong. They should be held accountable.
Too bad they won’t reach a decision in time. I wonder if (assuming they grant the case cert) they will then dismiss it because it is considered moot, or if they will view it more generally and approach the issue of who has standing to question a candidate’s qualifications and then remand it to the district court. I would imagine the first would happen rather than the second, but the second would provide a very interesting constitutional question.
I don’t reacall what reason the FEC gave but I think they said that their interest is mostly in the financial aspects of electoral law. (Not that they’re doing much there either)
To clarify, they would only remand if they find a citizen like Berg has standing. Otherwise they would just dismiss it.
Just read here that it was said to be legal ....
State Verifies Obama’s Birth Certificate
KITV ^
Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:35:01 PM by okb Free Republic
>The American public is not amused at the judicial claim that no American has any right
to question, or investigate, an obvious non-American Communist, friend of terrorists, seizing the office of POTUS.
don’t know about you, but this part of “We the people” is more than a little PO’d about this insult being hurled into our faces from someone who is, supposedly, sworn to uphold the US Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.