Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
That guy is such an @ss.
That troll never provides anything of substance in these discussions, and always resorts to ad-hom attacks before it's over.
He is incapable of acknowledging that it's extremely suspicious that Obama is spending a fortune to prevent a simple document from being examined.
Public figure's records have the same privacy protections that the rest of us have, so Obama need do nothing to keep them "sealed" (private).
What Orly and others have tried to do is to get access to private records by court order, in other words, unseal them, by claiming the records are relevant to their lawsuits. However, in order to proceed with their lawsuits they have to get over the hurdle of standing which is narrowly defined:
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
The lawyers for Obama show up in court to prevent a default judgment and further court action.
default judgment n. if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (usually 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgment. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgment. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Default+Judgment
Presidents get sued all the time necessitating the services of lawyers who often provide their services pro bono so its not clear that Obama has spent any money at all on these suits.
When Orly complains that her cases have not been heard on their merits, she is either being disingenuous or ignorant. Her case have no merit to begin with; they do not get past the hurdle of standing.
That's simply not true.
Yes, you are right. Until mojitojoe printed off his quotes from DU he was on a roll!! Hahaha!!
And apparently yours is to insult and provide unsubstantiated conjecture. Hallmarks of conservatism they are not!
Our commander in chief, born, by his own admission, a natural born subject of The Crown, is liable to be punished for treason to Britain.
And how is that, for he was not born on British soil. Unless you have proof otherwise?
Then, concerning the regard of our founders for British Common Law, in the words of Alexander Hamilton:
Please read Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84 where he reassures his fellow New Yorkers
that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured
and extends it with language defining where the power for the law comes from (the people) and the ability for the people to change it (amendment).
He also argues against the bill of rights, as they are
not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
This is the English common law understanding that rights not spoken of are inherently with the people, not the Government. Hamilton's concern was that by strictly defining certain rights, a case could be made that any area outside that definition would be inferred as residing with the Government - exactly was we see happening now...
So we have Hamilton acknowledging the foundation of the US legal system and Constitution literally and implicitly relying on British common law; not a surprise given he was a lawyer educated in the British legal system (as were many of the founders).
In Great Britain - as with most monarchies - citizens are referred to as subjects; the words and phrasing mean the same thing. A person who's under the jurisdiction of their Government, whether power is vested with a figurative monarchy (such as England), or a representative Government (such as the US).
I hope you take the time to understand the difference between a subject and a citizen
I understand it, and your attempt to use it as a justification of ignoring the basis of English common law for the US is weak, at best. Legal and historical scholars and works will tell you that the specific word is representative of the persons of the country; you are throwing out red herrings to justify your point.
Look a post or two above - I just quoted Alexander Hamilton assuring the people of New York that the Constitution was based on English common law - that very law that uses "subject"!
You can make all the argument you want and so can I, but the only decision that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States.
On that I fully agree! And that means - until proven otherwise - the presumption of innocence, or in this case, citizenship, must be correct (a very English common law thing). It needs to be proven otherwise in a Court of Law, that is the American legal and constitutional system.
Until the SC weighs otherwise, we should assume President Obama is a natural born citizen. It is fine to support a challenge, but the creation by some of the bizarre twisting of the foundation of our legal system being NOT on English common law defies history and logic.
parsifal is a troll, if he thinks Orliy is a nut he could still support the issue but not here. He posts along with Rahm-sequinter.
Yes they did change it, once WND made them aware of their error. Furthermore, they didn't just scrub the error. At the very bottom of the story, they acknowledged the error and stated it was the writer's.
I was specifically speaking about the original source. The Queens hospital story, Obama's birthplace came from some where. The most likely source are the Obamas.
Not according to UPI:
"This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."
Can you read? What part of "error made by the writer" can't you understand?
If it was an error by the writer, then Obama could not have been the source.
The bottom line here is that the public does not really know to where Obama was born.
Yes we do. Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained he was born at Kapiolani. The fact that exactly one reporter made an error and said it was Queens doesn't change that.
I did check it for myself, and I found it to be a complete fabrication.
Do birthers never get tired of making stuff up?
Excellent post bitt, I saved it for email.
Good post Phil. Lots of ‘firsts’ with the First Clown.
Honestly, do the people pushing this even care about their own supposed “evidence.” The Nordyke twins you push? Their birth certificate identifies the place of birth as the Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. The World Net Daily of all places specifically states that the majority of childbirths on the island in 1961 were delivered at Kapi’olani and Queens. This mere “clinic” was founded for maternity care in 1890.
I'm simply flabbergasted at the ability to sneer so certainly and wildly without making the slightest effort to check any facts.
“And apparently yours is to insult and provide unsubstantiated conjecture. Hallmarks of conservatism they are not!”
Absolutely correct. One of the hallmarks of conservatism is supposed to be respect for reality and a willingness to honestly face it whether one likes what it is currently indicating or not.
William F. Buckley solidified the modern conservative when he stood athwart history and shouted “stop.” He then made cogent, reasoned arguments based on facts and reality. He didn’t just make up wild, insane stuff and spew it.
“He leaves the question unanswered”
He leaves the question of children born to a foreign national — being NATURAL/NATIVE born — in a state of DOUBT.
Birthers are also in a state of DOUBT as to Obamas Natural Born Citizen status as he TOO was born with a foreign National for a father.
THEREFORE: ‘BIRTHERS’ PLEAD THAT OBAMA AND OR THE COURTS REMOVE THOSE DOUBTS.
VERY SIMPLE LOGIC.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
STE=Q
Well, he seems nice and I don’t see him calling other freepers names, nor does he ping the nasty DU BO lovers to come to the BC threads. Rahm-sequinter as you call him, also posts on DU.
So you withheld that knowledge... misleading the readers by not crediting WND . You gave the impression that UPI on their own recognizance, out of the goodness of their hearts, made the correction on their own.
Can you read? What part of "error made by the writer" can't you understand?
If it was an error by the writer, then Obama could not have been the original source.
On the contrary again. Someone in the Obama family could have been the source.
And I read and comprehend better than most. You'll notice in my last post to you that I questioned UPI, if they did "a real" investigation on what happened?
An error by the writer? The correction is sufficiently ambiguous that we do not know what type of error? No details. Was the error because UPI believes was an error by their source(s), or was it that UPI just made the crap up? Without seeing the real Obama birth certificate, either one of the listing of Obama's birth hospitals could be an error.
Yes we do. Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained he was born at Kapiolani. The fact that exactly one reporter made an error and said it was Queens doesn't change that.
I don't trust the Obamas telling the truth. It appears that you do - you take their words as truth by swallowing them hook line and sinker.
By the way, when the founders use the word “natural” they do so in a very special way.
As you know many of the founders were Masons who believe in a grand “architect” of the universe (God)— although they left it up to the individual to worship/conceive of this grand creator in their own way
They had studied natural law and believed — by extension — that the natural or “nature” proceeded from this source.
They, therefore, attempted to cooperate rather than be at odds with nature.
It is Natural that citizenship — including acculturation and all that implies — to be passed from the parents to the child.
Therefore, it would appear and be reasonable that the term Natural Born — as used by the founders — implied two citizen parents(PLURAL)and, of course: born in the country of/by citizen parents.
Also, although the words Native and Natural may be interchangeable today, they didn’t, necessarily, mean the same thing to the founders in THEIR day and time.
The meanings of words do change and a word that means one thing today, may acquire — even over a short time — the exact OPPOSITE meaning!
Translations of words from other languages can complicate the matter of understanding the intent of the author of same even more. (see post #466)
STE=Q
A common fallacy by the After-Birthers is that native and natural born are interchangeable in meaning. The Supreme Court has consistently used the two terms as distinct in meaning. They do not know how to read a court legal opinion. I've gone over about 6 SCOTUS legal opinions about citizenship from circa 1870 to 1953 and they all show distinction between native v. natural with the Perkins v. Elg, 1939 case being the key.
They really confuse the long and dry and confusing dictum in the 1898 Wong ARK opinion as the facts and the holdings of the case. Nowhere in the dictum does the majority opinion refer to Ark as natural born, but it does say he is a native born in the first part of the body of the opinion where the facts are presented. In fact, Kim Ark is barely mentioned in the dictum.
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.