Skip to comments.Atty Philip J. Berg defends Obama birth certificate lawsuits
Posted on 12/27/2009 12:28:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
I doubt anyone has questioned that the Birthers have the Constitutional right to say whatever they want, so I'm not sure why that's brought up here. Of course turnabout is fair play - it's also Freeze's Constitutional right to tell the Birthers that they're idiots.
This will all come out in 2010 - which I predict will go down in American history as, “The year the crap hit the fan.”
One last question I have for Ms. Freeze: If in fact Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. "natural born" citizen and eligible to serve as our United States President, why in the world would he spend in excess of a million dollars litigating these cases instead of just proving his citizenship status? I'm curious to see how Ms. Freeze would respond. We know the answer, because Soetoro/Obama can't.
Said it before but I'll say it again ... if he has nothing to hide, why is he spending so much trying to hide it?
Most of us Freepers have “Crap-Retardent” clothes for just such occasions.
Really? You're being trained to be intelligent? Not just educated but are actually increasing your intelligence? I submit that you haven't arrived at either goal yet.
ditto..common sense tells us that!And when it comes out obozo is not a natural born citizen I’m afraid America will the laughing joke of the world...geez
The most telling point is not one of law but of fact: why hasn’t Barry provided the protestors with the documents he claims to have?
The only question that has been addressed so far is on of standing: who has the right to demand to see evidence of his paternity? So far as I can figure out, the courts have said that that would be state officials in Hawaii. No one else may.
It would cause a constitutional crisis like no other since 1861.
In the beginning, I thought this was all a bunch of hoopla. What told me what was really going on was the effort that Obama and the Democratic party spent to bury it! There is no question that the Democratic pary saw the wave he was on and hid the truth. If not, they would prove it so they could embarass all those who questioned it. When have you ever seen a liberal that wouldn’t jump at the chance to do an ‘I told you so’?
The man is not elligible under the Constitution and every one knows it. The Democrats have had distain for it and are shredding it in everything they are doing. If the man had a valid birth certificate, you would have seen it by now, just so the Democrats could use the issue politically. There is nothing left to question!
very well said.. A+
The BC he found has NO mother or father’s name on it making it a worthless document.
As much as I believe that the current prez does not want the American people to know the truth about his birth, I’m not sure Kenya had anything to do with it.
Without giving away how I have access, I recently came across a document at a hospital here in Hawaii. It is a simple history of the hospital put together by the hospital librarian. It is not a secret document by any means.
In it, there is an anecdote about the doctor that helped the current prez come into this world. The anecdote is that upon hearing the odd-sounding name given to the baby, the doctor was heard to say that it would be a name easy to remember.
Now, the anecdote may be more or less true, but I don’t see why the hospital librarian would include the story in the document if it, and hence the birth, could not be sourced to reliable information at her disposal in the archives.
Personally, I think the current prez IS hiding info about his birth, and perhaps it does have to do with nationality, but it probably has more to do with making sure his mother’s image doesn’t get any more tarnished than it already is.
I would like to provide you photos of the said document, but my cell phone doesn’t take pix.
I DO think it’s inadmissible that the current prez will not provide a real copy of his birth certificate. For that reason alone, how is it possible to trust him?
As A LAW STUDENT and using law as her excuse. Very wrong
That information has been around for a while....check out all the bc threads especially the long thread...his grandmother did it once she knew of his birth in Kenya...and if I remember correctly it was in an attempt to gain custody of him if is father tried to keep him in Africa...
yes you are correct and we are not conspiracy minded just patriots who love our country whats left of it.Thanks
Yeah. Hasn’t Berg been admonished for this ongoing stupidity? Or am I confusing him with the broad out in California?
She can give up on the becoming intelligent factor. Most liberals come from the left side of the Bell Curve and should not initiate any discussion about intelligence.
If this is stupidity, why is the President spending so much to prevent access to the original document? Why can’t we see it?
I have a right to see it. I resent being called stupid which is a tacky way of deflecting attention from the issue instead of dealing with it. This should have been resolved before the election.
“The key is natural born citizen and it takes two parents to make a child natural born citizen where in fact only one parent was.”
Does anyone if any state has actually done anything?
If my memory serves me right, it seems a while back the Supreme Court signed off on his eligibility to be President. What did they find out, and is now kept from the public? Doesnt the public have a right to know, who they are supposed to trust?
We all the right but the problem is that now Obama has “won” we have to get over it as now he is the most powerful man on earth and us little wee mortals dare not to challenge him.
To him we are nothing but a useful tool that put him up on the pedestal above others.
It is difficult for someone to recently question his past as Obama has amassed a cult of an army that has sacked and pillaged any source of getting information about his qualifications, his schooling, his credentials, his birthplace.
If you post just a few key words like birther, Taitz,birth certificate from Kenya, etc. I guarantee you there will be a Obot anti-birther squad zooming in here in a minute or less.
Really? Care to provide a citation in the US Constitution for that?
There were a number of DOJ attorneys defending Obama in Judge Carter's court.
With soldiers being shot dead at Ft. Hood, and a terrorist attempt on a plane over Detroit, the American people will NOT, NOT, NOT be amused that Obama is using DOJ resources to pull a PRACTICAL JOKE!!! ( Is a “duh!” necessary?)
If he is a natural born citizen the American people will want to know why he let it get so far as to need DOJ attorneys. Why not just nod his head to his secretary and release in the info?
Answer: He is not a natural born citizen. If his non-natural born status gets out he is facing jail time or worse.
You want “is” defined too?
I suppose you want our Constitution to look like the IRS code?
try this on for size~~~Minor v. Happersett (1874) defined NBC as jus soli jus sanguinus
Requirement for Article II s.1 is both parents US citizens, child born on US soil.Obama has never been a natural born citizen
he was born British, his father was UKC citizen
this is by the British Nationality Act of 1968
....like cats do with their kittens’ afterbirth. They like the taste.
Personally, I call these trolls the “afterbirthers”.
He's spending money answering lawsuits, which is pretty much a requirement. He hasn't initiated any of them.
“This will all come out in 2010 - which I predict will go down in American history as, The year the crap hit the fan. “
I agree, especially as his approval/disapproval numbers continue to tank. I think the MSM will even turn on him on the NBC eligibility issue.
When was that document written? My guess is that it was written for the express purpose of including that anecdote and it was done at the direction of the usurper.
At the time Ms. Freeze wrote this article she was in her first semester of law school. She admits in the article she hadn’t even gotten her grades yet. But she’s a know-it-all on the law. Perfectly suited to become a lawyer.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
It is worth noting that in this case, the Court clearly equates "native-born" with "natural born" citizen, in the general citizenship context, referencing Article II's use of the term "natural born." It notes varying authority as to whether a person born in the US to noncitizen parents may be a "natural born citizen" - but does not address that issue. What is clear, however, is that the Court recognizes two - and only two - types of citizenship: natural born and naturalized.
not only that America will be the laughing joke to the world .One freeper said it best In 2010 it will come out as the biggest hoax since madoff!
See post 43.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The grandfather provision of the “natural born Citizen” clause provides an exception to the “natural born” requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of these citizens had been born as British subjects before the American Revolution (or were born after the Revolution, but before 1787). Without this exception, ten subsequent presidents would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve.
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, defines a “Citizen” of the United States, but not a “natural born Citizen.” Its Citizenship Clause provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that all persons born in the United States...are citizens of the United States. Jus soli has become a topic of hot discussion in some areas of the United States, because this right is also extended to children born of foreign parents, whether or not they are in the country legally. In the case of children born to illegal immigrants, some people use the derogatory term anchor baby to describe a child who is a natural born citizen, under the mistaken belief that illegal immigrants will not be deported if their children are considered American citizens.
For children born abroad, the principle which applies is jus sanguinis, or rule of the blood, and the rules can get a bit tricky. If a child is born to two parents who are both American citizens, the case is usually clear, and the parents need only apply for a United States passport on the child’s behalf to ensure that his or her citizenship is formally recognized. If only one parent is an American citizen, however, jus sanguinis may or may not apply, and the case must be considered before the child is classified as a natural born citizen.A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.Obama father was not, case closed!
He's spending money answering lawsuits, which is pretty much a requirement. He hasn't initiated any of them.
He doesn't need to. He has tools like you trolling the interwebs for him.
It would be very satisfying to read the Supreme Court’s opinion. ( The only one that counts.)
With soldiers being shot dead at Ft. Hood, and a terrorist attempt on a plane over Detroit, the American people will NOT, NOT, NOT be amused that Obama is using DOJ resources to pull a PRACTICAL JOKE!!! ( Is a duh! necessary?)
If he were a natural born citizen he would have proven it long ago.
Want to site some case law for that?