OBAMA SUED

BET ^ | 11/21/08 | Staff

[pissant]

Less than two weeks out from losing yet another presidential race, Alan Keyes has started a fresh campaign against President-Elect Barack Obama – in the courtroom.

Alan Keyes and other members of the American Independent Party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to Obama until the former Illinois Senator can produce a birth certificate showing that he is indeed a natural-born citizen of the United States, according to party.

Keyes, who is from Maryland, ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate. The Obama campaign countered similar accusations early in 2008 by posting Obama's certification of live birth, and saying: "Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America." Click 'Discuss Now' to the right or go HERE to comment.

[cookcounty]

"Are you claiming he was born at home, outside of a hospital? Because there was no hospital on the Coco Solo Naval Air Station until 1941, .

BOTH of my parents were born on their respective kitchen tables.

[GQuagmire]

From the Twentieth Amendment..

“Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

[DJ MacWoW]

Reading that was painful. Maybe english isn’t their first language. Or their second.

[RegulatorCountry]

BOTH of my parents were born on their respective kitchen tables.

It wasn't all that uncommon in rural areas, prior to WWII.

[SierraWasp]

Remember Jim Jones, the other community organizer and his ACORN koolaid drinkers???

[TruthWillWin]

Some scary comments there. The more recent comments at least show there are a few with some common sense.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[houeto]

Hence he was born on US soil

You.

Are.

Wrong.

[motoman]

Hey, here’s an idea. Let’s just all go over to the BET comment section and post our opinions on this matter. That way, we can start the race riots in a gradual leading up to Dec 15.

[Mancolicani]

I’m not into cards, but I’ve played some poker games and I’ve watched others. And only now, thinking about the BO BC imbroglio I’ve noticed something curious. More often than not, good buddies and even business partners and spouses are playing against each other: people who effectively entrust their lives to one another. And yet, they still cut the cards.

It’s fun, it’s tradition, it’s harmless. I’ve never seen anyone get upset and accuse the others of distrust.

Well to me, it’s Obama’s turn to deal but he refuses to let the guy on his left or right (I forgot) cut the cards. He takes it as a slight.

Normally everyone would perk up with a natural reaction of surprise and wonder “hey what’s with you?”

What’s the big deal? But now instead it starts a debate. And there are those who defend him. True enough, everyone around the table is a friend. There is no real logic in cutting the cards, all the more so if you’re playing for coffee beans... so why bother?

Others instead - conservatives I guess - insist that THAT’S the way poker should be played and they just look at Obama and insist: Come on Obie, let the guy cut the damned cards, quit yammering and deal!

The BC check should be that easy, natural, unthinking even. But I guess that’s a conservative bias and so after the BO BC affair, should I ever play poker again... I’ll raise a fuss about not being trusted!

[teletech]

In the event that the SC requires Zero to produce evidence that he qualifies to hold the office and he can’t, does anyone know what happenes then? Is it in the Constitution? Where?

Thanks in advance.

Good question. I'm not qualified to answer that question.

[Kaslin]

Obviously you have never been in the military, or otherwise you would know when children of military are born overseas at military hospitals they are automatically US citizen. He was born at the Naval Station, which made him automatically a US citizen

[Kaslin]

He might have been born home, the fact though is he was born at the Naval Air Station which automatically is US Government property

[RegulatorCountry]

Kaslin, he was not born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station. John McCain has released his birth certificate, and the place of birth listed thereon is Colon, Republic Of Panama. Colon, like Panama City, is not in the Canal Zone.

You can find jpegs and PDFs of this birth certificate very easily with a search engine. I hesitate to say “Google,” because of their politics, but they’re the best known and most used.

Go find a copy and read it. It’s right there in black and white.

[pissant]

Whoa. That has to be a prankster......I hope

[Postman]

“...or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...”

Thanks for your reply...So if Zero fails to qualify, then we get Plugs the Plagiarist? (a blessing in disguise?) For how long? Until the next election? Until a new election can be held?... anyone know of any historical precedents that address this?

[Postman]

I read it...I remember the Monty Pyton skit about the fatal joke developed by the Brits against the Germans....I read it...I don’t remember but I don remember I don unerstan...duh..wat i do now

[PghBaldy]

to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate He did NOT serve a term. A term would have ended in 2010. He quit already.

[DaveTesla]

US Citizenship Law and Overseas Americans
US citizenship laws have continuously changed over the years. Here is a chronology of these changes since 1790.
An Historical Summary
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).

1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).

1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.

“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).

1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.

“That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority.”

In McCain's case:

1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”

1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.

“Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

“(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years’ residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years’ residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

In Obama’s case:

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

“Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

“(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

“(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended.”

1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General’s confession of error.

1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:

“That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940”.

1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:

“Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence.”

[DaveTesla]

Here is the link to above....
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=80