Supreme Court To Conference On Obama Birth Suit

Flopping Aces blogspot ^ | 11/20/08 | "Curt"

[txnuke]

Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.

This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.

Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.

[douginthearmy]

Where are people getting this dual citizenship thing? I cant find it anywhere in the Constitution. As far as I know, with the exception of Ginsberg, US law doesnt give a crap about foreign law. Otherwise, Iran could give GWB citizenship and he becomes ineligible to be president.. I dont think so!

The other possibility is that the Supremes could strike down the 5 year residency requirement for Obama's mother since her rights as an 18 year old were not equal to the rights of a 19 year old.

[waxer1]

So, which is it? US? Kenya? Indonesia? We need to know.

[beejaa]

We will hopefully be finding out unless power-crazed individuals prevent us from doing so.

[waxer1]

Or Fear maybe?

[Windflier]

I believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a remark not too long ago that justices should consult foreign European law when considering cases - Not the Constitution.

That just boils my blood.

You'd think that someone ensconced in the nation's highest, most sacred position of guardianship over our country's Founding Document would understand her basic trust.

I wonder how Justice Ginsburg's statement would have been received in the 1800s? The repercussions would have made the history books.

[luvadavi]

The problem is: This would set a precedent, and any foreign-born person could run for President and possibly be elected. A Saudi, a Venezuelan, a ChiCom. It is astonishing and disheartening how many conservatives just want to ‘get along, go along’, let it go, it’s only the Constitution. What the heck...

[ga medic]

I believe that the situation was not completely addressed because of the violence in Kenya during the campaign. After things became more settled in Kenya, I don’t think anyone wanted to risk saying of doing something that might cause the violence to erupt again.

[Windflier]

Instead, he has paid two law firms over $800,000 (and counting) to keep it sealed and secret.

>> "Where is this info from? I've never heard that." <<

Sorry, I don't have a source reference for you, but that data isn't new. It's been posted on these BC threads many times, with the source. I don't bookmark the source URLs for most of what I read here, so unfortunately I can't point you to it.

However, it's not hearsay. Maybe someone else will chime in with the source data.

[thecodont]

I referred to a recent quote in the news from Scalia, stating that "Foreign law has no bearing on U.S. law."

Here it is!



Scalia: Foreign law isn't ours
At Houston gala, he criticizes courts that cite countries' trends for rulings
By MARY FLOOD
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 17, 2008, 11:01PM

Judges who use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution are rewriting it rather than respecting its founders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a roomful of judges and top lawyers in Houston on Monday night.

"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old conservative jurist said.

Scalia spoke at a $150-a-head steak and potatoes dinner sponsored by the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association and held at the Hyatt Regency Houston downtown. Before talking for about 30 minutes, the jurist autographed copies of a book he co-authored.

Scalia promised to be noncontroversial but frequently used the example of Lawrence v. Texas, a Houston case in which he disagreed with the majority that struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law. Scalia complained that foreign laws were cited in that case.

Scalia was typically evangelical in his advocacy of "originalism," or strictly adhering to what the Constitutional authors meant more than 200 years ago. He criticized those who see the Constitution as an evolving or "living document" that adapts to the times.

The 1986 Reagan appointee said he'll only become a believer in those who cite foreign law if they do it more universally, like in abortion cases where more countries prohibit it than don't. "The court has ignored foreign law in its abortion cases," he said.

Scalia said the founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe. He told the 50 tables of lawyers that when judges use foreign laws or even U.S. legislative history, they are straying from their true purpose. He said judges do it to expand their own power because they wrongly consider "the views of all segments of mankind" and to make it appear they have something to rely upon.

Scalia said some leeway can be found even sticking only with the Constitutional text.

"It doesn't mean you can't twist the Constitution," he said lightly. "You just do it the good old-fashioned way: You just lie about it."

The self-proclaimed social conservative, known for both his combativeness and his humor, Scalia spoke in Houston in part to promote his book Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. It's written with Bryan Garner, a Dallas-based legal writing author.

The book's acknowledgments include a thanks to Houston-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Edith Jones, who introduced Scalia on Monday night.

In response to a question from Jones, Scalia said he disagrees with his alma mater Harvard Law School's decision to copy Yale and scrap grades in favor of a pass/fail system. "I want to know who's best in the class. I don't want to know just who went to Yale," he said.

In response to another question, the jurist said he thinks law schools have gotten away from teaching students to be lawyers, and some academics have even developed a contempt for the practice.

He argued legal academics should spend more time with legal practitioners.

mary.flood@chron.com

[browardchad]

It is a valid question that has never been fully answered. If Obama can produce a valid birth certificate from Hawaii then no one can argue he isn’t a natural born citizen.

Donofrio's suit (the one which the SCOTUS will discuss Dec. 5)  argues that he was probably born in Hawaii, but the fact that his father was a British citizen conferred British Citizenship on Obama at birth, with the conflicting loyalties that the Founders were determined to avoid in a President: "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." (The "Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption" was meant to grandfather in the founders as potential candidates, but doesn't apply to anyone alive today, of course.)

The term "natural born" has never been clarified, so it's being argued. The suit also contends that McCain isn't eligible, since he is not "natural born," but a citizen by statute.

He also argues against Colero, the Socialist Party candidate, who was also on the NJ ballot that Donofrio is contesting (the suit started in the NJ courts). Well that one's a slam dunk, since Colero isn't even a citizen. He was thrown off the ballot in five states for that reason, but NJ didn't think enough of the electoral process to even bother -- the attorney for the NJ SOS argued that her position is strictly "clerical," even though she certifies the ballot, and the final vote. There is no standard across states on this issue -- even for someone so flagrantly ineligible as Calero.

This issue -- who is responsible for certifying candidates before they're placed on the ballot, and how, as well as the meaning of "natural-born" -- should have been adjudicated long ago. Now we have, for the first time in history, a winner of the election whose father never was a US Citizen.. As for McCain's situation -- we haven't had a candidate born on foreign soil before.

[thecodont]

Link didn’t post originally.

Here it is (Houston Chronicle, Nov. 17, 2008):
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6117982.html

[luvadavi]

So sinister that Justice Thomas is calling a conference on or before 12/5 to address the claims. And keeping it very low profile. Allowing a foreign-born person to take office as President violates our Constitution.

[real_patriotic_american]

Honor the Constitution! I agree with you! Thugs who riot in the streets don’t run this country.

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244

[rodguy911]

My guess is the BC that is sealed in Honolulu,sealed when he was adopted by law, is a fraud and shows him being adopted by Lolo Soetoro at age six and born in Mombasa,Kenya. If it said Honolulu he would have probably already sent it to the entire world.

Since I am a conspiratorialist I also think that Hillary did her homework and discovered as much and failed in getting it to the right people, why I don't know.

Either way I think with the connections that Hillary has she could have discovered the skinny on Barky much faster than any of us. She knows.

[B4Ranch]

The idea of us using International law came into being when Kofi Annan was Secretary-General of the United Nations. Right after Bush was elected, Annan had a private meeting with the SCOTUS and a week later she mentioned it.

[ga medic]

This is a very suspect interpretation of Article 2, and the 14th amendment would appear to contradict that interpretation.

If this interpretation was to be considered true, then it would prevent anyone who has ever held dual citizenship from becoming POTUS. It clearly gives other countries power over American elections. Example: Germany decides to grant German citizenship to all those born in Germany and 3 generations of children after. That can then disqualify any person from running for POTUS that is within 3 generations of a German immigrant.

Think of how many crazy citizenship laws are out there in the world. Do we really want other countries to have that much control over who becomes President?

[rodguy911]

Absolutely right! You can only spin/ignore/undermine the law/Constitution so much before you have true anarchy.

[TruthWillWin]

That sounds like appeasement to me.

[Windflier]

Nobody will go to war on a maybe.

It won't be a "maybe" if the Supreme Court punts on this and makes no decision.

It will be rightfully be seen by millions upon millions of Americans for what it is - a dereliction of solemn duty, and a tacit allowal of the trashing of our Constitution by those who are its sacred guardians.

Over half the country will not recognize Obama as our legal Commander in Chief, and any orders, edicts, appointments, bills, or official papers signed by him will be viewed as illegal and unenforceable.

You must trust that the Justices of the Supreme Court are well aware of the above, and that they would be electing to forward a constitutional crisis like none in our nation's history, should they do anything but rule up or down on this.

That being said, they cannot make an up or down ruling without compelling Obama to release the evidence in question. And, if they view this evidence in private (as they will), they will be compelled to share it with the American people, or whatever judgment they render will be viewed as suspect at best, and a lie at worst.

Let's imagine that the SC throws Donofrio's case back to the lower courts on some technical or procedural grounds, and that the lower court then dismisses his case entirely.

The eligibility issue will still persist in the public mind. This has become much too big for any judge or justice to bury. The People demand full disclosure, and they will get it, or millions will refuse to recognize Obama as the President. The issue will continue to fester and grow more uneasy by the day, until something is done to resolve it.

The only question then, is how will it be resolved, and by whom?

[ga medic]

What sounds like appeasement?