Supreme Court rejects Obama case

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf ^

[stormer]

Why, thank you.

[Sparko]

“Er, no, that’s kinda not how it works. Obama, a smuch as I loathe him being president, is a natural born citizen until proven otherwise.

As much as it may gall you, the truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. That’s kinda how our legal system works, eve when it protects people that we do not like.”

- - -

I am inclined to agree with calex59
here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2138710/posts?page=42#42

[pa mom]

There is a gray area here. Neither the courts nor the Constitution has defined natural born vis a vis this situation. There is precedent for a child born here of foreign parents being a citizen and there is precedent for their being two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized.

It’s the leap between the two that has not been made legally. However, public understanding in lieu of a definitive legal ruling is that a child born on American soil to a citizen is natural born. Public understanding and common law do have standing in the judicial process, should these cases go forward.

The 14th amendment has been used to illuminate natural born, but two problems arise; first, it was written regarding former slaves and second, it is a legal morass of bad law and has been challenged repeatedly.

[autumnraine]

No, the Hawaii Health Dept verified they had A birth certificate, not that what he posted was geniune.

And your claim is not even what your article says.

[Sibre Fan]

This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country's laws.
- - -
Actually, the problem with Donofrio's case, imho, is that (a) the lower courts' ruling were based on independent and adequate state law grounds; and (b) he was asking SCOTUS to make factual determinations not addressed in the lower courts. Both of these made it "sure" that SCOTUS would not grant the application.

(a)Count 1 in his SCOTUS brief addressed whether the NJ SOS properly complied with NJ law (not federal law). He did not, I don't think, challenge the constitutionality of the NJ law; he alleged that SOS didn't properly follow NJ law. That is not a federal issue and SCOTUS will not hear it.

(b) Count 2 in his SCOTUS brief addressed the "NBC" argument, based on alleged FACTS not addressed or ruled on in the lower courts. So - SCOTUS would not hear that Count.

This is why (imho), his application was denied.

Wrotnowski faces a similar challenge - and then some. His case was dismissed by the Connecticut Supreme Court on grounds of lack of standing - under CT law (not federal law). See Opinion. In Wrotnowski's SCOTUS brief, he takes issue with the CT Court's use of the CT statute to deny him standing. However, again, that is a matter of STATE law, not federal law, so SCOTUS won't hear it. (If Wrotnowski were arguing that the CT standing law - or the law as interpreted by the CT Supreme Court - was unconstitutional, THAT would potentially raise a federal law issue. However, so far he hasn't.)

In other words, in both of these cases, the lower courts based their ruling on "independent and adequate" state law grounds. SCOTUS will not accept cases like this. Wrotnowski's case has the further "state law standing" issue to get over.

I still think that of the cases, Berg's has the best chance of being heard, although that will only happen if SCOTUS is intereted in overturning a bunch of precedent as to voter standing. Not likely, imho, but possible - more possible than the likelihood that SCOTUS will accept Wrotnowski's application.

Then again, as they say, only time will tell.

[jamese777]

“No, the Hawaii Health Dept verified they had A birth certificate, not that what he posted was geniune.

And your claim is not even what your article says.”

---

Here is exactly what the article says, word for word:
From the St. Petersburg Times Politifact article:
“We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

Now what part of “valid Hawaii state birth certificate” don’t you understand?

[bronxboy]

Your moniker is appropriate...you are toad.

[bronxboy]

I believe a child born in this country is a US citizen period.
The laws people cite come from a time before we broke from England mostly.

[mquinn]

All fluff and tinfoil hattery. Move on.

[Sharrukin]

If you had checked the link you would have found that others have done the same thing. That is the law prevailing at the time in question and it continued until 1972, so I am not really sure what your point is.

Foreign born individuals were granted documents that are used as ‘birth certificates’ in Hawaii. How that isn’t relevant is beyond me. We are considering the possibility of a foreign born individual (Obama) having a Hawaiian ‘birth certificate’ are we not?

Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Obama was born in 1961 shortly after statehood. Modern standards were not in use at the time. The standards of the late 1950’s would have been in use.

[MilspecRob]

We don't know for a fact that one or more may have had their childrens' lives threatened. A.S. alone has what, nine? Plus grandkids?

Or the were all replaced by pod people placed by aliens from their base in Area 51? BIG possibility in my mind.

[MilspecRob]

So they can't confirm that the copy posted on the site is a legitimate copy.It may resemble one, but it can't be authenticated .

I agree, and this is what destroys the "image of the COLB" is a fake argument

[Tom the Redhunter]

Why is it "too bad" that the suit was rejected? It's nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Don't believe me? Then read Michelle Malkin. She calls it "right wing trutherism" Please. Read her column on the subject

[llandres]

“”have you been following Donofrio/Wronowski?(sp?)Donofrio-denied/Wronowski-full hearing SCOTUS Dec 12th.””

No - I had no idea where to get more info on it! Where to look? Thanks so much.

[reasonisfaith]

“I am calling into question the sanity of some people around here.”

I agree, exaggeration is a useful tool for making a point.

But when unaccompanied by facts—that is, when the person cannot clarify his sarcasm and generalizations with detailed examples and a serious tone, his case weakens dramatically.

[Sharrukin]

I have read that article. I am a member of her site. Could you post the quotes of Michelle Malkin where she argues facts, instead of conflating 911 Truthers, Trig Palin nonsense, with questions regarding Obama’s mysterious past.

Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz offer hysteria in place of fact. Just shut up and do as we say! Conservative think and are not very good at taking orders without reason. Go to the DailyKos if you want to appeal to marching morons.

[TheCipher]

Here is exactly what the article says, word for word: From the St. Petersburg Times Politifact article: “We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

Now what part of “valid Hawaii state birth certificate” don’t you understand?

But she clarifies that statement with the one she says later :

When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

So you can't say it is a valid certificate if that can't confirm beyond a doubt what the image represents.

[TheCipher]

I agree, and this is what destroys the "image of the COLB" is a fake argument

How does that destroy the image of the COLB is a fake argument? If anything it seems to reinforce it. If they can't confirm that it is a legitimate copy, how doest hat enforce that it is not fake ?

[jamese777]

However months later, the Director of the Hawaii State Health Department and the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii both confirmed that the original Obama Certificate of Live Birth is on file with the state and that they both had personally viewed the document.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081101/NEWS05/811010345/1001/localnewsfront
Plus Obama’s birth notice appeared in both local newspapers the Sunday (August 13, 1961) following his birth being registered with the state and the newspapers get their birth notices directly from the vital statistics bureau and not from the newborn’s family.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

[TheCipher]

They vouched that he had an authentic birth certificate. That is all. Not an Hawaiian birth certificate. This is what was said from Hawaii:

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

She did not say original Hawaii birth certificate. Under Hawaiian law, he could have applied for a Hawaii birth certificate provided he could show his mother was a resident of Hawaii one year prior to his birth. Part of that process is submitting your original birth certificate. So therefore, in accordance with state policies and procedures , they would have his original birth certificate on record. It does not mean it is a Hawaii birth certificate.

As to the birth announcement:

A short form COLB shows a birth was registered. But not by whom and exactly how, whereas on the vault copy in section 18a it specifies who registered the birth ( Parent or Other ).

On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. One hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar. On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar. Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED until later. It wouldn’t be accepted until there was proof of birth. If he was born out of the country it may have taken time to get the certificate.

The grandmother could have registered the birth being a blood relative ( as evidenced by field 18a on the long form ). Once registered it would go to the Dept of Health. That is where the papers get the birth announcements from ( as can been seen from the top of the Sunday Advertiser - Health Bureau Statistics ) and thus the announcement of the birth would be in the papers.