This is why I hate people...

/facepalm

Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the “national election” pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court - was denied - and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.

Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.

On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008.

I thought this was bs until I looked up the docket number on the supreme court's website... it's slated for Dec. 5th...

This is why we can't have nice things.

Sounds to me like someone wants their 15 minutes of fame.

This is their argument:

Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues.  They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be President.  Since Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President. 

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens".  Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

     That's it right there.  (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country.  The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves.  They did, after all, create the Constitution.  But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.  

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens".  And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen".  The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens.  They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. 

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

_____________________________________________ _____________

Barack Obama's official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth.  At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".  

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States.  A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored.  The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue.  Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad.  Either way, he is not eligible to be President.  Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth". 

Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth".  And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.    

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text.  It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution 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 most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."  You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.  

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States.  And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President.  But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.  Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States "at birth".  It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject "at birth".  If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.

If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.' "

The article goes on to state that Obama's British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old.  But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a "natural born citizen".  The word "born" is proof positive that the status must be present "at birth".  If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause. 

The Framers recognized that even they were not "natural born citizens" and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President.  But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption.  And so, Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

You don't think that having the supreme court rule that the candidates are/were valid, legitimate candidates would shut up the people who think they aren't/weren't?

Or you just want people to sit down and shut up?

I think this is the reason we CAN have nice things.

Iggy's mood

This appears to be separate from the Philip Berg case, who also appealed to the Supreme Court after he was essentially laughed out of the lower circuit court.  Supposedly, Obama has to reply by December 1 - which will most likely be the same response his lawyers had to the lower circuit, a request for dismissal due to lack of standing (not to mention no evidence).

Apparently, my hubby and I need to either create, or invest in, a company specializing in the manufacture of tin foil hats, and we might actually break even this year.

I can't imagine the court agreeing with this crap.

I guess his whole argument really hinges on:

that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States.  A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States.

Where's spiro when you need her?

Original Post by ignayshus:

I guess his whole argument really hinges on:

that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States.  A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States.

From what I read that seems to be his point. He seems to take it to an even greater extreme in that he's trying to claim Obama Jr. was under British rule, same as what the founders were against. 

Original Post by ignayshus:

I guess his whole argument really hinges on:

 BS.  It hinges on BS, and the gullibility of people who can't bother themselves with actual research or constitutional knowledge.

14th Ammendment, Section 1. 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.

What is this "at birth" stuff?  Obama was born in the United States.

If he were born in the US (which he was), that makes him a natural born US citizen regardless of his father's citizenship, doesn't it?  Isn't that one of the sticky points with illegal immigrants because women come here illegally and have babies who are citizens and then it has to be decided if the mother(s) should be allowed to stay in the country with their natural-born citizen kids?

#10

Santo has the puck, she shoots

She Scores!

Original Post by caverlady:

If he were born in the US (which he was), that makes him a natural born US citizen regardless of his father's citizenship, doesn't it?  Isn't that one of the sticky points with illegal immigrants because women come here illegally and have babies who are citizens and then it has to be decided if the mother(s) should be allowed to stay in the country with their natural-born citizen kids?

 Not really. We have had mothers in our school who were deported while their children (who were born here) stayed here with relatives. The children were born here, so they are citizens..but having a child in a foreign country does not automatically make you a citizen if you are an undocumented alien.

Another question I have is...why would President Elect Obama have even been allowed to run for office if his citizenship had been in question? I really don't think that people would have spent bazillions on a campaign if that was the case.

I don't see the problem. The arguer seem to defeat himeself by saying Barack Obama was admittedly a citizen of both Britain and the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore he meets the conditions set forth in the constitution of being a natural born citizen of the United States. Dual citizenship is not excluded under the constitution, being a natural born British Citizen does not exclude him from being a natural born United States citizen.

The arguer is really saying that dual citizenship at birth would cause a split loyalty. But this is their own opinion, and is not in the constituion.

The greatness of our country lies not in its people, nor in its government, but in the fact that the constitution guarantees all assclowns have a right to be heard.

Original Post by monarch777:

Another question I have is...why would President Elect Obama have even been allowed to run for office if his citizenship had been in question? I really don't think that people would have spent bazillions on a campaign if that was the case.

 Now were getting to the crux of the biscuit. 

Original Post by monarch777:

Another question I have is...why would President Elect Obama have even been allowed to run for office if his citizenship had been in question?

If his citizenship were in question, he wouldn't have even been allowed to have a US passport. 

Well, this case might have been going on since the beginning. It already went the rounds of the appellate courts, so its possible that this case was brought up in the beginning of the campagine trail. It's still bogus and frivolous (._.)

Original Post by kathygator:

The greatness of our country lies not in its people, nor in its government, but in the fact that the constitution guarantees all assclowns have a right to be heard.

 The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. (Hubert H. Humphrey)

Seems to me that the hole in this guy's argument is that the laws of the U.S. citizenship would not be trumped by the citizenship laws of G.B.  I don't see the dual citizenship issue at all.  Obama was born in the US and is a citizen even if he was a recognized citizen of G.B. also.