Berg v. Obama: Could Obama Still Be Disqualified?
Posted on October 3, 2008
Hat tip to commenter Carolyne at Wake Up America
A note from Radarsite: Not being a lawyer, I cannot presume to write intelligently about the possible ramifications of this decision. However, the fact that the court has refused to dismiss this case and furthermore is requiring the submission of additional documentation seems to be a troubling sign for the Obama camp. Radarsite has posted the first page of the full PDF transcript of this decision below and has posted a link to the complete document. If any of our readers who are lawyers would like to send in comments on this case I would be happy to post them. – rg
————————————————————-
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff :
vs. :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :
Defendants :
ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
Plaintiff :
vs. :CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :
Defendants :
ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
THIS CAUSE came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable R.
Barclay Surrick on Defendant’s Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National
Committee’s Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed the Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition
to said Motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) is DENIED. It is further ORDER of this Court that the following discovery is
to be turned over to Plaintiff within three (3) days:
1. Obama’s “vault” version (certified copy of his “original” long version)
Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
3. A Certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: September ______, 2008
______________________________
Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
United States District Court Judge
For the Eastern District of PA
BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 13
Dockets
» Filed Under Elections, News, U.S. Constitution
Trackback URL
Comments
58 Responses to “Berg v. Obama: Could Obama Still Be Disqualified?”
Leave a Reply
Atlas has the court document, too. It’s as you say – Obama’s attorneys moved to have the case dismissed. Judge ruled against them and then found they were to produce the relevant documents within three days. The doc I saw was not dated so it’s unclear when those three days started. Presumably Obama’s attorneys would go up the ladder and file a motion with respect to this ruling. The question, of course, is WHY? It’s pretty easy to settle ie produce the doc and there’s nothing left to settle.
Thank you Steven W.
Are you absolutly positive this order has been signed? Please respond ASAP. Millions have not heard this from Berg. I have been told it has not been signed by a judge
This is NOT the decision. This has been circulating on the web for a few days now. It is commonplace for an attorney, filing a case, to include this type of document in the brief so the judge–should they decide to rule in their favor–merely has to sign it! Note, there is no signature! Please stop circulating this, as it gets all of our hopes up!!!
Before anyone gets themselves in an uproar about this, I am merely posting the PDF of that court document. I have clearly stated that “I cannot presume to write intelligently about the possible ramifications of this decision”.
I also requested clarification of this procedure from any attorneys who wished to offer it. As you can see, I am getting conflicting opinions already. Perhaps it would be helpful if the commenters identify themselves as attorneys before giving us their opinions.
I am not “absolutely positive” of anything to do with this affair and I have made that quite clear in my preface. I have posted this document for all to read. It is up to each reader to interpret it according to their particular legal expertise.
The title of this article is in the form of a question, not a statement. Rather than attacking me for posting it, it would be more helpful to all of us who are not lawyers to clearly explain it.
No such order has been issued. Please check PACER for the official court docket. You can also check Berg’s website to verify the Motion to Dismiss has not been ruled upon yet. Stop the rumors and get your facts straight!
The document has not been signed, hence no date…
http://www.obamacrimes.com is Mr. Bergs website and is kept up to date constantly.
When the Judge rules for Berg we will know it! There will dancing in the streets!
I have no doubt that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit. He is not in a unique position and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction. It will be dismissed. I, like Berg, am an attorney in Pa. and Berg is a loon with too much time on his hands.
I am a trial lawyer. It is customary for an attorney to submit to the judge, along with the attorney’s motion or response to a motion, a PROPOSED order for the judge to sign. If the judge rules in your favor, s/he signs YOUR proposed Order. If the judge rules for the other side, s/he signs the proposed order the other side presented to the judge.
You can take this to the bank!
To Julie – Finally. Thank you for that welcome clarification. If you can find the time could you explain just where this particular case is right now according to that PDF? There have been postings elsewhere that the Obama people must produce the pertinent documentation withing three days. Can you speak to that?
Thanks again.
rg
So far Mr. Obama has refused to produce the documents and is trying to fight the court order to produce the documents.
Any American should be able to prove citizenship in less than a day. Why can’t Mr. Obama?
Here is a link to the actual court documents – http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/Pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President.
Please Rally Congress to have Mr. Obama produce the documents to prove his constitutional qualifications.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis
I practice in GA and WI and I have read Berg’s complaint. I think he has a lot of problems, like jurisdiction, standing and ripeness issues. So I expect the complaint to be dismissed.
As others have noted it is cutomary for a proposed order to be filed with the complaint, and all you see here in the linked document is the fact that someone took the proposed order and moved it ahead of the complaint. The proposed order is not signed, it’s not dated, it’s not stamped, it’s not an order of the court – it’s ink on paper, that’s all.
Berg is a nutjob, people should stop wasting time with his allegations and make significant efforts to defeat Obama at the ballot box. This feeble attempt at a suit will not have any effect.
Obama has finally ACKNOWLEDGED dual US/Kenyan citizenship on his “fight the smears” website, thanks to the Berg Suit. Dual Citizenship is arguably SUFFICIENT to disqualify him from serving as POTUS, but he has not yet acknowledged that he held INDONESIAN citizenship under the name Barry Soetoro. There is documentary evidence of this. See http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so to be an Indonesian citizen meant that he was NOT a US Citizen at the time. If he regained citizenship of the US at a later date, this would be thru naturalization, and naturalized citizens are explicitly NOT eligible to serve as POTUS!
The document mentioned is just a blank order that is submitted with the response in hopes the judge will sign it. here is the latest:
Obama & DNC file motion to delay discovery until after defendants motion to dismiss is decided.
The full motion can be found here:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/029_Obama,%20Defense%20request%20for%20Protective%20Order%20re%20Discovery.pdf
IF HE IS INDEED A CITIZEN, WHY IS HE STALLING?
Looks to me like an unsigned proposed order submitted by Berg with his opposition to the motion to dismiss and for discovery. But no signed order seems to exist. Conclusion = all the blogs and chatroom rants that the order was signed are wrong.
This lawsuit is going nowhere fast.
This should be pressed forward and cleared up now!!!
Obama is probably talking to some of his convicted-felon or radical cronies in Chicago to produce a counterfeit “vault copy” birth certificate and all the other forged citizenship papers he needs. Obama is more slick than Bill Clinton ever was. And it looks like Chicago politics trumps Arkansas politics since Obama was able to defraud Hillary out of the caucus votes. Here is a good article on how Obama defeated or disqualified other opponents in earlier elections, and how he used fraud to win the caucus delegates. (Just like Obama and his ACORN crooks are using fraud to win the November election–like registering the Dallas Cowboys and others to vote in Las Vegas.) Be sure to click on the link for the 98 page report that documents the caucus fraud. The link is in the paragraph just over half way down the article, starting with the sentence “What do you get when you combine lax caucus rules with bare-knuckle Chicago politics? Caucus fraud, which was rampant…”
http://www.bloggernews.net/117509
The 98 page report is from this site, which has even more documentation of the caucus fraud:
http://www.lynettelong.com/CAUCUSFRAUD/
I hope the document at this site says what I think it does–that Obama has to produce the goods by 10/15–sorry if this is a false alarm but I am using this Web site to track filings in the case–
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/18/0.pdf
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
Berg is a nutjob and this lawsuit is just as frivolous if not more so than the one filed against McCain in New Hampshire. The court will most likely dismiss it on the grounds that Berg lacks standing to sue and that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. Obama does not have to produce anything and his lawyers have also filed a motion for protective order until the court decides on their motion for dismissal. That being said, Berg has listed items that are almost impossible for Obama or any other naturally born citizen to produce. A vault copy of the birth certificate, particularly from Hawaii, is never issued (WA is the same way). I was born in HI and my BC looks exactly like Obama’s. Furthermore, his US certificate of live birth, released by the Dept of Health in Hawaii, negates the necessity to have the other two requested items in Berg’s lawsuit – certificate of citizenship and oath of allegiance. Who here born in the USA have these items? No one. Berg listed them because he knows it’s impossible to produce and as a matter of law, Obama can’t just produce his COLB because Berg didn’t list it on his claim (perhaps knowing it will throw the whole case out). And one last thing, if this doesn’t convince you I don’t know what will, the Honolulu Advertiser in August of 1961 published the birth announcement of Barack Obama II. Unless his parents somehow predicted that he would run for the presidency, I highly doubt this was part of a big elaborate cover-up of Obama’s “true” birthplace. He is unquestionably a natural-born citizen of the USA!
He has till october 15th to produce 18 documents. He is not just the defendant, the DNC, FEC, Why have the democrats waited till now. You also have to wonder about that Senate intell. veep Committee. Diane Feinstien D, is the chairman. They Democrats are so proud of there Candidate. There is a u-tube video of Mr. Berg speaking about the case, on the u-tube site. its before judge surrick, ruled on the motion to submit documents or jury trail, if this doesn’t happen, there are several lawyers and organizations will take this to the supreme court.
I had lost my passport and was abroad, so I was issued a temporary American passport, and told that when in USA to get my birth certificate.
I went to some awful building and waited with people, most of them did not look like Americans, but I got my birth certificate.
It was not a good area of town or a lot of fun, but it only took me about an hour of waiting and then they gave it to me within a few minutes.
It takes a longer time to tell your lawyer to dismiss this action, than it would to get a birth certificate, if you are a person born in USA.
When will Obama stop treating Americans as morons and idiots?
I can’t wait until tomorrow… I hope BHO and other high ranking Dimwits get thrown under the bus…with Berg driving it!
Ok, I will try to explain this as simply as I can because it’s obvious that none of you know a thing about how this works:
1) The order filed by Berg requesting certain items regarding Obama’s citizenship is a BLANK ORDER. It’s not signed by the court’s judge (Surrick). It’s common practice for attorneys to draft up orders in their favor so all the judge has to do is sign it if he/she grants the attorney’s wishes. However, the court already DENIED Berg’s first motion back in August [1], and Berg submitted another motion asking Obama and the DNC to submit documents by October 15th. This motion is moot because the judge has NOT signed it and will most likely dismiss it (again) for reasons I explained earlier (Berg lacks legal standing to sue Obama). It’s kinda like your neighbor pulling you over for speeding – he has no standing to do this! Plus judges tend to brush off pro se lawyers, especially in frivolous cases such as this.
2) Many of you have asked why doesn’t Obama just show up at court with his birth certificate? Berg’s motions are explicit and in a matter of law, if his motion was granted, Obama would have to produce exactly the documents requested. However, a “vault” copy of a birth certificate from Hawaii is NEVER released because it is a vital record protected by statute. So when any citizen orders a birth certificate from the Dept of Health (DOH) in Hawaii [2], he/she is given a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), which Obama has already made public. The whole notion that Berg used the testimony of “independent forensic experts” who labeled it a “forgery” based on an online picture is ludicrous. How can anyone to determine whether a document is forged or not from a picture on a website? The COLB with the raised seal was authenticated by both the DOH of Hawaii (who obviously seen it in person!) and the US State Dept [3] and is proof enough for the DNC, FEC, INS, US State Dept, and the Senate that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the USA!
3) The other items are irrelevant as a certificate of citizenship and oath of allegiance only apply to naturalized citizens. And for the record, Obama did not “lose” his US citizenship when he lived in Indonesia because immigration laws clearly state a citizen retains his citizenship while living abroad as long as he returns to the US and retains permanent residence before age 25. Obama returned to Hawaii before high school. Besides, it is almost impossible to lose your citizenship!
These are the facts. Whether you choose to believe them I’ll leave up to you pundits to decide.
References:
[1] http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/
[2] http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
[3] http://www.state.gov/m/a/auth/c16920.htm
Alan,
Thanks for the explanation.
How can anyone to determine whether a document is forged or not from a picture on a website?
Ask Dan Rather and CBS.
“Ok, I will try to explain this as simply as I can because it’s obvious that none of you know a thing about how this works:”
I don’t know about anyone else here, but for me, after reading that first smug condescending insult I found it almost impossible to continue reading. So I didn’t.
Hey Roger, the reason Alan said he would “explain this as simply” as he could was because he had already explained it once. In reading a few follow-up comments it was clear that people were not comprehending or willing to listen to reason.
“Insult” is no excuse for ignorance, admit it, you stopped reading because it didn’t fit what you wanted it to say…Sorry but Obama is a U.S. citizen, and will most likely be your next President.
I believe Obama will be disqualified.There is too many corruptions in Obama’s background.His association with a known terrorist and having dealings with Acorn is more than enough for our government to question and to be fearful of what else Obama is capable of.This cannot be up to our votors to allow him to risk all of our lives in our nation.I don’t know about some of you,but for myself i will not sleep nights until he is out of the race for presidency. Marilyn
Mr Berg only has to demonstrate a direct personal financial loss to establish standing in the case. Mr Berg supported Hillary and made contributions to her campaign. By taking the Democratic nomination away from Hillary without even being a qualified candidate for POTUS, Mr Obama has caused Mr Berg personal financial loss, as well as a loss of liberty, and that more than establishes his standing.
No matter which way it goes, a lot are going to be happy and a lot are going to be upset. And the closer we get to election day before this case is decided, the stronger these reactions will be.
Alan,
Thank you so very much for that information.
I have found it so ridiculous that anyone can believe that this lawyer is doing anything but wasting taxpayer money. Any lawyer can file anything. It takes time and service to process it all before many of them get dismissed. When that happens (and I firmly believe it will) then Berg should have to submit an apology to the courts and nation and pay the taxpayers back for the wasted court time.
It is ludicrous that anyone would believe this lawyer and the bloggers have more information than the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service and the rest of the government.
It is ludicrous to think his family cooked up some scam at his birth in 1961 in the hopes of overtaking the US Government 48 years later.
I found this site. It looks like the “cats out of the bag”. Will the one world order stop the federal government from ordering Obama to withdraw his campaign? I don’t think so. I think they will allow the election to happen as they keep this swept under the carpet. Once he is voted in, he will take control of the North American Union when they want him to(Even before Inauguration day). This will happen just like the “bail out” did. They will threaten martial law and the government officials will step back and allow it. If Americans step up and protest, martial law will be declared and the one world order will have all rebels executed.
Maybe that’s why he’s leaving 2 weeks before election day to go see his “ill grandmother” in Hawaii.
You know, I was wondering the same thing. It seems odd that he is leaving his campaign for a quick trip to Hawaii to see his grandmother. Is she that gravely ill? I haven’t heard too much on her condition from the media. The circumstances just appear odd.
Nothing surprises me anymore. I, too, don’t understand how this question could arise so late in the game with the elections only two weeks off. Who IS “officially” responsible for checking this out ?
If this were a true case why would not the news media and the RNC jump on it?
Marilyn Gunn. You are repeating the lies of McCain/Palin. Did you know that Walter Annenberg (a close friend of Reagan), asked both Obama and Ayers to serve on the board of his charity organization? Did you know that Anneneberg (close friend of Reagan) gave Ayers $50million? Was Reagan then, by assoication, a terrorist?
Did you know that the New York Times that published the story that Palin referenced, concluded that Obama DID NOT have a close relationship with Ayers? Did you read the story – you can find it online if you google.
With respect to Acorn, McCain promoted them in 2006. If there is something illegal with Acorn, why are they not in jail? No, what happened was that Acorn was cheated by people who took the money but gave them fake registrations. A republican operative who duped Democrats into registering as republicans IS IN JAIL!! NOW!
Go to YouTube and search for Stephen Spoonamore, a Republican, and see what he says about stolen elections BY REPUBLICANS since 2000. (Republicans own the voting machines.)
Obama is legal and legit – and all these rumors and false charges are just plain BS. McCain is a big fat liar.
Dream On, Right Wing Nut Jobs! You can try to smear him all you want! this time the Democratic Party will not just roll over and play dead!
To Marilyn Gunn:
Your fears are unfounded. You are being duped by the McCain campaign into thinking Obama “pals around with terrorists”. There isn’t anybody in Chicago education circles who doesn’t know who Ayers is. Ayers was doing heinous things when Obama was EIGHT YEARS OLD. The ACORN association is also bogus. Volunteer workers at Acorn were trying to make a buck by registering Mickey Mouse, etc. Do you honestly believe that ANY poll worker is going to allow anyone registered as “Mickey Mouse” to vote? You should be more worried that Mickey Mouse is going to steal all your candy on Halloween. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with any voter registration fraud.
Now, sit back, relax, and watch as Obama wins by a landslide, and remember: there is a reason why so many Americans are voting for Obama and not McCain. Why do you think THAT would be?
Relax people.
Even if the DNC and the left wing nutcases manage poo-poo everything away and “the one” makes it to office…many believe IT will be very short lived.
And Biden will be an easy impeachment based on intellectual competency.
Want to make a liberal squirm? Make them think beyond next week =)
my son was born in hawaii in 1970 and i have his birth certificate. the original birth certificates of that era were filled in by hand and are smaller in size. the certificate i see on the web for obama is an “modern replacement” produced after the State of Hawaii went with computers so it is suspect at best. jh
My daughter was born in Hawaii in 1987. Her birth certificate looks nothing like what Obama has on his website. Hers has the parents signatures, the doctors name, the doctors signature, the name of the hospital, a state seal, and a stamp, all on the front side. The one on Obama’s website has none of those things. I guess next week, after Obama flies to Hawaii to visit his sick grandmother (you know, the one that says things that makes his skin crawl), he will suddenly produce some “vault” certificate that will clear this whole mess up.
As some have suggsted, whether he lacks standng to sue is for the court to decide. If the order was signed by Judge Surrick, then, the court has decided he has the standing (eligibility to bring suit). There have been numerous calls for Obama to produce a birth certificate, and, to my knwledge , he has not done so. That’s just as damaging, in my opinion, as any suit.
Anyone upset by the waste of money should write to the Obama campaign to show the proof requested. Wouldn’t that just clear all this up quickly?
Why are so many angry at Berg, rather than Obama for continuing this case? Please remember, don’t shoot the messenger.
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!
And, will some reporter simply ask Barack Obama about this (from bouncingrealitychecks.blogspot.com):
“OBAMA’S REAL BIRTH LOCATION, AND HIS REAL FATHER: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
In light of the fact that the judge in the Philip Berg v. Obama and DNC case dismissed this case because of lack of standing on the part of Mr. Berg, ( http://www.americasright.com ), it is unfortunate indeed that citizens (until our Worthless Congress takes their heads out of their a**es and writes some laws protecting us from allowing this type of situation) have no recourse to prevent this situation we are about to enter, and simply must proceed to either a constitutional crisis or total destruction of the country by a marxist communist who is likely foreign born and not even basically qualified to be President. The judge might like to do more, but unless he “legislates from the bench” like liberal judges would (he is a Republican I understand), he has to rule on the basis of law — and I agree with his decision on that basis. As unfortunate as it is, the judge is likely correct in his ruling.
Here’s my take on the Obama citizenship situation. My view is a combination of both the Andy Martin theories and the Philip Berg theories. (See links in previous posts shown below.) It takes both into consideration and doesn’t ignore any of the possible scenarios. My theory:
Obama is a dead ringer for Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis is his father, and the “Anne” in Frank Marshall Davis’ sex/porn book IS Ann, Obama’s mother. There was an agreement between Frank Marshall Davis (as Andy Martin states) and Barack Obama, Sr. for Obama, Sr. to pose as Barack’s father. As the birth approached, Obama, Sr. wanted to move back to Kenya, and Ann agreed to go with him. She intended to come back to Hawaii before Barack’s birth and give birth to him in Hawaii. Unknowingly, she waited to long, and was too close to giving birth that the airline would not let her board a flight back to the U.S. She had no choice but to give birth to Barack in Kenya. She did, and within days after the birth flew back to Hawaii to get birth documentation. However, she was not able to get a full-fledged birth certificate since he was not born in Hawaii and only could obtain the Live Birth documentation. Additionally, Barack was not qualified to be a “natural-born citizen” as she was not yet 19 (the law at the time for children born to parents while overseas). Barack’s paternal grandmother claimed she was present for his birth in Kenya, and this is likely the case. The fraud was perpetuated until present, and she likely still does not know that Obama is not her blood grandson.
Obama, Sr. never really had a connection with Barack, Jr. as he was not his blood son, and didn’t really try to maintain any consistent relationship with him. However, the facade was continued by Ann and her parents. In Hawaii Barack became close to Frank Marshall Davis but Barack did not know until much later that Frank was Barack’s father. One reason why Barack may not want the public to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is likely because of Frank’s Communist admissions, and membership in the Communist Party USA (even though his stated father, Barack Obama, Sr., was also a marxist communist, but was not as related to the United States politically).
Another reason Barack may not want you to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is because of Davis’s graphic and infamous sex/porn book “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet),” (written under pseudonym “Bob Greene”); Greenleaf Publishing Company (Evanston, IL), 1968. This would not reflect well on Barack, especially in light of the fact that Frank Marshall Davis had homosexual proclivities, and Barack has been connected to the scandal that involved deaths of 3 homosexual men in Rev. Wright’s Trinity church near the end of 2007, even though the news media has tried to cover up any link to Barack Obama in this situation. See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama“
Even if every accusation made here about Obama’s place of birth is true, how does it stack up against McCain’s place of birth? I suppose his defenders would say that it’s somehow not relevant. If so, then this entire discussion is intellectually bankrupt and a waste of time, unless the purpose is just to whip up a fascist fervor for a particular cause/leader.
I do not wish to defend Obama or to single out McCain; I think they both stink to high heaven and would sooner cut off a limb than vote for either of them. But can we at least have a discussion that has a POINT to it? There’s no point to this topic, because everyone agrees McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was Panamanian territory per the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 18 November 1903.
McCain was born a U.S. citizen by virtue of his parents’ citizenship. The term “natural born citizen” has always been ruled to mean “born on U.S. territory”, at the very least. If McCain’s election is legal, then Obama could be born in Kenya or the Soviet Union or Saturn and still legally serve as president, so long as his mother was a citizen at the time, which I haven’t heard anyone dispute. (I wonder why everyone just accepts that; it couldn’t have something to do with her RACE now, could it???)
I am so over this election. Several times a day, it is making my food come part-way back up. I can’t wait until it’s over and we can procede to addressing the problem of what the winner is going to do to all of us (and that goes for McCain AND Obama!)
Anyone who still thinks Democrat/Republican or Socialist/Non-Socialist status MATTERS, after all that has been done to us over the last 20 years, is a damn fool. All you crummy, good-for-nothing fools who keep sleepwalking through all of this deserve what you get, and more. A pox on you for putting my family through this bipartisan national-socialist (NAZI) nightmare. Shame on you! Shame! Shame! You anti-American hypocrites. How dare you.
McCain and Obama are both CFR, they are both admitted globalists, and they are both national socialists. What more do you need to know to decide whether to vote for one of them?
Attorney Berg (bringing the suit against Obama’s ineligibility to be POTUS explained it like this: If Obama was born outside of a US state or territory, as Berg contends Obama was, then the next rule must follow: Since Obama’s father was neither a citizen nor naturalized, the compliance necessary for Barack to be considered natural born falls to his mother. She was only 18 at the time of his birth; therefore, she could not pass her own citizenship to him. The law is specific. A US citizen (mother) can only pass along her citizenship to her child after she reaches the age of 19. She, again, was only 18 at the time of his birth. This is not about race, though Obamamania is certainly playing that card! I couldn’t care less if a candidate is black, white, yellow or green, but he/she had better be a citizen with no ties to other countries (like Kenya or Indonesia). Split loyalties are dangerous. This is exactly why the law is such that it is! If he is, indeed legal, why not just prove it within a couple of hours. Think people. What is it in his birth record, medical record, school records (all of which every other candidate in our history) have provided instantly, that Obama desperately does not want us to see; hence, will NOT RELEASE! PLEASE – google Hitler and/or Castro and read about their rises to power…then see if you don’t find a whole lot of parallels!! The Cubans risk their lives to come here…where will we go?? THINK ABOUT IT.
Snoozer –
With due respect to your concerns about the future (which I share regardless of whether Dems or GOP have the White House), the term “natural born citizen” has a specific meaning in the Constitution, a meaning which I believe is made clear to the reader if context when taken into account.
Note that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to enact rules of naturalization. But it does not explicitly give said Congress any power to determine who, in the world, is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth.
Now, Berg’s argument requires first the conclusion that the power of Congress to legislate who is a citizen at birth (without having to be naturalized) is IMplicit.
But, such a power would clearly be more sweeping than the power to regulate naturalizations. And yet, the framers saw the need to EXplicitly assign the naturalization power. The fact that they saw the need to explicitly assign it implies that it was a power of sufficient strength or scope that they could not reasonably expect people to just INFER Congress’s possession of it. You see, the rule is that the greater the power, the less likely that there will be a peaceful consensus, in the absence of explicit language, on who gets the power (i.e. Congress or the states).
This being the case, the power to define natural born citizens, a power of GREATER strength and scope than naturalization, must have been explicitly assigned, UNLESS the “power” is not a power at all but simply a SELF-EVIDENT definition. We know that it was NOT explicitly assigned, thus it follows that it is not really a “power” but a self-evident definition — such as, for example, the phrase “attained to the Age of thirty-five Years”. Clearly, the Constitution did not give Congress the power to decide what exactly the phrase “attained to the Age of thirty-fice Years” means, even though it is clearly of the utmost importance. The reason they didn’t explicitly give Congress that power is, apparently, that they felt the meaning was self-evident WITHOUT any definition. The clarity of the phrase is what tells us that Congress could not possibly have the implicit power to define what it means.
So, to return to the case at hand, the reason we can be confident that neither Congress, nor the states, have the power to define who is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth is because the meaning of “natural born citizen” must have seemed self-evident to the framers. If it did NOT seem self-evident to them, they would have either defined the term or explicitly assigned that defining power to SOMEONE, probably either Congress or the states.
We should, therefore, strive to answer for ourselves what meaning would most likely have been in their mind when they added the phrase to the Constitution. Could it have been the definition offered by Congress in an illegal arrogation of power, to wit, the one involving the age of the mother in cases where the father was not a citizen at the timne of the child’s birth? Or must it have been something simpler?
In fact, was there any historical basis at all for calling a citizenship that is based solely on the parents’ citizenship at the time of birth, a “natural born” citizenship? Because if there was not, then the only reasonable conclusion is that such a citzenship was seen by the framers as the OPPOSITE of “natural born”, i.e., a NATURALIZATION.
I am not well-read on this specific question, but from what I have read on it, I believe that the framers did view “natural born” as having ONLY the meaning “born IN the United States”, and that THIS was the meaning that, to them, was so self-evident that it needed neither explicit definition, nor the explicit assignment of a “power to define” to any party. If you know of any example, prior to the Congress’s passage of the first act purporting to define “natural born”, of the term being used to mean “born to a U.S. citizen”, I’d love to hear about it. In the absence of such example, however, I think that my assessment is the most reasonable way of looking at it, and this is how I do choose to look at it. I have also read in Wikipedia of at least two federal court rulings that apparently do look at it this way. No mention is made, anywhere I can find, of the alternative view being taken by any court. If they are simply accepting the congressional definition, without considering the possibility that Congress lacks any power to act on this matter, then shame on them.
Sorry for the garbled writing; I was a bit sleepy.
Obama’s mom was underage at the time of his birth and being born in Kenya is not U.S. soil. Now in contrast, McCain was born on a military base which is considered U.S. soil by definition…so is the U.S. embassy! If Obama can run as president why not vote for Arnold for Pres…because he is “naturalized” but not a natural born citizen. What is Obama hiding, he went to visit his “sick grandma” and then suddenly while he was in Hawaii the governor sealed his records…just a little suspicious…hmm. Leaves way to many questions.
Every canidate Pallin included released medical records but not Obama! Even his running mate Joe Biden released his records! If Obama was legitimately a U.S. born citizen don’t you think he would have released his birth certificate instead of his COLB…which is not a birth certificate! See this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ
Matt –
You obviously have not understood what I have written. Military bases are not automatically U.S. soil, by definition or by any other means. I quoted you the specific treaty in which the U.S. acknowledged that the entire PCZ was PANAMANIAN soil. Did you respond? No, of course not. You apparently prefer to ignore rather than respond, and continue to shout your falsehood, as if the volume of your voice somehow makes it more true. Maybe you should shout louder, because it’s not working.
I said that both McCain and Obama are CFR and both are admitted globalists. Did you respond? Don’t make me laugh. Of course you didn’t respond. What does that make you? A jerk? A hypocrite?
Anti-American?
Does it make you a traitor? Only if the globalists are an enemy of the U.S.
After I said neither McCain nor Obama could be president if they were not born on U.S. soil, what was your response? You said my argument suggests that Schwarzenegger could also run. My argument suggests THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
It is the Republicans and Democrats who want to enable Schwarzenegger and other foreign-raised persons to run, and that is clearly why both are promoting candidates with clear eligibility problems. I wouldn’t expect someone like you, who habitually ignores 80-90 percent of what is told to you, to understand such a conspiracy, even while it is right in front of your face. I bet if the Republicans nominated Schwarzenegger, you’d cheer for him just as loud. If so, you would be tearing up the U.S. constitution.
As for your statement about Obama’s mom, I addressed that ad nauseum in my second post. Did you respond? All you did was re-re-regurgitate the same shallow talking points. I and the American people do not need to be told the same thing over and over again. Once is sufficient.
I am *not* going to play your game by re-regurgitating EVERYTHING I just explained, a second time. If you care about the truth, you can scroll back and read it. If you only care about whipping up mindless fervor for your chosen candidate, then this is an intellectually bankrupt and pointless discussion.
At least with most of the third-party candidates, these questions have not been raised. I’d bet if you investigate them, you’ll find they have no problems. What a surprise — the candidates NOT controlled by the two major parties ARE complying with the law. What a surprise — they’re not winning. This is because people like you are sleepwalking through the bipartisan, national-socialist coup that is being put on us. The only cure for what ails us is to be independent, and preferably non-partisan.
Trust me, the view of what’s going on is much better from out here!
WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. Send both fascist parties a message by voting for the independent of your choice. Boycott all Republicans and Democrats wherever there is an independent running. I have never voted Libertarian for any office, but I plan to start this year. I will vote Nader for prez. Of course he has problems, but at least he is eligible, so far as we know. Barr would be a better choice than McCain. The only reason I will not vote for him is because he is a former federal prosecutor and it is exceedly strange for such a person to be attracted to the Libertarians. As far as I know, he has not undergone a public reassessment of his former life.
Has anyone looked into the possibility of McCain being a dual citizen of the U.S. and Panama? Of course not. Can’t ruin the Republicans’ chances of defeating Obama.
Anyone who thinks this way is a lying, anti-American, hypocritical scoundrel, and what’s worse, they’re throwing in the toilet their only chance for peacefully resolving the fascist coup that is in progress — by organizing left, right, and center patriots together into one group. The first step in doing so is to advocate publicly the election of any third-party or other independent. If you cannot do this, you are simply part of the same problem that Obama is part of. If you cannot do this, you are aiding and abetting the same conspiracy that Obama may be.
Wake up now.
RF gets himself hung up in his logic. His argument may be sound but it follows from false premises. “Natural born citizen” is not, as RF points out, defined. If the Framers intended to mean that only someone born within the geographical boundaries of the US, they could have done so. They did not. They left it to Congress to decide what the words meant. The Constitution (Art I, Sect 8), without limits, gave to Congress the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”. Congress, thus, has to power to define who is a “natural born citizen”. In carrying out this power, Congress passed a law, found at USC 8, Section 1401, that defines who is a citizen by birth. The statute begins, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:” The “at birth” language clearly makes such persons “natural born citizens”. Subsection (g) states “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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:” Assuming that Berg is correct that Obama was born in Kenya, then he would have been born “outside the geographical limits of the United States”. His mother was a citizen of the US. She grew up here so she was physically present for at least five years including two after she turned fourteen.” Thus, the birth certificate and its authenticity are irrelevant. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen”. If he was born in Kenya, because of his mother, under (g) he is a “natural born citizen.” Berg is a boob.
Jim C –
So now Congress interprets the Constitution?
You’ve been drinking the same kool-aid as Matt.
The term was not defined and no power TO define it was granted. Given the gravity of the issue, the only rational conclusion is that the meaning was self-evident to the framers. Thus, we should be looking for what is simple and has a long historical precedent.
Can you cite a precedent that precedes the enactment of a congressional statute for “natural born citizens” including anyone born outside the United States?
If not, then I submit that there is no constitutional basis for defining the term that way. I’m sure you mean well in making the argument you made, but it is an indisputable fact that Congress lacks the power to define “natural born citizen” without amending the Constitution. All the wishful thinking in the world cannot change that fact, and to advocate otherwise when you understand what the Constitution says is to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law.
Sorry to be difficult, but this is a very clear issue. It’s not complicated, and it’s not a gray area in constitutional law.
– RF
While I was waiting for any reply from Jim C, it came to my attention that what he is really claiming is not necessarily that Congress has paramount power to define any term or phrase in the Constitution, which is what I originally thought he was saying, but rather that he believes that, by virtue of the meaning of the word “naturalize”, the power to make “rules of naturalization” includes the power to determine who is a “natural born citizen” and who is not. Jim, allow me to correct this misunderstanding that you have.
There are exactly two possible meanings of the word “naturalize”, and the two meanings are mutually exclusive, meaning that they cannot both be true at the same time; only one can be the true, intended meaning. The two possible meanings are as follows: (1) “to make something non-natural to be LIKE natural or AS IF natural”; and (2) “to make something non-natural INTO something natural”.
If you accept this stipulation, then two conclusions follow from it:
(A) The only kind of person who can be naturalized is one who is currently not natural.
(B) If every citizen of the U.S. must be EITHER “natural born” OR “naturalized”, but CANNOT BE BOTH, then being “naturalized” a citizen means you become a citizen but NOT a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, any U.S. citizen would meet the citizenship requirement to be president, which would render the words “natural born” devoid of purpose, and I think we can all agree the framers did actually mean to effect some change by its inclusion!
(C) The question of whether or not a non-citizen becomes a “natural citizen” after being naturalized depends on which meaning of “naturalize” is intended by the framers. If it is meaning #1, then you are a citizen but not a “natural” one. If it is meaning #2, then you are a “natural citizen”, but in this case the term “natural citizen” is redundant, as there is, by definition, no kind of citizen who is not “natural”. (In this case, you might as well just say “citizen” because all citizens are, by definition, natural. Again, this only applies if meaning #2 is the intended meaning of “naturalize”.) BUT IN EITHER CASE, THE NEWLY MINTED CITIZEN IS NOT A “NATURAL BORN” CITIZEN. “Natural” he MAY be, depending on the meaning of “naturalize”, but not “natural born”.
So, if you agree with everything I’ve just stated (or even if you agree with just A or just B), then you must accept as unavoidable the conclusion that Congress, in holding the power to determine uniform rules of naturalization, has the power to cause someone to become naturalized or to prevent someone being naturalized who would otherwise be naturalized, but THAT GRANT OF POWER DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHO IS NATURAL BORN. The question of the meaning of “natural born” is completely different from the questions “Who is natural?” and “Who can be natural-IZED?” Congress has the power to determine those last two questions, but interpreting the former question (”What is the meaning of natural born?”) is wholly outside their powers, unless the Consistution should be amended.
Now, I could go on to further argue my understanding of the meaning of “natural born”, but to tell you the truth, I fear overloading readers with too much information at one time. I’ve already, in a prior post, made a fairly cogent argument for the framers’ belief that the term’s meaning was self-evident to them, and I’ve stated what I believe that meaning is, and I’ve asked for any evidence, ANY WHATSOEVER, that the alternative interpretation that’s being advanced by both McCain supporters and by Jim C, who apparently supports Obama, existed BEFORE Congress decided to muscle in on the matter. Jim C said that my argument “may be sound” but follows from, in his words, the “false” premise that Congress cannot define “natural born citizen”. I submit that I have just completely demolished the notion that Congress CAN define the term. Thus, I will wait to see if Jim or anyone else is willing to admit that my argument that the framers considered the term’s meaning to be self-evident IS sound, and is the only reasonable and the only rational conclusion.
Obama if born in the US is a natural born citizen..But once being adopted he became a citizen of Indonesia which did not have dual citizenship at the time.. So Obama became a an Indonesian citizen..Because Indonesia did not have dual citizenship when Obama was adopted.. When he returned back to the US could not claim himself a natural born citizen because that right was taken away by adoption..So he is actually a natural-IZED citizen…
If you examine that birth certificate closely that Obama presented, you can cleary see nov 9, 2007 printed on the back in a reverse mode.. If that was an orginal that surly wouldn’t be printed on it..
Myself I think Obama was born in Kenya and a few days later was brought back to the US by his mother to register him in the US..
What needs to be looked at closely is Obamas mothers travel path during the time when Obama was born.. Go back through passport and visa records to see when her passport was stamped if it has a Kenya stamp on it before the date, and a US stamp after the date you know that he was born in Kenya and not the US.. It’s her travels that need to be looked into…The proof is in her path..
I’m sure them records are buried somewhere in the jfk libary, or LBj’s…
Jim, agreed on most points. (It appears you are not the same as the Jim C who was responding to me before.)
The only things I would say are…
First, the stamp probably indicates that the certification of birth, which is nothing more than a reflection of the computer database, was generated recently upon a request by Obama, a representative of his, or someone else with the legal right to request it. That says nothing about the “original” records, which would never be given out. I don’t believe that Hawai’i intended to pass this off as anything original. It was probably just generated the same day its requestor walked into the archives to request it, and the stamp is helpful because it indicates when that particular copy was requested.
If a copy of the long form were issued, it would probably have a very similar kind of date stamp on it, which would not invalidate the copy. In fact, it would be cause for suspicion if the copy did NOT have a date stamp that was date AFTER the date of birth.
Second, I wonder if you noticed my earlier arguments which stated exactly what you’re saying, namely, that only people born in the U.S. can be “natural born” citizens. The reason why all these McCain & Obama folks are attacking me is because they all know that the law, as written, excludes McCain because McCain was born in Panama. And no one in the globalist elite that runs the Republican AND Democratic parties wants this dirty little secret to be known. I have seen a lot of dirty pool in my time, but did I ever imagine BOTH major parties would conspire to force-feed us a choice of two foreign-born candidates, who may have BOTH been born as dual citizens? No, I did not.
We are living in a totally different United States from the one I was born in. The two are so different, I don’t think anyone traveling through time would believe they were seeing the same legal entity.
New Jim (Not Jim C) –
Correction, I assumed you agreed with me that foreign-born persons cannot be natural born citizens. I see now that you didn’t actually say that. If you have any doubt that I am correct about this, read my prior comments in which I address the matter, er, quite thoroughly.
P.S.
It was mentioned that Obama, if born in Hawai’i, is now a natural-IZED citizen based on the events in Indonesia. This is true if, and only if, he went through a naturalization process that he is not telling us about. If not, it would appear that he MAY, emphasize may, in fact, be an illegal immigrant.
With respect to Obama the successful organizer and attorney, my heart goes out to him for his situation, which he probably didn’t know about until at least the late 1980’s. But with respect to Obama the presidential candidate, all I can think is that he’s giving all the citizens the finger in a spectacular fashion, and yes, so is McCain. And it makes me wonder what is going on to make seemingly normal people act in such a bizarre way, seemingly as if they think this is actually some kind of “good medicine” for the country. All I can think is, this way lies a whole new class of danger.