Birthers get another lifeline
posted at 9:30 am on December 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
When the Supreme Court denied cert to Leo Donofrio, most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest. Not so fast, as Dave Weigel reluctantly notes. Justice Antonin Scalia has referred another lawsuit to conference covering much the same ground in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and the Birther movement has another brief reprieve:
Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. …
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Indeed, as the docket report shows, Ginsburg rejected Wrotnowski two weeks ago, at least for injunctive relief. Scalia didn’t provide an injunction, but instead of following the example set by Donofrio, he referred the case to conference. That seems a little unusual, since Wrotnowski appears to plow the same ground as Donofrio, which is that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because his father was a British subject, even though Obama was born in the US.
Hot Air readers already know our deep skepticism regarding these lawsuits. Barack Obama was born in the United States of one native-born American citizen (his mother), which should satisfy all but the bitter-enders of this election. Both Wrotnowski and Donofrio concede these points.
So why did Scalia send Wrotnowski to conference? Like Dave, I doubt that it’s to get a unanimous ruling on these challenges to Obama’s standing that will end all of the pointless legal battles. In any case, if Donofrio didn’t get four votes, there’s no reason to think that Wrotnowski will do any better — but it seems that Scalia and Thomas have made themselves the go-to guys on the court for all legal challenges to Obama’s election.
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I’m following my own research into source documents on this… not going by what ANYONE, especialy Berg, says.
I pride myself on being of the first type, you, are apparently of the second…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Another weird thing about this case is that the country of Kenya has sealed Obamas records and they actually have tours going to see his birthplace….in Kenya. What possible records could Obama have in Kenya if he was not born until after his parents left there? He would never have existed to the Kenyan government. Anyone? Anyone?
Bikerken on December 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Citizens? Absolutely, but the 1795 Immigration laws, which repealed the 1790 statute, specificly took OUT the portion giving them “Natural Born” stauts.
Which is the problem…. we need a legal definition of Natural Born, and there really isn’t one except from the origional framers….
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:10 AM
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Dr Evil on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It seems pretty simple to me. If the director of my state health department’s word is good enough when I apply for a passport, then Obama gets a pass. Otherwise I have to ask, why is he exempt on something much more important than a passport?
JackOkie on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Who did this research you are talking about? I saw this on another thread and as a law it concerned me. Like i said..I am skeptical of this, BUT I feel he needs to show his true birth certificate..not a certificate of live birth.
becki51758 on December 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Ed,
Nobody ever lies on his CV, especially for a job this important. Nosiree! Besides, as you’ve been pointing out all along, the MSM did such a thorough job vetting him for the public prior to the general election.
/
Christien on December 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
We’re left with only one conclusion.
Barack Hussein Obama is an unmitigated, unadulterated LIAR.
Whether or not he was born in Hawaii isn’t even the issue… Not any more, it’s not.
There is obviously something on the original Birth Certificate that conflicts with something he’s stated or written about.
There can be no other possible conclusion, someone would spend $100,000 to conceal.
Prove me wrong.
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Note the perjorative term “birthers.” As one who is interested in resolving an issue that has Constitutional implications via the courts, I personally resent being lumped in with conspiracy theorists. Perhaps HA is interested in driving away viewers who excercise their right to be skeptical about politicians. If there’s anything this blog demonstrates, it’s that skepticism is warranted.
NNtrancer on December 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Political correctness, fear of the mob taking to the streets and fear of retribution after he takes office.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
So do I, and they are different, but materially the same pertinent info.
His reason is two fold:
One: is because he met all the requirements, no official from the state department has asked for anything more.
Two: because he likes what he sees, a few hundred loons searching for something that doesn’t exist…if someone of any important took up the cause, then he would have the facts to destroy that person. Right no one of any consequence is taking up the cause…the “self described” expert, Berk, Keyes, and a few cult bloggers is all that is driving this “search for the truth”.
But it gets down to…he met the existing requirements, and being a smart attorney and having smart attorney’s, you only release what is necessary. Just like Palin only released a summary of her heath, Kerry never released his war records, Bush, until he absolutely had to, never released some of his military records.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Not so, the Constitution is silent on this question.
The citizenship statues have varied over the years on the matter. I was born in the UK of an American serviceman father and a British mother. I have BOTH a UK birth certificate and a US Department of State issued Birth Certificate as a US citizen by birth. The citizenship law in effect at the time of the war required the father to have lived in the US for the five years prior to the birth which was obviously impossible given that US troops were in Europe “for the duration.” So Congress carved out an exception for these children and grandfathered us in as citizens by birth.
Just a month ago I met a fellow about five years younger than me who was born in Germany to a US serviceman father and is in fact a naturalized citizen, not a citizen by birth. The law had changed yet again by the time he was born and he was not covered. So I am apprently eligible to be President but he is not. What a difference a year (or five) makes.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Wrong. It’s your responsibility to prove your claim right.
To think otherwise is the essence of a conspiracy theory. You make the accusation, provide the proof. And this:
…is disturbing. If he was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen, he’s eligible for the presidency, and you’re done. The fact that you have now dismissed that as “unimportant” is a tired old tactic of creating an infallible conspiracy theory.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM
On the dual citizen issue… it was not until recently that we recognized Dual Citizenship. It would not have been an issue to the Framers.
Thus the problem we face with the “Natural Born” clause.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I can imagine there are about 20 homes in Kenya where Obama was born…and for a small price they will give you a tour. This is a touring gold mine…not that Kenya would do anything to deceive anyone…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I agree with you. But in our civilized country of laws, it is neither too much to ask Mr. Obama to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the office he has, nor for a court to agree to adjudicate any disputes. If you like, we can pay Mr. Obama’s court costs, which would amount to the price of requesting a photostat of his original long form birth certificate created in Hawaii at the time of his birth.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Actualy, no. Under Leo’s case, the one before the court, just being born on American soil is NOT enough to be President. That is exactly what is before the Supreme Court.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
This would seem to indicate you think there are not two but three kinds of citizens: Natural Born; Citizens by Birth but not Natural Born; and Naturalized. I’ve never heard any such distinction before. To the best of my knowledge there are only two described in the citizenship and naturalization laws of this country: Natural Born i.e. Citizens by Birth requiring no action on their part to claim citizenship; and Naturalized Citizens who must pass a residency requirment, a test and take an oath of allegiance.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I agree. I’m also curious as to why we can’t find his legal name change information, that should be easy to find in court records, but it to seems to be under lock and key.
I would also love to see his passport records.
This man is to be our next POTUS we should know as much about him as we know about past presidents..
christene on December 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Much like God is everywhere at once, I am sure it follows that “The One” could have been born in more than one place at a time.
mwdiver on December 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I know I’m preaching to the choir, Romeo, but I love the way people are defining ‘natural born citizen’ so that it would be possible for someone with dual citizenship to assume the US Presidency (among other clearly insane possibilities).
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
You will, but the official biography of the Dear Leader has not been
doctoredwritten yet.johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I’m not opposed to such a thing. However, I’m going to pull a Biden here.
Mark my words: Even if such a thing were produced, and a copy of that were sent to every person in the country, many of the lunatics demanding such a thing would not be satisfied. They would continue to claim that Barack HUSSEIN Obama orchestrated the creation of the document.
Much as with things like the NWO, the NAU, the 9/11 truth movement…no amount of proof will satisfy two groups. The first group is the people who just lap up conspiracy theories, and the second is the people who will not accept Barack Obama as the president of the United States, and proudly embrace the concept of ODS.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
And the fact that his mother was a US citizen that gave birth on US soil?
I have a feeling you’re in the second group I listed.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I’m not arguing “eligibility”… I’m arguing “Transparency”… His words… Not mine.
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Oh, look. Proof of evolution.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:33 AM
It depends on how one acquires dual citizenship, no? I don’t believe the US “recognizes” dual citizenship, I think the US recognizes that such a thing exists. There is a difference. The US recognizes that if you are a dual national you may, under the laws of the other nation, have obligations to that nation from which US citzenship cannot protect you e.g. obligatory military service. So if you are “impressed” into the military service of another country the US cannot, of right, demand you be released and repatriated based on your US citizenship.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
But in Hawaii, the official birth document is the certificate of birth…it has been that way for decades.
I have two birth certificates in my possession…both of them called “birth certificates”, but they are different. One has my fathers occupation, date, time, signatures, even a nurse signature, one has my foot prints. So combined there is a lot of information…or you could say one is missing information. The second one could have been called the certificate of birth (and one, gasp, has no folds).
They both have a seal…now if I presented one or the other, it could be claimed that I did not present the “actual” birth certificate. And that is what we have here, an argument that an official certificate is not official…even after being deemed accurate and correct. Believe me, even after showing the real one, it won’t be accepted…it will have to undergo excruciating examination by “experts”, you know that don’t you? Even if he shows it, the birtherists won’t believe…just look at the 9/11 truthers, don’t you think they have enough facts to make a decision?…no their are never enough facts…not even an official statement from the state department.
BTW, my wife born the same hospital 10 months later has a completely different birth certificate.
Anyway, the fact is materially they are the same, signed and embossed, just like Obama’s.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Dear Ed: why this matters
The Clinton appointment directly contravenes the text, although probably not the intent, of the constitution. The general argument against having Obama prove that he’s eligible is largely along the same lines: getting along by going along -and letting the meaning of the constitution slide a little along the way is ok, because, well, he’s a liberal – and the liberal press wants us all to think it’s nutty to argue that a guy who couldn’t get a security clearance to work for a third tier defense contractor should at least prove eligibility before becoming the commander in Chief.
Ask yourself how the media would react to this if Sarah Palin had said she travelled in Pakistan while that country denied Americans entry – or if John McCain refused to show his birth documentation.
Remember Dan Rather’s defence on the forged paper? “yeah, ok, they’re fake, but they tell truth?” that’s what Obama’s saying about his certification of live birth – the one that has the anachronistic “African” error: that it’s a fake that tells the truth.
So lets talk about the meaning of the Oath of Office.. and not talk about those who favor strict constitutional constructionism here as “birthers”. okay?
Paul Murphy on December 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
The operative part is “born on US soil.’ Nothing else matters, not the citizenship of the parents, nothing. This alone makes one a US citizen. By extention this includes US territories and possessions which is one of the reasons why the challenge to McCain was so stupid. He as doubly covered, BOTH his parents were American citizens in a US possession, the Canal Zone.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The whole issue of dual citizenship and its impact on being a ‘natural born citizen’ has yet to be determined, which is why it is important for the SCOTUS to take one of these cases and provide the correct parameters – seeing as we have tons of dual/multiple citizens these days.
Yes, if you are in another countey that you hold citizenship in, you are bound by their laws and the US has nothing to say about it, essentially.
But my point was that most people who are throwing away the whole idea that dual citizenship might impact ‘natural born citizenship’ are making arguments that would allow a dual citizen to assume the Presidency.
This is why I think the SCOTUS must examine this and come out with clear parameters for ‘natural born citizen’.
I, for one, think that ‘natural born citizen’ is one who is a citizen from birth and has never held any other citizenship. Any other definition allows all sorts of screwy scenarios – and dangerous ones. But that is for the SCOTUS to say, and they should do their job.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
From obama’s mouth,..
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter”.
Do words on paper matter less?
Extremely simple conclusion.
Release the document(s) and be done with it.
christene on December 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I don’t understand why this issue is being characterized as a “troofer”. Would you want to have surgery performed by someone who refuses to show you his medical degree? Would you want to fly in a plane piloted by someone who refuses to show you his pilot’s license? Yet it is somehow acceptable to have someone who wants to lead the country to assume responsibility without showing you that he is constitutionally qualified.
scrubjay on December 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I don’t make that distinction, the various languages involved in the statutes do.
In 1790 Congress passed an immigration law that said specificly if you were born on American soil, you were a “Natural Born Citizen”.
In 1795 that act was Repealed, and replaced with a person born on American soil was a “CITIZEN”.
As these were the guys who had just CREATED the Constitution, you’d think they understood their own definitions… and KNEW that the only job in America, for which Natural Born Citizen is a requirment, is President.
Intent seems pretty clear that THEY thought that just being born an American Soil, was not enough to be President.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
That may be your interpretation but it isn’t mine. I don’t see what some accident of birth location has to do with the question of eligibility. If under US law one is a US citizen by birth then where that occurs is meaningless. Some, but by no means all, other countries confer citizenship based on birth in their territory as we do. Some confer it as we do based more on the citizenship of one or the other parent, some solely on the father, others solely on the mother.
Its a complex issue and, like me a US citizen by birth could easily be created with what you would view as a diability for the office. As far as I know US law only recognizes two kinds of citizens: Natural Born; and Naturalized. This argument would create a disqualified subclass of the former.
From that standpoint it might be a good idea to get the Court to decide one way or the other. But my money is they take a pass.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Citizen, schmitizen, I’m wondering how long it will take for the governor of Illinois to start singing about our Dear Leader to the Feds. Anyone want to take a guess?
missouriyankee on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
hey madison you say that the COLB is proof? well DONUT JUST FOUND THE REAL BC , IT PROOVES OBAMAS REAL NAME IS OSAMA!!
i guess what i am saying is, this was easy for me to MSpaint and took me less than 1 min to do, i can make the name say anything i want, i can make it say Barrack I stold da elektion obama I
Donut on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
But we are not operating under the law of 1795 today. The citizenship and naturalization laws have changed a number of times since then. The one in effect at the time of Obama’s birth is the one thats important.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Soooo… you don’t think that it would be important that a sitting President, is bound by FOREIGN law? That he could be tried for TREASON to that country if he did somthing against that country?
This is the EXACT reason the Founders put in that clause, so that would not be an issue…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
OK, Mr. “Transparency”… Start off by showing us your Birth Certificate.
Otherwise, you are, as I stated above, an unmitigated, unadulterated LIAR… Saying ONE thing… DOING another.
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Lacks logic.
You are presuming that the group of people wishing to see this answered are, by definition, already in a “group of loons” and thus would not be satisfied with anything.
You conclude that there is no need to provide the document on the a priori assumption that people interested in resolving this issue are conspiracy nuts in the first place.
Actually, as with the 911 and other conspiracy theories, normal people may have questions, but WILL accept sufficient evidence.
Fact is, we don’t have sufficient evidence here, and Obama refuses to provide it.
The conclusion that the document need not be provided because the people asking for it wouldn’t be satisfied is faulty. It categorizes everyone interested in seeing the document as already disqualified as loons.
To wit: “No sense in providing it because these people are crazy anyway.”
This, used as a reason for NOT providing the document, is ludicrous.
You could apply that line of reasoning to ANY document or requirement, thus rendering all requirements for anything forever unnecessary.
Alana on December 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Problem is that current law talks about Citizenship, or Native Born Citizenship… not Natural Born Citizenship…
Here… 14th Amendment…
See? Thats the problem… it talks of Citizen, not Natural Born Citizen.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Here is a good up to the minute report. This confirms what most believe.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Thanks for proving my point. Even if you were provided with an actual birth certificate, you’d claim it was made up in photoshop the same way the Bush National Guard documents were.
For many of these loons, there is no proof. They just don’t want Obama. That’s fine for them to think that way, but it doesn’t make them any less kooks.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
As far as the US is concerned he is not bound by foreign laws. There were morons in Europe who tried to us Belgian law to indict Bush for war crimes because Belgium had a far reaching law that gave themselves jurisdiction over any person anywhere for any crime anywhere; the point is anyone can find themselves a victim of foreign law at any time, you don’t have to even be a citizen under their law.
Its a specious argument.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Yeah, great, you quote an author who does not even know the difference between Berg’s case, and Leo’s case…
LOL….
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
How many angels can dance on the head of your pin? It describes two conditions: born in the US; and naturalized in the US. There is no superclass of “born in the US” i.e natural born, which is what this line of argument is trying to create. ONLY. TWO. NOT. THREE.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I have no argument that I am only giving my opinion on what I think ‘natural born citizen’ means (or should mean). I readily admit that. I like my definition and could draw up all sorts of problems with other definitions (especially those that would allow ‘natural born citizen’ status to come and go through ones life), but this is just my view.
As dual citizens didn’t exist at the writing of the Constitution, I have no problem determining natural born citizens to be a subset of native born citizens or other citizens by birth. But, this is my opinion. I don’t think there is any other reasonable way – but, as I said, the parameters have never really been set and the SCOTUS needs to do that, especially now. There are native born citizens who are dual citizens and I don’t think anyone would think that a dual citizen would fall under the qualifications that the Founders set up – but again, to the SCOTUS with it.
They really should decide. If they take a pass, then it is really an awful sign and will lead to gigantic problems, not least of which qould be their display of cowardice and lack of interest in the Constitution.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
That document neither shows which hospital the birth occurred nor the attending physician (and his/her signature).
eanax on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Because Thomas and Scalia follow the letter of the Constitution and Souter and Ginsberg are creative interpretationalists reaching out to universal principles and laws of other nations
How did ne meet the requirements? No one asking for documents is not proof he met the requirements. It may be proof a lawsuit is required. I was required to produce a long form to get my government security ranked job.
Health records are not a requirement to the Presidency, nor are war records nor military records
What he did have were smart attorneys and compliant courts willing to stall the cases so the final review would not occur until after the election, thus setting the stage for a dismissal of the case based upon expediency and the fear of public reaction to a damaged election
I do not blame Clinton for not producing his health records. They had no right, and health records include subjective material
The real crime are the many many people who see no reason the law must be satisfied if they themselves are satisfied
entagor on December 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
In addition, there is no DATE on that document either printed or in seal form that shows when it was recorded or produced.
eanax on December 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
OK, I’ll lay off my macadamia nut comments for a day –
I have tried to come up with rationale as to why Obama, the State of Hawaii and Kenya would feel the need to seal any and all information related to The Black Caesar. It just doesn’t jibe that if he had been born in Hawaii that all of this information would remain sealed. This will not go away until the information is unsealed and if it is, I am afraid we are going to learn that he was born in Indonesia and then brought to Hawaii by his American mother.
grdred944 on December 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Dual citizens did exist the time of the Constitution, all of the Founders were technically dual citizens, being Subjects of the King (until 1776 anyway) and citizens of the US by virtue of birth in the colonies (post 1776). And as far as King George was concerned they were Subjects, and subject to hanging, all during the revolution.
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The Hawaiian Health Department uses Photoshop to create their documents, don’tcha’ know.
franksalterego on December 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The Constitution was after independence.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
As i said in another thread, us peasants are asked to show our birth certificate from time to time and it’s not too much to ask the President-Elect to do the same. So quit trying to alienate the people who simply want the President-Elect to be required to follow the same procedure they do. Your decision to deride them by calling them “birthers” just makes you look as snotty and elitist as Obama.
clearbluesky on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM
To Madison and the equally wrongheaded “skeptic” posters:
This sneering ignorance of yours is getting tiresome.
News flash: the birth certificate someone at Team Obama provided via the DailyKOS was PROVEN A FRAUD by a CERTIFIED FRAUD EXAMINER, who has around 20 years or so of experience specifically in detecting fraudulent images (check fraud).
He goes by the online name of Techdude.
Not only that, but he found that another Soetoro’s name was on it.
You would think that the fact that we have seen no unquestionably valid birth certificate, and that the one that was provided showed up on a known leftist partisan attack site (instead of say to the Associated Press) would elicit SOME concern.
Again, I find it hard to express how deep is my disappointment in Michelle and company for allowing their fatigue to color their judgment.
It would be different if we didn’t already have evidence of massive fraud, with the FBI now looking into ACORN in several states and Obama’s accepting of a bribe in the Rezko land deal.
What hath RINOs wrought?
BemusedMalkinite on December 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Well duh! Same guys!
johnsteele on December 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I think the guy was probably born in Hawaii. So why does he spend so much money and time NOT doing what you suggest? One can only speculate but there seems to be a series of lies told for Obama to get an education, whether it be in Indonesia or at Oxidental, Columbia and Harvard.
Was his name really Barry Sotero, an Indonesian citizen? Or did his parents merely fudge the facts so he could go to school? How did Obama pay for that very expensive college education? The student loan public record is not nearly at the level of costs there. Did he say he was of African descent to receive public funds? We have no idea because all records are sealed.
And that’s the real conundrum here. The public has no access to Obama’s records and the only place to gain understanding of the truth of Obama’s life is to get some court to force the release of records, the birth certificate being the most obvious.
Frankly I don’t know what makes Ed and michelle so confident in Obama telling the truth in these matters. Would they be so dismissive of people trying to find out the provenance of magically appearing ballots in, say, a Minnesota Senate race? Would such seekers be lumped in with 911 ‘truthers’?
JonPrichard on December 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
which is why the SECOND part of that clause Grandfathered them all in!!! They knew they did not meet the criteria, so gave themselves a PASS.
The Origional CONGRESS’s made this distinction… The Constitution calls for this distinction… the Office of the President is the ONLY one held to this standard…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
The “one” has sent out his followers to trash all over this story, yet to stop this story in it’s tracks all he needs to do is release it. Until then, Keep on keepin on…: o )
christene on December 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM
EXACTLY!! You hit the nail on the head!
christene on December 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
So’s yours. The difference is I’ve been around a while.
Ah. So some online persona, which you have failed to provide a link to(and you’re complaining about Obama holding back), is more of an authority than the Hawaii Department of Health. Right.
Now, if this is true…why hasn’t Berg included that in his case, hmmm?
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I think they will call them “ballot birthers”, and write about these “conspiracy nuts” with attached stories of Andrew Sullivan …
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM
sigh, the narrative continues… Please point out anywhere EXCEPT the illegal hearsay quote of a “spokesman” which blantantly misrepresents the origional quote, where any Hawaii Official has said that COLB is genuine, or that Barrak was born in Hawaii?
As its against Hawaiin law to release said information, it would be enlightening to see.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I wonder why “our side” is covering Obama even more then the MSM is (the MSM just ignores the issue, while “our side” flat out attacks us). I’m not sure what’s to be accomplished by ignoring the fact that Obama refuses to produce even the simplest forms (school records, birth certificate, etc) or attacking those who are asking questions about it.
Bad form HA, bad form. Let’s just hope that the SCOTUS doesn’t decide to hear this one, and force Allah, ed and MM to eat their hats.
Rainsford on December 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Look at how he acts versus what he says. He has sealed his records in Hawaii and Kenya. He has NEVER produced college records. The man is a walking lock box.
Transparency will end this discussion once and for all.
cannonball on December 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Note that Reason magazine is spearheading the Obama coverup here. The so-called libertarians are carrying water for the Communist Left. I have no doubt that these faux libertarians are re adying a sell-out on the 2nd Amendment as well. In fact, Ryan Sager’s support for Michael Bloomberg is really just code for supporting gun control. When the civil war comes, we cannot make the mistake we did in the Cold War of letting the enemy survive. We must wipe out the Democrat/Communists and their “libertarian” sycophants and laugh at them as they die. To do so will not be murder, as they are not truly human, never having done anything in their lives except having infinite pleasure delivered free of charge to their doorsteps, while never moving a muscle.
Kenno on December 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
In addition to his BC and his school records, I’d also like to see his Selective Service Registration. Oops, never mind. Michelle Malkin has already covered this one off. It was forged.
Syd B. on December 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
And the denial continues. Members of the Hawaii Department of Health are “spokesmen”, and fire can’t melt steel.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I think they will call them “ballot birthers”, and write about these “conspiracy nuts” with attached stories of Andrew Sullivan …
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I’m waiting to be lumped in with Kathleen Parker’s oogedy-boogedy folks who embarrass her so much.
Cody1991 on December 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Is it the Birchers or the Ronulans coming out of the woodwork?
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM
You’ll get it straight from the horse’s mouth as soon as Parker gets a spot guest blogging here, which doesn’t look to be too far off.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Really? would you take this as statement as evidence in a court of Law?
She really meant “this” even though the transript says otherwise? And for her to make the origional statment would in fact, be breaking the law?
LOL…..
Romeo13 on December 9, 2008 at 12:34 PM
You’ll get it straight from the horse’s mouth as soon as Parker gets a spot guest blogging here, which doesn’t look to be too far off.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Actually I thought I was reading the wrong blog the other day when I saw the disparaging remarks about those of us who have been following this.
That’s fine. I did my homework on BO years ago, and there is nothing that will change my opinion. In fact, it just gets worse, and he hasn’t even been sworn in.
Cody1991 on December 9, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I have to agree that this is a legitimate issue that needs clarification by the courts and should not be denigrated as a conspiracy theory.
The dual citizenship issue is interesting and very complicated. According to some here I might not qualify for POTUS even though I could easily produce a perfect state issued birth certificate. You see, like millions of others, my grandfather emigrated from Italy to the US. He eventually became a naturalized citizen and renounced his Italian citizenship. His children born after he naturalized as a US citizen and after renouncing his Italian citizenship would only be US citizens and would obviously be “natural born citizens” and qualify for POTUS. However, his children born in the US before he naturalized would be dual citizens, and according some here would not be naturalized and not qualified for POTUS. Here is where it gets complicated — according to Italian law, his male grandchildren born to his male children who were born before he naturalized would also be dual citizens. So, even though I was born in the US to two US born citizen parents, I may be disqualified from serving as POTUS if grandpa had daddy before he naturalized.
Wow. To prove my qualification, I would need to produce not only my birth certificate, but also my father’s birth certificate and my grandfather’s immigration papers.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Oh well that solves everything…some guy named Techdude, says it is fake…okay.
Hey, some guy named Godlyone says he is Jesus…so we have a winning day.
Obama is a fraud, and Jesus has returned…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This article seems to be the most coherent on this subject. This is only an issue because Obama continues to make it one by not releasing the information regarding the location of his birth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_derangement_syndrome.html
coulterisahottie on December 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Well … we DO know that Obama committed fraud (campaign fraud, at the very least). Can you admit to that?
I just want to get a baseline on how much in the tank for BHO you are.
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM
First: He didn’t seal his records in Hawaii. All personal records such as birth certificates are “sealed” in Hawaii. Obama to no action to seal his records, therefore your assertion is invalid.
Second: No proof has been offered that shows that any “obama jr.” records are sealed in Kenya. Or even that there are any records in Kenya.
Third: “He has NEVER produced college records.”… umm so? What right do you have to his high school, college, or law school records? Is there a constitutional requirement that the president must have maintained a solid B average throughout his academic career? Next you will demand copies of his legal client records (nevermind the concept of attorney-client privilige). This discovery and demands for more documents never ends.
That is the real reason that I believe Obama is fighting the cases prior to discovery stage in these cases. (Although he did produce the “COLB” in the Virginia case, probably due to the discovery rules in the Commonwealth.) As an attorney that engages in extensive discovery and motion practice, opening the door to discovery for unwarranted matters is a recipe for disaster. By not arguing standing or similar issues from the start you risk waiving those defenses. Ultimately by producing just the simple documents, you open the door to the judge saying “well you didn’t have a problem with producing these documents and have waived your arguments against so we’ll just expand on that a little to add these additional documents”. This gets repeated ad nauseum and pretty soon you are spending half your time as an attorney in document production constantly in discovery expending time and your client’s money.
Also I keep seeing mention of Obama Jr.’s paternal Grandmother’s voice recording asserting that she was at his birth in Kenya, but have not come accross the actual recording on the internet. Could someone direct me to it? (the actual recording not some assertion by someone that it exists) Otherwise, I will liken it to those Michelle Obama Whitey Tapes or “African Press International’s” much delayed release of Michelle’s phone call.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Because he is not spending any money or effort…you are.
It had been reported that he had “armed guards” at every hospital…imagine.
Of course that turned out to be untrue…but it could have been true.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM
So what you’re really saying is that if Obama is claiming to be a natural born US citizen, as required by the Constitution, it’s his responsibility to provide proof… or become the essence of a conspiracy theory.
Welcome to our side of the argument…
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Thank you. This example deserves repeating. I don’t care what happens, but no one is above having to prove they are eligible as a citizen when it comes down to it.
We are a nation of laws. We need to act that way & follow them. Not only must we follow them, but we must enforce them.
Often laws are not being enforced-everywhere across this country. So why is it we cannot very simply decide this Obama thing once and for all?
It doesn’t matter what any of us believe. It matters what is true & what the law says about it.
Why is this so hard? Let SCOTUS do this thing & determine what’s up. Or it will never die.
Badger40 on December 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Thank you…every attorney knows you only produce what is required, nothing more.
As I have been stating this past week, two things you don’t do…volunteer “documents”, and the rule the truthers are breaking, “Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to” (just ask Marcia Clark and Darden”.
The reason why no one of repute has asked that question, is that they know the answer…and the State of Hawaii official confirmed it.
Logically, your post should end the discussion…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM
You’re claiming he’s not. The reasonable and logical assumption is that he is. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Let us break down this cobbled together text. The official State statement from Fukino contains:
The statement contained three paragraphs, but the reporter only gave us two of the paragraphs. What was in the third paragraph? I don’t know…
Then someone named Janice Okubo that the reporter described as a spokeswoman for Hawaii Health Department (but who was not charged with making the official statement) said in emails and telephone interviews said the following:
That’s all we have. We have to trust the reporter for the context of the statement. The language about Obama being born in Hawaii was supplied by the reporter not by any State official. Since when did Hot Air readers start uncritically accepting heavily edited cobbled together statements from reporters. And no, a non-official statement of a state official (even if accurate) as made in an email as reporter by a reporter would not be considered evidence. It would be considered inadmissible double hearsay. It is evidence of nothing.
Gee, being a birther is fun!
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
You don’t get it, he was saying the law is arbitrary…under the same circumstances he and his friend have different citizenship.
A law like this should be consistent, not changing every few years.
When they use the statement that we are a nation of laws, it was pointing to the supposed consistency of laws…but it becoming more of a political tool.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
No he didn’t ‘seal’ the Hawaii records but, unless a court intervenes, it is in his power, and only his, to release them.
JonPrichard on December 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
So, if I say I was born in Alaska so that I can collect oil revenue benefits do you take my word for it and ‘logically assume’ I was indeed born in Alaska or do you ask for proof of my actual Alaskan birth?
JonPrichard on December 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Elvis spotted at Birthers convention; news at eleventy.
The Race Card on December 9, 2008 at 1:10 PM
You left out one (well more then one) item…it was also confirmed by email.
Well one other detail, she was the official spokesperson and was at the original news press conference.
Okuba spoke, Fukino read the statement, Okuba answered the questions as was her role.
well written and spoken from an official is pretty powerful…but not to a birtherist…
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Congress could define what is a “natural born citizen” by statute. Statutes could change over time. So, over time the qualifications for POTUS could change. The end game, even if all the cards came up perfect for the birthers would be a Democrat Congress forcing through legislation redefining “natural born citizen” to include Obama.
I say great. Let’s do it. Let’s force them to prove everything, and if necessary force them to pass a self justifying law. It is what our Constitution demands.
tommylotto on December 9, 2008 at 1:10 PM
You might want to read the rest of his post…from an attorneys point of view.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Why would I have any reason to disbelieve you? The proper authorities would see to any necessary verification. Sort of like when a guy gets elected president of the most powerful country in the world. I know that, of course, a 9/11 truther lawyer is probably far more knowledgeable of such things rather than the people who swear in a president, but hey, just call me a skeptic, I guess.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I never said he was not eligible. I just pointed out the double-standard displayed in your own writing.
And let me quote your words again for effect…
Wow. I suppose if that thought process is good enough for the office of President, it should be good enough for other situations…
“He was near the murder scene, it is a reasonable and logical assumption that he is guilty. No further proof is required.”
“He had a vehicle, it must be a reasonable and logical assumption that he had a valid drivers license and proof of insurance. No need for ask for any.”
“He walked into the office building, it must be reasonable and logical to assume he’s an employee. No need to present a security badge or anything.”
“He walked into the post office and knew the address, so it must be reasonable and logical to assume he lives there. We’ll just allow the change of address without any other information required.”
“He just walked out of the store with a huge cart of stuff on Black Friday. He must have bought all that. No need to show a receipt at the door to the greeters.”
I repeat my assertion. If Obama is claiming to be a natural-born US citizen, as required by the Constitution for the office of President, he is required to supply proof of his claim.
It is his claim to prove, not mine.
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Ok, fine. Turn about is fair play. Hence forward I will refer to those who call those who simply believe that the U.S. Constitution should still be followed and Obama should just release his damn birth certificate, “the Birther movement”, a little pet name of my own. I will call them the “anti-Constitutionalister movement”. So let it be written.
MB4 on December 9, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Which proper authorities verified what? The same ones who verified the qualifications for Roger Calero? Those authorities?
progressoverpeace on December 9, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Interesting choice of example. You’re proposing the “innocent until proven guilty” argument.
So if Obama is not really eligible for the presidency, has he committed a crime? Many people seem to think so.
Therefore, it is your responsibility to prove him guilty (by disproving his eligibility), not for him to prove his innocence.
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So let it be done!
(couldn’t resist)
thomasaur on December 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Roger Calero won the presidential election? Which election was that?
MadisonConservative on December 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »