The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on December 08, 2008, 10:02:14 AM
-
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
-
I'm hoping that the system will at least put on a show of working, but I fear that this will be swept under the carpet like the issue with Mrs. Clinton's nomination for Secretary of State.
-
(http://guntotingliberal.com/images/backobamacitizenshipsupremecourt.jpg)
-
Gee - This is such a suprise. The Supreme Court is political, not apolitical as was intended. And it will get worse as BHo & Biden 'pre-qualify' their appointees!
Reminds me of the Supreme Court episode on Boston Legal .... what a joke! In spite of Heller, which was a landmark & only a toss to the constitutionalists - they can't wait to rescind that either given a chance.
-
They pushed the wrong case, even if B Ho WAS born in Kenya it doesn't matter as The Brits recognize "Dual Citizenship:" also this case was discredited by including McCains birth in Panama, both his parents were US citizens and he was born in a US hospital in the Canal Zone which at that time was US territory. The case to push would have been Berg's that he lost his US Citizenship when his mother remarried in Indonesia, which DOES NOT recocognize "dual citizenship.
-
Surely nobody here is terribly surprised that this will go unanswered. Or am I just cynical?
-
This from former minor party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin:
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.
Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html
-
John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081209.html
Panama TODAY is a soverign and independent state in all respects of its geography. But 72 years ago wasn't the Canal Zone a US Territory by treaty....correct me if wrong but I thought Mac was born in the zone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay-Bunau_Varilla_Treaty
Also from Wiki...
Formative years and education
John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.[3]
-
Having read a number of different sources, I couldn't tell if the canal zone was a US territory or not.
Who knows if McCain had won weather the dems would have made an issue out of it or not.
I do think the evidence that Barry is not qualified by birth to be president is more compelling.
-
The Canal zone was a US territory from the time TR signed the treaty until jimmy carter gave it away for our Bicentennial.
"That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.""
BS,
-
The Canal zone was a US territory from the time TR signed the treaty until jimmy carter gave it away for our Bicentennial.
"That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.""
BS,
It has been my understanding that if your parents were both US citizens at the time of your birth, you are a US citizen.
I cannot believe that all the children of military families stationed overseas are not US citizens.
-
It has been my understanding that if your parents were both US citizens at the time of your birth, you are a US citizen.
I cannot believe that all the children of military families stationed overseas are not US citizens.
It is correct that you are a citizen if your parents are both citizens. However, I have a friend that had a son while stationed in Turkey. The son did a high school paper on the requirements of becoming President. As part of the research he used himself, and learned from offices in DC that even though his parents were both citizens and were living temporarily in Turkey on a military base when he was born, that he was still ineligable to hold office where birth in the U.S. is required.
-
It does not say "Birth in the US is required", it says "Natural born citizen", meaning not naturalized. Funny part of it is, of the guys who wrote that clause , including Jefferson himself, none were BORN US citizens, even if they were born here.
-
It does not say "Birth in the US is required", it says "Natural born citizen", meaning not naturalized. Funny part of it is, of the guys who wrote that clause , including Jefferson himself, none were BORN US citizens, even if they were born here.
I'd say attendance at the American Revolution gave them a pass on that one.
An interesting thought though....a Sci-Fi book, Starship Troopers, listed service in the Armed Forces as a requirement to vote.
-
I'd say attendance at the American Revolution gave them a pass on that one.
An interesting thought though....a Sci-Fi book, Starship Troopers, listed service in the Armed Forces as a requirement to vote.
Wondered if any one would comment on that detail, Like our "God given unalienable" right to keep and bear arms, they predate the founding of the Nation ;D
Great book, lots of deep thoughts hidden in there.
-
A little new developement.
WND THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Kenyan government imposes gag order on Obama family
No media contact: 'We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information'
Posted: December 20, 2008
6:50 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Mama Sarah Obama
Gagged: Mama Sarah Obama
The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's extended family.
Family members will be required to receive permission from the government before making any public statements about their famous relative, according to the Nairobi Star.
"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information," Athman Said, an under-secretary in the Ministry of Heritage, told the Obama family in Kogelo.
"The government has decided that you should inform its officers who will be based here if you want to address the media."
Journalists wishing to speak with the family must first be approved by the government.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84172
-
Ministry of Heritage,
WTF ? Might be a good idea if we were talking about preserving historic places.
-
I still say that it is so simple to make this whole controversy go away that the red flags must fly everywhere.
All he (the messiah, BHO, Pres Elect, the chosen one, etc.) has to do is come forward with a couple simple to obtain pieces of paper. If everything is legit why doesn't he just provide the proof?
He either has something to hide, or he is playing the game of being so much better than the average American that he doesn't need to be "transparent" in our eyes.
-
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
I haven't heard anything new about this. Has the Supreme Court reached a decision yet or will this just flame out like a candle?
-
They blew it off. Said the burden of proof is on the accuser to present evidence that he is NOT a citizen . It does go along with "innocent until proven guilty" but you would THINK that you would need to verify your immigration status to run for President since I have to to get a job as a machine operator. But I guess either the "Elite" are special, or they DO require proof of citizenship.
For my work Social security number and photo ID are sufficient, those would not have reflected the things that were brought into question. Some one who comes into the country under age could lie about place of birth which would get them an SSN then they might as well have been born here for paperwork purposes, it would require checking individual birth records to disprove and that is not always possible.