Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Giving Mr. Thomas the benefit of the doubt, maybe his motive in passing on the brief to his colleagues on the court was to give them a good laugh!

Or to establish a precedent by smacking it down (or both).

Posted by: schism | November 21, 2008 10:06 AM

Does anyone know the formal legal phrasing for "Get away from me, you friggin' lunatic"?

Posted by: DaveL | November 21, 2008 10:18 AM

If there were ever a case of the statute of limitations having passed wouldn't this be it? Say the court finds that this guy's claim is 100% accurate (stay with me here). Who becomes president on Jan 20th? Or do we have another election scheduled and Bush stays president?

You might as well file a challenge to the use of US currency. It probably would have less chaotic consequences.

Posted by: Odie | November 21, 2008 10:29 AM

If Obama was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya as John Adams alleges, then Obama would not be a natural-born citizen, because his mother was not a citizen herself long enough to make his citizenship automatic.

Because Obama's mother was born in Kansas.

Was that not U.S. soil at the time? (1940s)

The humor just keeps on coming...

Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 21, 2008 10:47 AM

Odie: Say the court finds that this guy's claim is 100% accurate (stay with me here). Who becomes president on Jan 20th?

We haven't had the election yet. The real election occurs when the electors chosen at the beginning of November make their decision. Maybe the particular state law requires the electors to chose the VP candidate if the Presidential candidate is disqualified. Or maybe the state law leaves it up to them. (I think that requiring the electors to make a particular choice is itself of untested constitutionality). Or maybe the state legislature, which has the final say on the choice of electors, will choose completely different electors.

Interesting question.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 21, 2008 10:53 AM

Squid - While I agree with you on the whole issue, I think Ginger's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that IF Obama's mum left US and travelled to Kenya before she was 21, she would not have been in the US for the required seven years after her 14th birthday, and so would not be a US citizen.
Was BO's mum born 1940 or later? - curiously DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 10:57 AM

TO the present OBAMA holds DUAL CITIZENSHIP for US and for KENYA. SINCE when does this mean he has the best interest of our country in mind? here is what is on his mind and we need to make sure we don't accomodate it.

WE would say his DUAL CITIZENSHIP is a conflict of interest which highly reveals the nature of his politics. take a look and see for yourselves:

Obama, Odinga & Kenyan Jihad
by Kurt Schulzke on February 25, 2008

Last night, I reported on Barack Obama's active support of Kenyan candidate and Obama cousin Raila Odinga. What escaped mention was Odinga's explicit plan to turn Kenya into an Al Qaeda terrorist incubator. A close analysis of Odinga's MoU with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi shows that -- if Odinga had been elected as Kenyan president in the fall of 2007 -- he would have made it impossible under Kenyan law for "any Muslim arrested for or suspected of Terrorism" to be tried anywhere but Kenya under Kenyan law.

Kenyan law, in turn, would henceforth be exclusively Shariah law in "Muslim declared regions" -- the "coast" and "North Eastern regions" of the country - see the map, below -- now visited by hundreds of thousands of western tourists each year. [See Odinga, Abdi & Obama: Which Islamic MoU is real? for an updated, detailed discussion of two competing versions of the agreement.] Obama and Odinga supporters want to label as a "lie" the MoU version discussed here. However, the evidence suggests the opposite is true.

It is no coincidence that this area of Kenya borders Somalia - for many years an Al Qaeda stronghold -- site of the Clinton administration's Bay of Pigs-redux, in Mogadishu, the event that serves as the basis for the movie Black Hawk Down. Also noteworthy is Kenya's proximity to Tanzania, focus of much of George Bush's efforts to save Africa and, arguably, where Bush is today most loved in the world.

In these "Muslim declared" regions, the Odinga-Abdi agreement would outlaw - among other things - Farmer's Choice, pork, other "haram products" and "women's public dressing styles considered immoral or offensive to the Muslim faith" for all women, not just Muslims. At the same time, Odinga would establish a Sharia law court in every Kenyan "divisional headquarters." One foreseeable result of these machinations is that Al Qaeda would be safe-havened in Kenya, free to foment mahem and terror around the world. Little wonder that Louis Farrakhan has endorsed Obama for president.

The question every Democrat should be asking is how any American president - as Barack Obama seeks to become - could support a scheme so obviously designed to further the global jihad? Restated: With Americans like Obama, who needs Al Qaeda?

Conservative Republicans face a related question: In light of this information, could you in good conscience not vote for John McCain in November if the Dems stupidly choose Obama as their "daddy"?

Posted by: SassyFrassy | November 21, 2008 11:00 AM

Re odie

Article 12 of the Constitution states that the electors vote for both president and vice president. If the court finds that Mr. Obama is ineligible to serve as president, the electors will have presumably elected Senator Biden vice-president. Thus, in this scenario, Senator Biden becomes acting president on Jan. 20.

The tricky part would happen if the Court were to rule that the Obama electors were improperly chosen and excluded all such electors. Article 12 is not totally clear as to whether a majority of all electors is required to elect a president or just a majority of electors who are eligible. If the former, then no candidate can get a majority and the election goes into the Congress. Presumably, the Senate would chose Senator Biden as vice-president who would then be acting president. However, if the latter, then the remaining eligible electors would elect Senator McCain president. Given the chaos that would arise out of the latter scenario, it is doubtful that even a right wing fascist like Justice Alito would rule this way.

Posted by: SLC | November 21, 2008 11:04 AM

Does anyone think that sassyfrassy is John Adams in troll guise?

Posted by: Mike | November 21, 2008 11:08 AM

If there were ever a case of the statute of limitations having passed wouldn't this be it?

I don't think so. This is kind of like the Prop 8 litigation. The amendment/revision question was raised before the election, but the California courts refused to hear the challenge. There was no guarantee Prop 8 would pass, and if the courts had ruled on Prop 8 one way or the other, only to see it lose on election day, they would have rendered a so-called "advisory opinion"--something that most courts (California state courts included) are not allowed to do. By waiting until after Prop 8 passed, the CA courts guaranteed that there was a "live" controversy for them to decide, rather than a hypothetical one.

It's similar, but not exactly the same, here. Unlike in the Prop 8 case, the courts could have heard this case before the election without a problem (since it challenges Obama and McCain's eligibility to be on the ballot). But there's still a live controversy, since we've elected a guy who (in theory) couldn't be on the ballot in the first place.

So there's not a statute of limitations or "mootness" problem here.

Where Donofrio is much, much more likely to lose his case is on another technical requirement: standing. In order to have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered harm, and he must ask for relief that is (a) within the court's power to give and (b) actually addresses the harm caused. Donofrio will probably fail on the relief part of the equation: the only remedy that would acutally work is having the election all over again, which simply isn't possible. (I suppose that, in theory, the Court could say it was really a Biden-Palin matchup instead of an Obama-McCain matchup, but they won't do that.) So Donofrio won't have standing, and the suit will get kicked.

In fact, I think that the standing question is part of the reason Thomas agreed to present the case to the conference. The right wing of the Court hates the expanded standing rules that were created during the Warren-Brennan era. Perhaps the greatest success of the "conservative legal project" has been to roll back those standing rules and make it harder for people to sue. Thomas is probably presenting the case mainly to get a good laugh, but, on the (extremely slim) chance that it's accepted for argument, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Court's right wing use it as a project to make standing rules narrower, since everyone who's rational agrees that the underlying dispute itself is just crazy.

Posted by: Chuck | November 21, 2008 11:10 AM

WScott - see my post @10:57AM for a POSSIBLE reason.
Mike - When (s)he comes up with an argument I'll bother responding, until then the rule is: "Don't feed the trolls" -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 11:13 AM

DJ: leaving the U.S. does not revoke one's citizenship. Obama's mother was born in 1942 to American citizens on American soil (Kansas.) This makes her a U.S. citizen. Going to Kenya does not change that.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 21, 2008 11:20 AM

I think Ginger's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that IF Obama's mum left US and travelled to Kenya before she was 21, she would not have been in the US for the required seven years after her 14th birthday, and so would not be a US citizen.

since when does citizenship work that way? these seven years people keep bringing up as a requirement, what are they required for, and of whom?

i suspect people are thinking of residency requirements for people who get technical U.S. citizenship from birth, but live most of their lives abroad --- such as children born to foreign parents who happen to be honeymooning in the U.S. at the time. but do those apply to people born not only in the U.S., but to U.S. citizen parents and who are raised in the U.S. as well?

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 21, 2008 11:24 AM

Just to be clear - not only does going to Kenya not revoke citizenship, going to Kenya before you're 21 years old also does not revoke U.S. citizenship.

Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 21, 2008 11:27 AM

Wait... there's a way for a born citizen of the US to lose their citizenship if they leave the country between ages 14 and 21? That doesn't sound right to me... She was born in Kansas a citizen of the USA, had a son born in Hawaii, who is therefore also a citizen of the USA by his mother and by location. Where am I losing the thread?

Anyways, I think that the court probably took the case to affirm what we're all (trolls aside) saying. It is apparently a little unclear in the law and is something that deserves to be clarified for future children born of US parents off of US soil.

Posted by: kodiak | November 21, 2008 11:30 AM

James:

And yet, Obama has an official document from the State of Hawaii, and verified by officials of the State of Hawaii, that clearly states that he was born in Honolulu.

Me, between choosing to believe carefully kept and verified state records, and the recorded interview of some unknown by an unknown, I'm going to have to go with the state records on this.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 21, 2008 11:47 AM

Gingerbaker wrote: The regulations are pages of legalese incomprehensible to a layman, well, at least me.

There is nothing difficult about it, this is the relevant section, which was made retroactive to those born after 1952. Obama was born in 1961 so it applies to him, (or would if he had been born outside the US.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT

Sec. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United
States at birth:
g. 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.

Posted by: tomh | November 21, 2008 11:54 AM

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 Prev | Next § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth How Current is This? The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; (g) 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

So even if Obama were not born in Honolulu, his Mom was a natural born citizen her entire life and never had residence in any other country (vacations to meet the in-laws don't count).

In 1961 the statute said the bit about ten years total citizenship with five of those being after the age of 14, but, again, that doesn't apply if you've lived in the US your entire frickin' life.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 21, 2008 12:02 PM

To further Kehrsam's point - I believe that Swahili started life as a pidgin to allow trade between Muslim traders and the Bantu speaking locals^*. Eventually it became a language of it's own. Surprise! it contains both Bantu and Arabic loan-words, such as the Arabic root of the President-elect's personal name. -DJ
^*Much like English began as a pidgin of Norman-French & Anglo-Saxon (itself formerly a pidgin) thus acquiring loan-words from both (now English has loan-words from around the globe).

Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 12:12 PM

Of course, his two daughters both have a natural-born mother, so they are (regardless of where they were born) natural-born citizens.

Posted by: Umlud | November 21, 2008 12:30 PM

For the sake of completeness, here is the stateute the wingnuts think should apply. Note that it identifies US Nationals, not citizens.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1408
Prev | Next
§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
How Current is This?
Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;
(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possession; and
(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not 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 seven years in any continuous period of ten years--
(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and
(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
The proviso of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 21, 2008 12:31 PM

Kehrsam - Ok so what's the LEGAL difference between the two (just for us dummies) -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 12:36 PM

- HELLO! HOW ARE YOU?
- Please press CapsLock key
- OH, THANKS! IT'S MUCH EASIER NOW!!!

Posted by: pough | November 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Found this in the link which Dave provided.( http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html)) I don't understand what it means, but seems interesting and possibly relevant, as it distinguishes between natural born by statute vs natural born under the Constitution:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that "No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;"
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States."
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.
7 FAM 1131.6-

Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 21, 2008 12:52 PM

So wrong. Obama was born on a grassy knoll in Texas. However, he is not eligible to be president because only humans can be citizens. His father was from Epsilon 7. So, Obama is a new species, a hybrid of human and the reptile-like Epsilonian. There's a reason you never see him without a shirt. The Jewish run Illuminati have been covering this up as part of a deal they struck in 1947, known internally as the Roswell Accord. More on that later, but here's a hint. Ask yourself where the Jews get so many diamonds.

Using their puppets, the Knights Templar, more commonly known today as Freemasons, the Illuminati has slowly been eliminating every obstacle to their nefarious plan of global domination. They took out Princess Diana when she tried to leave the fold. Three men were transporting photographic proof of Obama's origin when they boarded flight Pam Am flight 103 in 1988. A dozen more were eliminated while they held what they thought was a secret meeting at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

These murders are only the most overt actions of the Illuminati, used only when their subtler forms of control fail. Using a chemical called ADO, which is supplied by the aliens, in conjunction with certain electromagnetic devices, they influence the world to believe what they want. The ADO makes people more sensitive to electromagnetic waves and susceptible to messages encoded into them. ADO is delivered in a variety of ways, like fluorinated water, Kentucky Fried Chicken (Col. Sanders was a member), various pharmaceuticals (ADHD, depression, and penis enlargement to name a few), and even airplane contrails.

Electromagnetic devices, such as cell phones, computers running MS Windows, and electric toothbrushes then deliver the messages of the Illuminati, implanting them directly into people's subconscious. It's not near the level of hypnosis. But it's enough to mostly keep people in line and the main reason most the people reading this won't accept it.

For third world countries, where this technique is of limited usefulness, the Illuminati have used other methods. Foremost is to minimize these countries ability to move against them. They foment wars and rebellions to keep them divided and in chaos. Using their puppet, the World Bank, they keep these countries in debt and economically weak. Finally they developed AIDS as a means to further isolate and oppress the people. One need only look at Africa to see the truth of this.

So what is the purpose of this entire skullduggery? It's world domination. But not just for themselves, the "chosen people" for the Epsilonians. They are terraforming the Earth to make it more hospitable to their alien benefactors. Global warming, o-zone depletion, what we call sea pollution, and the other environmental changes we've seen are stepping stones toward a world that will comfortably support they reptilian physiology. Meanwhile the Jews are being genetically modified to fit the new environment. The rest of us will eventually die off or adapt enough to survive and be used a slaves. In the end the Illuminati will get Asia and Eastern Europe. The Epsilonians will get Western Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Antarctica, what's left of it when the ice melts, will be jointly held. Finally, Australia will be destroyed toward the end of the terraforming process to ignite the ring of fire into a massive simultaneous eruption.

Standing against the Illuminati is The New World Order. They are a group of international elites, captains of industry, who fight fire with fire. They main area of control is in financial institutions in order to counter the Illuminati have considerable power arena. NWO controls the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England and other central banks, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. This is where Obama fits in.

The recent financial crisis was a carefully orchestrated attack on the NWO. Obama's task it to rebuild in such a way as to cut out the NWO maximize Illuminati influence.

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 21, 2008 1:00 PM

Come on you guys, quit clowning around. I want to get back to a serious discussion about Obama's citizenship. Oh, wait....

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 21, 2008 1:07 PM

There is a real issue as to whether "natural born" means "having US citizenship from birth, not naturalized", or "born on US soil".

Wow. Astounding.

One more reason to abolish the whole requirement.

OBAMA SAYS HIS NAME is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

These are Arabic loanwords in Swahili. Northern and eastern Kenya have had such strong Muslim influence that names like these are widespread there, not even only among Muslims!

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black.

1) Does not follow. I'm not Jewish either despite having a Hebrew first name.
2) Not only does it not follow, it also happens to be untrue. Obama's father was a Luo from both sides of his family.
3) And if it were true, which (again) it isn't, then so what? Is there something horrible about having a president of Arab descent? France has a justice minister of Arab and/or Berber descent (Rachida Dati) and hasn't descended into chaos or anything. Xenophobe.

Posted by: David Marjanović | November 21, 2008 1:12 PM

Sigmund: Since God is most definitely an American, Obama has two citizens for parents, and is thus eligible for President. His mom -- no doubt -- practiced natural childbirth. He's covered.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 21, 2008 1:24 PM

There is a real issue as to whether "natural born" means "having US citizenship from birth, not naturalized", or "born on US soil".

it's "real" in the sense that you really can ask the question. it's not "real" in the sense that there would be any doubt whatsoever as to the answer. it's been settled since the late 1700's; roughly, since the first few cases of U.S. ambassadors having children born abroad, and wanting same to have natural U.S. citizenship regardless. you'd be hard pressed to find a country that reasoned otherwise, in fact.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 21, 2008 1:26 PM

"It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen"

Of course, that deep thinker, Justice Thomas, may decide that the requirement "natural born citizen" precludes anyone born by C-section from being president.

Posted by: tomh | November 21, 2008 1:33 PM

Isn't a 'Naturally born citizen' any Citizen that was not born via caesarean? :)

Posted by: Giles | November 21, 2008 1:36 PM

Ktesibios -- I think the Dover trial is the closest you will get to that. I for one will always treasure reading the phrase "breathtaking inanity" in a court opinion.

Posted by: Dave | November 21, 2008 1:56 PM

Well Mr. Normal seems to be getting too close and must be punished......please have him confined to a small room shared with SassyFrassy. I am certain our enhanced Sons of Isrial will be able to handle the arrangements.

Posted by: E#27 | November 21, 2008 1:58 PM

Abby, you left out the Underpants Gnomes :P

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 21, 2008 2:03 PM

Thanks kehrsam and others. It still smells like BS to me, but at least I can see where there's at least the faintest hint of confusion. Which of course is all the conspiracy nuts need. Maybe it's a good thing after all that the Supremes take a look at it - not because I think the outcome is in any doubt, but just so we can settle the matter once and for all. The fact that this lawsuit questions both McCain's and Obama's eligibility should allow for a broader ruling.

Posted by: WScott | November 21, 2008 2:23 PM

Abby, you left out the Underpants Gnomes :P

Now you're just being silly. Underpants gnomes are fictional characters from a cartoon. If you can't take this topic seriously them I'm taking my psionic white noise generator and going home.

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 21, 2008 2:37 PM

I just tried posting my comment with the legal references I promised again and again it hasn't appeared. I suspect that comments with links are being held up for Ed to moderate or something, so it isn't for my lack of trying.

Posted by: Bill Poser | November 21, 2008 2:47 PM

Well, I've posted two comments each with just two links, and they haven't appeared yet either. If you're really eager, I suggest that you google "Gabriel Chin natural born citizen", which should get you to his recent paper at SSRN.

Posted by: Bill Poser | November 21, 2008 3:15 PM

Last June Obama requested and the state sent a certificate which Obama posted and was later confirmed by state officials to be legitimate. so why not file charges against the State of Hawaii. Also it was pretty neat that the two Hawaii newspapers post his birth announcement in 1961.As you conspiracy nuts claim it was a forgery you can file charges against Hawaii for sending fake documents, that should be your next step. Maybe Hawaii also sent fake death certificates for Elvis, so add that to your charge! Don't forget to charge the 2 newspapers they had to be in on this or possibly used a time machine to alter the announcements. Good luck on that Tin Man!

The sad news is that these people can acutally vote!

Posted by: richCares | November 21, 2008 3:29 PM

the framers of the constitution understood that they themselves have dual citizenship but they put in a clause, by doing so they were saying that NO ONE can have dual citizenship.

What provision of the Constitution are you referring to? I'm not aware of any Constitutional prohibition of dual citizenship, or of any legal precedent to the effect that a person born in the United States who is regarded as a citizen by another country is thereby rendered not a "natural born citizen".

Posted by: Bill Poser | November 21, 2008 3:41 PM

Bill -- Professor Chin's argument is interesting but not relevant. He claims that McCain is not a "natural born citizen" precisely because he was not a citizen by birth, but rather became a citizen at age 1 by the retroactive action of a statute passed in 1937. Professor Chin is *not* making an argument that someone who has citizenship at birth is not a "natural born citizen" if they werent born with the US, quite the contrary, he defines a "natural born citizen" as just that in the second sentence of his paper.

Posted by: Dave | November 21, 2008 3:46 PM

@ kehrsam

Wasn't there a bankruptcy judge that quoted Billy Madison in dismissing a brief for "incomprehensibility"?

Ah, yes, here's the quote that he used:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: Ranson | November 21, 2008 3:48 PM

John D, I'm very confused how you think both McCain and Obama were allowed on their party tickets at all then. Surely with all the prominent lawyers in both parties and on all sides this should have come up as a disqualifying measure from mainstream sources. How did McCain manage to run in 2000 without this coming to light? Additionally, what other citizenship does Obama currently hold (a genuine question as I have not heard this one before)?

Also Abby Normal, that's the hardest I laughed all week (though I admit I had to scroll down and make sure a real crazy person wasn't posting it in all seriousness... bah). Thanks!

Posted by: kodiak | November 21, 2008 4:01 PM

John D, phony "constitutional lawyer":

And this is the most important part, the framers of the constitution understood that they themselves have dual citizenship but they put in a clause, by doing so they were saying that NO ONE can have dual citizenship.

Oh, what clause are you talking about? I'm sure a "constituional lawyer", as you claim to be, would be able to quote the exact passage. So where is it?

I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here. No mention of dual citizenship in any context, pro or con. Only requirements listed are:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who sall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

So, John D, Mr. "constitutional lawyer", where is this double-secret hidden clause you speak of? Oh, right, it's nothing more than a figment of your diseased imagination, just like the Obama conspiracy theories and your delusion of being a "constitutional lawyer".

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 21, 2008 4:16 PM

Re Bill Poser

Then by Chins' reasoning, Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the US (Hawaii was a state at the time of this birth) while McCain is not. The problem with this is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone which was under US jurisdiction at the time. If I were arguing the case (I am not a lawyer and have no legal training; I did watch the entire O. J. Simpson trial however, for what that's worth) I would argue that the Canal Zone was not a foreign country at that time and therefore would qualify as US soil for the purposes of deciding whether McCain was a natural born citizen.

Posted by: SLC | November 21, 2008 4:25 PM

Can one of our constitutional lawyers, actual or putative, answer this.

Can the court disqualify Obama from serving as president? (after all, they did something similar in 2000.)

Is there any precedent to an actual candidate (much less one already elected) being disqualified on these grounds?

Assuming for a moment that the court finds Obama's citizenship inadequate under the constitution, and assuming that Congress would be willing, what legislative process would be necessary for creating an appropriate exception or amendment to permit Obama to serve?

And--

Whom should we kill first if Obama isn't inaugurated on schedule?

ice

Posted by: ice9 | November 21, 2008 4:29 PM

Abby:

Now you're just being silly. Underpants gnomes are fictional characters from a cartoon. If you can't take this topic seriously them I'm taking my psionic white noise generator and going home.

Posted by: FastLane | November 21, 2008 4:57 PM

Can the court disqualify Obama from serving as president?

certainly. there are no practical limits on the supreme court's powers, in this context. congress could pass a law overriding them, or maybe even introduce a constitutional amendment to override them, but that couldn't be done in the time frame needed to get any given individual into office.

Is there any precedent to an actual candidate (much less one already elected) being disqualified on these grounds?

perhaps among the minor third parties, but not from the major players, that i'm aware of. naturally, no major party would run a candidate that couldn't pass the trivial, basic vetting that would rule a person out on these grounds, anyway --- and both parties surely vet not only their own candidates, but their opponents' also, at least that carefully.

And-- Whom should we kill first if Obama isn't inaugurated on schedule?

i'm not sure, but i imagine President Biden would be less than happy with whoever was responsible in such a scenario.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 21, 2008 5:23 PM

Sorry about the "l" in McCain. I've got a friend named McClain, so I type it a lot more often.

Posted by: Lurkbot | November 21, 2008 5:35 PM

IF Obama's mum left US and travelled to Kenya before she was 21, she would not have been in the US for the required seven years after her 14th birthday, and so would not be a US citizen.

This clause applies only to kids born outside of the U.S., AND both of whose parents are not citizens.

Obama doesn't meet either prong of that test.

Face it, the election was good.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 21, 2008 5:52 PM

I was born in Heidelberg, Germany, to two U.S. citizens, and have a Certification of a U.S. Citizen Born Abroad (DS-1350) as my birth certificate. It is issued by the Department of State, and is not redeemable, no matter how many proofs of purchase I can show, for a state birth certificate in any state in the union. It is, itself, my only legal and sealed birth certificate. If Obama were not born in Hawai'i, there are no circumstances I know of that would allow him or his parents to acquire a birth certificate without this form. In addition to my certification of birth abroad, there are a number of other forms my parents had in their possession, as either originals or photocopies, such as the FS-240 (Consular Report of Birth Abroad - my parents lost the original and only a nearly-30 y/o photocopy still exists), etc.

I once had my wallet stolen. It included my driver's license and SS card. My parents only had photocopies, after many international moves, of my DS-1350 and FS-240. It took over 4 months and the aid of a small town, Midwestern bank willing to notarize letters for me based on their copies of original documents to finally get replacement material. I don't know where people get this idea that it's easy to establish citizenship when a US citizen born abroad, or that you can somehow cash in those documents for a state birth certificate, but it's clearly a myth.

Posted by: Dr. Matthew | November 21, 2008 6:30 PM

Ed Darrell: Barry Goldwater...Lowell Weicker...George Romney...Chester Alan Arthur....

Omigod! The Secret Muslim Conspiracy to Take Over the US is more widespread than we thought!

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 21, 2008 6:53 PM

James: I have no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

I understand he's buried there, too.

Lurkbot:

However, I know I'm not alone in having been told all my life that unlike any other federal office, in order to be eligible for the presidency, you have to have been born actually, physically in the United States. If this isn't true, where does everybody get it?

From their (or perhaps your) dim understanding of the phrase "natural born citizen". But, in their defense, the Constitution fails to further define the phrase itself.

Posted by: Nemo | November 21, 2008 7:16 PM

SassyFrassy
Although I was born in the US with parents that were born in the US and have Irish, Native American, Portuguese and other ancestry; I AM BLACK. I am black because of the one drop rule, that means in case you didn't know, is that I have an ancestor that was from the continent of sub-Saharan Africa. I am black because I was treated as such, live under Jim Crow. I am not given a pass as someone not treated as black, by some white folks now. I suspect you might be one of those people. Some of my ancestors may have been Muslim since many of the enemies of slave catchers were made slaves. I would also like to know how do you determine the 12% or whatever of a persons ancestry? And how do you define African Negro? Is there a subset of Negroes from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Niger, Lesotho, etc?

James,
How did Obama's Kenyan grandmother confirm his birth? Who held the seance? The Kenyan woman Obama calls his grandmother is not his biological grandmother, only one of the wives of his grandfather.

Posted by: Hathor | November 21, 2008 7:35 PM

Electromagnetic devices, such as cell phones, computers running MS Windows, and electric toothbrushes then deliver the messages of the Illuminati, implanting them directly into people's subconscious.

Posted by: Taz | November 21, 2008 8:52 PM

Abby: You showed your hand when you said he was from Epsilon 7. Why would people in another galaxy name their planet after a letter of the terran Greek alphabet. Is Greek the universal language.
Knowing you, you will probably twist this into something dirty. Thanks ahead of time.

Posted by: wrpd | November 21, 2008 9:06 PM

Ian Gould, I hadn't heard the Tau Ceti angle before. Sounds like misdirection to me. Do you have a source for that or are you just another drone spreading the lies your electric toothbrush fed you?

wrpd, Epsilon 7 is obviously our name for the planet. Much of the conspiracy remains hidden, even from me. I honestly don't know what the natives call it. Funny that you should mention universal language though. The Epsilonians unlocked it's secret long ago. In fact it forms the entire basis of their technology.

I hadn't really planned on taking this in a dirty direction. But if that's what it takes to keep you interested and open to the truth about aliens, the Illuminati, and the threat Obama poses to the world, the ship designs in the above link look a bit like cock rings.

X-Files was wrong. The truth isn't out there. It's right here, in the collected knowledge of mankind. Keep searching. Keep learning. Spread the word. Google is our last, best hope for survival.

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 21, 2008 9:49 PM

wrpd -

(I think Abby is probably no more - big fucking mouth)

It may get me in trouble, but this was such a mindbogglingly stupid comment, I just had to respond. It's so fucking obvious. Cellular memory is why. Where do you think the human race came from? Where do you think the terran alphabet came from? Like I said, cellular memories. It's all a part of the code that took us humans from single celled organisms, to where we are today - the same code that will make humans that don't break free of it and this planet, perfect fucking slaves.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 21, 2008 11:00 PM

And the award for the classiest comment (non-wingnut) goes to [Drumroll]
Ed Darrel [scattered applause].
Mr Darrel quoted me (@5:52pm). Thanks Ed, but you missed a couple of things:
1) Did you notice the first word of your quote (me @10:57am)? It was "IF", note the capitalisation for emphasis, this word means that all that follows is conditional. The first clause is the condition to be filled, the second the result IF (see, emphasis) the first clause is true (this is the condition to to filled), only THEN does the second clause comes into effect (the result of the condition being filled). Wow, soon you'll be able to get a handle on conditional & subjunctive thinking all by yourself!
2) Note I was simply trying to explain a point made by GingerBaker to Moderately Balanced Squid. IT WAS NEVER MY POSTION. (emphasis, again. See how that works?)
3) Also note my post (@11:27am) where I actually stated point 2 (above) slightly more succinctly, along with the an admission that I was wrong.
4) As a Non-US citizen and NOT a constitutional lawyer (although I OOULD claim to be, clearly any idiot can do so) I am NOT an expert in these matters, hence my (initial) confusion between 'US Citizens' and 'US Nationals'.
So thanks for showing us how the wingnuts do it. Quoting out of context to distort someone's arguement must make you feel VERY PROUD.
DINGO

Posted by: DIngoJack | November 21, 2008 11:44 PM

lol.
I'm waiting for them to ask for a toenail. I mean isn't there a theory that Malcolm X is his father? nuts. He won the election. Deal with it.

Posted by: sus | November 22, 2008 1:07 AM

The "Arab" bit is total horseshit.

The Luo migrated to Kenya from Sudan about 500 years ago.

The main Sudanese ethnic group describe themselves as "Arab" because they speak Arabic and have adopted Arab culture - but they're descendants of the pre-Muslim Nilotic people who've lived in Sudan since Pharoanic days. Check put pictures of the present Sudanese government ministers some time.

The Luo picked up lots of customs and loanwords from their Sudanese neighbours - in fact I think they were primarily Muslim until converted to Christianity by the British in the 19th century.

The whole basis for claiming he's an Arab though is that his male ancestors on his father's side had Arabic names going back something like five generations. Of course, even leaving aside the absurdity of claiming that this means they must be Arabs, unless his female ancestors on that side were all Arabs too, the genetic percentage calculations still don't even make arithmetic sense.

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to claim that John McCain is Jewish. ("john is a Jewish name. his father was named john. his GRANDFATHER was named John. He MUST be Jewish."

Posted by: Ian Gould | November 22, 2008 2:31 AM

" The first clause is the condition to be filled, the second the result IF (see, emphasis) the first clause is true (this is the condition to to filled), only THEN does the second clause comes into effect (the result of the condition being filled)"

Not true at all. In logic, the conditional

IF statement p THEN statement q

is itself true if

a) p is true and q is true
b) p is false (doesn't matter whether q is true or false)

the conditional is false if p is true and q is false.

DingoJack, better bone up on your logic.

Posted by: dean | November 22, 2008 4:19 PM

Obama should go back to Kenya, where he was born..

Posted by: virginian | November 23, 2008 4:41 PM

I hasten to remind "virginian" that the state you claim to represent actually supported Obama in this year's election. Pretend though you might, you really don't seem to represent "real Virginia" anymore. Crawl back under your rock and deal with it.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2008 7:03 PM

This issue has been going on to long. All obama has to do, is provide proof of his citizenship. That's not a difficult task. Here's my birth cert. now shut up. this would have all been dropped. instead, he has his records sealed and gets David Souter drop the case. Anyone who doesn't see a problem with this, is to stupid to be allowed to vote, or is so blinded by bush hatred, they can't see who obama really is. David Souter and any judge who doesn't rule that obama provide evidence should be removed from their position. obamas removal will likely cause a riot. obama, the dnc, and anyone else involved in the selling out of America. should be held directly responsible. obama belongs in the big house, not the white house. This is my oppinion. If I am wrong, I will gladly appoligize to obama, and accept him as my president.

Posted by: rick | November 26, 2008 2:04 PM

This is my oppinion. If I am wrong, I will gladly appoligize to obama, and accept him as my president.

Yes, I'll gladly accept the apology on behalf of President-Elect Obama... not that anyone is expecting any such thing.

Somehow I expect you to suddenly decide that seeing is NOT believing and that this birth certificate is still not good enough.

Posted by: doctorgoo | November 26, 2008 2:18 PM

This issue has been going on to long.

At least Rick got that one right. And Goo, that online BC will never satisfy Nick, just David Souter. It needs to be Vault-Certified AEIOUBC (whatever all the spaghetti is supposed to mean) and personally inspected by Clarence Thomas to pass muster, which it can't because we all know he was really born in a Muslim shrine in Kenya right after the sacrifice of a white baby whose rightful place he then assumed.

Posted by: kehrsan | November 26, 2008 2:33 PM

I apologize. I forgot to take into account that I'm dealing with people who, after seeing and hearing everything the candidates had to say; thought obama was a good choice. that being said, I'll try explaining my point of view. hopefully, you can stay with me. If you keep an open mind, you might even learn something. The birth certificate you site, is a fake, a forgery, and a bad one at that. All that other proof you speak of: nonexistant. don't believe me? want proof? just look to every single media outlet. their silence is deafening. If this proof existed, it would be in every paper, on every channel. but there's only silence. If such evidence truely existed. Obama would have produced it. if such evidence truely existed, obama, instead of petitioning for souter to dismiss the case do to lack of standing. the case would have been dismissed, due to obama providng proof that his accusers were wrong. open your eyes, because someone tells you, or shows you a picture of a unicorn, that's not proof it exists. I understand you won't believe me now, but if obama does become president; before the end of his only term, you will believe. you will remember the day this, you will remember that I told you this. an obama presidency will result in the destruction of america. thank you, your votes made it possible. morons

Posted by: rick | November 26, 2008 4:53 PM

I apologize. I forgot to take into account that I'm dealing with people who, after seeing and hearing everything the candidates had to say; thought obama was a good choice. that being said, I'll try explaining my point of view. hopefully, you can stay with me. If you keep an open mind, you might even learn something. The birth certificate you site, is a fake, a forgery, and a bad one at that. All that other proof you speak of: nonexistant. don't believe me? want proof? just look to every single media outlet. their silence is deafening. If this proof existed, it would be in every paper, on every channel. but there's only silence. If such evidence truely existed. Obama would have produced it. if such evidence truely existed, obama, instead of petitioning for souter to dismiss the case do to lack of standing. the case would have been dismissed, due to obama providng proof that his accusers were wrong. open your eyes, because someone tells you, or shows you a picture of a unicorn, that's not proof it exists. I understand you won't believe me now, but if obama does become president; before the end of his only term, you will believe. you will remember the day this, you will remember that I told you this. an obama presidency will result in the destruction of america. thank you, your votes made it possible.

Posted by: rick | November 26, 2008 5:26 PM

rick: I forgot to take into account that I'm dealing with people who, after seeing and hearing everything the candidates had to say; thought obama was a good choice.

Ha ha. And look who we are dealing with: a nutjob who, despite 8 years of Bush disasters, thinks that the Republicans would have been a better choice.

-

just look to every single media outlet. their silence is deafening. If this proof existed, it would be in every paper, on every channel.

Ha ha ha! Conspiracy theory! You know that you are dealing with a conspiracy theory advocate when the lack of evidence suddenly becomes evidence itself of how deep and pervasive the conspiracy is!

You're a nut, rick. Go to bed.

Posted by: Chiroptera | November 26, 2008 7:37 PM

Re rick

How about explaining the newspaper announcement of President Elect Obamas' birth in Hawaii. How about explaining why the authorities in Hawaii have stated that the birth certificate is genuine. Mr. rick ignores the evidence that refutes his contentions, just like the 9/11 troofers ignore the evidence that airplane collisions brought down the World Trade Center towers. Just like the HIV/AIDS deniers ignore the evidence for the relationship of HIV and AIDS. Just like the ozone depletion deniers ignore the evidence that CFCs cause ozone depletion.

Posted by: SLC | November 27, 2008 6:07 AM

man, must be hard to see with your heads that far up your asses.

Posted by: rick | November 28, 2008 1:09 AM

Re rick

Instead of making inane responses to criticism from other commentors, Mr. rick might be more persuasive, if indeed that is his aim, if he would respond to questions raised by them. For instance, Mr. rick has failed to provide an explanation for the announcement of President Elect Obamas' birth in the Honolulu Advertiser. Mr. rick has failed to provide an explanation for the statement from the Hawaiian government agency that the President Elects' birth certificate is legitimate and not a forgery. Until Mr. rick provides such explanations, he cannot seriously expect that his claims that the President Elect was not born in Hawaii will be taken seriously.

Posted by: SLC | November 28, 2008 7:01 AM

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CURRENTLY 17+ ILLEGAL ALIEN LAWSUIT'S VS. DNC,UBAMA!

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HTTP://WEB.ISRAELINSIDER.COM/ARTICLES/POLITICS/12939.HTM

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HTTP://WWW.ISRAELENEWS.COM/VIEW.ASP?ID=3324

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

democRAT!

`BARAK BARRY BARACK HUSSEIN MOHAMED ABDULLAH BIN SAETORO UBAMA`

ILLEGAL ALIEN , kenya

Posted by: c1on | November 28, 2008 7:21 PM

c1on,

Is there an argument buried somewhere in that word salad?

Posted by: DaveL | November 28, 2008 11:30 PM

I just checked out Berg's transcript where he claims Obama's grandmother says she was present at his birth in Kenya. What a shameful piece of verbal legerdemain to pull on an old woman.

Acting through a translator, the interviewer twice refers to Barack Obama as "her son", and only once as "her grandson". For those who don't know, the president-elect's father was also named Barack Hussein Obama, and most certainly was Kenyan-born.

The transcript ends immediately afterwards, and shows no attempt for the interviewer to make the distinction between father or son, nor ascertain the date of the birth she refers to.

Transcript

Is this what has the nutjobs so riled up?

Posted by: DaveL | November 29, 2008 8:42 AM

Obviously, she was present when the father was born!

Actually, not so obvious, because the tribal laws permit polygamy. The woman interviewed was one of the three wives of Jr.'s grandfather, and may therefore have not been Sr.'s birthmother.

Which presents another interesting fact. Daddy-O had a wife in Kenya when he married Barry's mum. They were married in Hawai'i. Hawai'ian law does not permit polygamy, and any marriage license granted to a person currently married is not valid. Any marriage performed in Hawai'i requires a valid marriage license, or it, too, is not valid. So it seems that the POTUS-elect's mother was not legally married at the time he was born.

The 5-years-residence-after-14 law only applies to married mothers. Unwed mothers are only required to have resided for a year in the States for their child to be given citizenship upon birth. Here's the kicker: in order to get a Certificate of Hawai'ian Birth for a child born out of Hawai'i, one of the parents had to have resided in Hawai'i for at least one year.

Which means that whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i, in order to get an Hawai'ian birth certificate, he meets the federal requirements for citizenship by birth. Of course, I have every reason to believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i as claimed, but developing a counter-conspiracy theory was fun.

P.S. In Keyes' suit, he mentions that box 7c includes foreign country as a possible place of birth. What he doesn't mention is that box 7c refers to the mother's place of birth. Don't let the wingnuts get away with this argument.

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | November 29, 2008 10:30 AM