Comments on: Obama “Natural Born” Goes SCOTUS Round 3

By: gaetano

gaetano — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:46:15 +0000

Have a good time at the inauguration,all you idiots.Even if I had voted for obamma ,I wouldn`t want to be any where near him.You must be crazy to risk you lives.I`ll just watch it on t.v.

By: John Adams

John Adams — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:28:23 +0000

The Supreme Court has not "thrown out" these cases, nor have they raised the lack of standing to bring the case. The SC has held conferences where they decided not to take these cases for hearing. The SC takes a fraction of the cases that are submitted to them.

The lack of standing arguments have been used in the lower courts to dismiss the cases, such as in Berg, and not at the SC level.

By: Captain Steve

Captain Steve — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:04:14 +0000

OBAMA, STOP STONEWALLING. SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PAST RECORDS!!

Obama has complete authority and ability to put the birth certificate controversy to rest. He can start by SHOWING THE WHOLE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE! For whatever reason, he has chosen not to. Obama can clear this up by releasing his records but chooses to resist that via legal wrangling. He has the power to easily prevent the next eight years being fraught with this controversy. Why doesn’t he resolve the issue now?

I have to ask myself, why doesn’t he release the true and complete records of his birth? The most logical answer is that he does in fact have something to hide.

He promised the most open and transparent administration ever. It's looking like that was a politics-as-usual pre-election lie.

I WANT TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!

By: Johann

Johann — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:21:19 +0000

@ Pat

Exactly. There is a huge difference between lack of standing and lack of merit – totally different concepts.

I think SCOTUS is playing an extremely dangerous hand and could in actual fact set some precedent with disastrous consequences for the constitution. It is one thing throwing out any other case for lack of standing, but to go down that route when you are dealing with principles which uphold the constitution of the country, is a totally different ball game.

By: Dalton Fury

Dalton Fury — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:29:56 +0000

The Supreme Court only cares about generating its own controversy when it suits a personal agenda. Dismissing suits based on lack of standing and tossing suits without having first been answered says they don’t want to be involved, and no one can make them. They know the documented evidence is flimsy at best from the 1950’s and they can’t say anything clearly based upon it. And, other points Berg argues are very sticky points of international law interpretation that can go either way when not subject appeal, so they will take the easy road and avoid the whole mess. They avoid because they can’t make an ironclad fact pattern to defend Hussein’s natural not “naturalized” citizenship status. As for why the matter before the spineless and useless Supreme Court still has traction, Barack’s family affiliations and travel record are just too hard to swallow from a common sense perspective. When is the last time the President had wretchedly poor relatives in awful countries claiming to see his birth there? I’m not convinced the man meets the intent of the Constitution even if he can show one hospital name, a unique birth time, and un-altered birth certificate. I want the Supreme Court to construct an answer where Hussein’s father, mother’s age, travel history, and birth certificate all definitively make him a natural born citizen, but they never will, and that’s my real problem with this mess.

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:23:23 +0000

Maine Skeptic – SCOTUS has not “thrown out the case”, they have refused to hear it for lack of standing. Refusing to hear a case is not throwing it out for lack of merit. If the case get’s heard and the Messiah is ordered to produce his long form birth certificate then the court will rule. Don’t get to happy with yourself because somebody with proper “standing” may yet come along and force SCOTUS to stop ignoring the case and the Constitution.

By: John Adams

John Adams — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:22:11 +0000

Sorry, Obama could easily produce a copy of the vault or long form birth certificate for $10.00. To date there has only been worthless circumstantial evidence offered such as the short form Certification of Live Birth, the announcement in the news paper, etc. But the one document that could prove this is the vault or long form birth certificate which the State of Hawaii has announced they are holding. We all know it is there and is available but Obama refuses to do so?

Once again, here is the Hawaiian land program that shows how to obtain a copy of the birth certificate, and it notes that it does not accept what Obama produced as it requires additional research. It is the fact that the short form Certification of Live Birth produced by Obama does not include any verifiable facts such as the name of the hospital, doctors or witnesses. Read pages 7-11:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

The comments trying to argue against Obama producing his birth certificate are a slap in the face to the Constitution. This has nothing to do about race, sour grapes (this was first raised by Hillary as far back as February of 2008). This should have been resolved by Obama and the Democratic Party well before the election to avoid the crisis we are now facing of an ineligible President elect. Obama knows if he is eligible or not, he is a Constitutional attorney. If he is proven to be ineligible, even if he takes the oath of office, he will not be able to serve and will be forced to leave the White House. That will create a crisis as any acts he takes will be null and void. This needs to be resolved before he takes he oath of office.

There are still numerous lawsuits in various stages around the country. The Berg case is set for a conference with the Supreme Court on Jan.16, 2009. Alan Keyes has filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court Case 80000096 and as Keyes was on the ballot with Obama his case is not susceptible to the lack of standing issue that most of the other lower court cases were dismissed under.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:24:00 +0000

The birth certificate is not the issue . . . even Berg says so. Obama was born in Hawaii and that is not refuted by Berg. Opening the Hawaiin birth certificate vault will do nothing to settle the Berg complaint. But does Obama’s foreign father and foreign step-father somehow disqualify him as being natural born because of foreign influence, abandoning US citizenship, dual citizenship, etc. Perhaps those questions should be answered once and for all by the Supreme Court.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:06:46 +0000

vma224, is Obama still paying you to come on to web sites and spread his propaganda? He’s wasting his money.

By: Janet

Janet — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:02:40 +0000

wahine, you are wrong. There are 2 different certificates in Hawaii. One is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, for those born in Hawaii. And then there is the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH for those whose parents say they are born in Hawaii, or say they were born overseas, and the document used for certified duplicates.