Friday, December 19, 2008

SCOTUS to hear Obama case Jan. 9

Berg's writ. It's not over. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is constitutionally illegible to serve. Not that he would serve, anyway. More like "rule."


Christie said...

Here's another Wikipedia link that has some info on the various cases being brought up against Obama on the grounds he is ineligible:

Elizabeth Prata said...

LOL, it surely could be a fringe conspiracy theory...

Though Obama admitted being a British citizen at birth, that was in his book.

And the folks bringing the lawsuits are solid, credible people, spending time and money to bring this issue forward to the highest levels.

Fringe issues don't usually make it to the mainstream, persist, and gain traction.

It is a valid question: are you a citizen? So valid, that a Kansas legislator introduced a bill to the House requiring proof if identity for anyone running for State office, a birth certificate and a photo ID.

Christie said...

Whoops, this is the link that I found more interesting:

Particularly the Case Law section that discusses various cases that have set precedent for issues regarding someone's status as a natural born citizen.

I guess it all comes down to semantics and which attorney can argue better in court. On the one hand, Obama's mother was an American citizen so certainly it can be argued that no matter where Obama was born, he retains his natural born status. If I had given birth outside of the country, Henry would be a natural born citizen, as well he should be. Although he also might have the option of later (when he's a legal adult) choosing to become a citizen of the other country in which he was born. (And, depending on that country's law, he might already be a citizen of that other country.) On the other hand, some of the lawsuits concede Obama was born in Hawaii but somehow lost his citizenship because his parents moved. In both situations, the courts have been reluctant to strip someone of their natural born citizenship.

I'm curious to know which argument against his being a n.b.c. you find most compelling.

And still, no one I've found has a good explanation for why the short form which has been released is not a valid document. For every one stating it is a forgery, there is a source saying it is not, including the Hawaii records folks.

Whatever the case, I'm fascinated by the whole thing.