Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

Congress: Yes, Obama Was Born in Hawaii



5182726Yesterday, an innocuous-sounding resolution in honor of the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood came up for vote on the House floor.

The resolution from Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie, which Greg Sargent first reported, included this line: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii…"

Why is that notable? Because it's just the sort of claim that angers the birthers – the movement of folks who believe, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that President Obama was not really born in Hawaii, and is thus not a U.S. citizen.








http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/28/hawaii-declares-obama-birth-certificate-real/

Hawaii Again Declares Obama Birth Certificate Real


HONOLULU -- State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.

They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."








Rhodes v. Macdonald

In September 2009, Taitz, filed Rhodes v. MacDonald (Colonel Thomas MacDonald - Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, Georgia) on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician, sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land (the same judge who heard Cook v. Good) rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous.[50]

Within hours of Land's decision, Taitz told the news site Talking Points Memo that she felt Land's refusal to hear her case was an act of treason.[51] Two days later, she filed a motion to stay Rhodes' deployment pending rehearing of the dismissal order. She repeated her treason allegations against Land and made several other intemperate statements, including claims that Land was aiding and abetting purported aspirations of "dictatorship" by Obama.[52] Land rejected the motion as frivolous and ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process.[53]

Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[57] On March 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz.[58] On August 9, 2011, the federal government filed an abstract of judgment, a document placing a lien in the amount of $20,000 plus interest on all her real property,[59] prompting Taitz to say, "I will pay the money, and I will continue fighting."[60] On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.









Hollister v. Soetoro

On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[35] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[21] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.






Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court administering the oath of office to The President of the United States Barack Obama

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/


Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn't Need a Birth Certificate




According to Romney family lawyers it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or even Paris: Because his mother was an American (and not even Donald Trump questions that), he is eligible to be President.

The Romney lawyers investigated this question in the 1960s, when Mitt Romney’s father, Governor George Romney of Michigan, was vying for the Republican presidential nomination. George Romney had been born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, as his grandfather moved there with his wives in the 1880s after polygamy was outlawed in the U.S.

While some opponents nicknamed him “Chihuahua George,” his suitability for the highest office because of his birth was never seriously challenged. The reason his campaign faltered was because of his shift in position on the Vietnam War: He went from being a supporter to opposing it, infamously claiming to have been “brainwashed” by military officials. After that Richard Nixon’s lead in the polls more than doubled.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” and so the question is: Does natural born citizen mean born a citizen or born in the U.S.? The Founding Fathers were of course aware of both jus soli (birthright citizenship) and jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage), but deliberately wrote “natural born” rather than something like “born on U.S. soil,” arguably to include children born to U.S parents outside the country.

The first Congress of the United States (which included many of the Founders) furthered this interpretation, when, in 1790, they passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act, stating that: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” (In 1795 Congress however passed a new act stating that: “… the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”)

Originally the passing of citizenship to children only applied through one’s father, which is why George Romney (born 1907 in Mexico to an American father) was automatically a U.S. citizen, while Winston Churchill (born 1874 in England to an American mother) wasn’t. Only in 1934 did Congress change the law so that citizenship automatically passed through one’s mother as well.


A few years ago, while writing an article on the subject, I consulted several top constitutional lawyers on whether someone born a U.S. citizen but outside the country could run for the presidency. I got three different answers. James Ho, a Dallas-based constitutional lawyer (who recently served as Solicitor General of Texas), told me that the “bottom line is that there is no 100% right answer of what natural born citizen means,” but said he thought that place of birth is the dominant view.

Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor, however, took the Romney family line, and said that natural born should be interpreted as having a “fairly strong connection to the territory of the United States,” and therefore children of citizens born abroad “probably ought to be treated as natural born citizens.”

The third view was taken by Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California. He felt that “natural born means citizen at the moment of birth,” and so it depends what Congress decides it means. (This view he thought was the “majority opinion among jurists.”) According to this approach Congress could tomorrow make every single illegal immigrant a natural born citizen (don’t tell Lou Dobbs), and of course it could restrict who is natural born too. This view, like the previous one, supports the Romney family line.

It’s only an extreme portion of the population that doesn’t believe Obama was born in the U.S., and this question isn’t really relevant to him. It does show, however, how far removed from reality the so called “birthers” (the name given to people who question Obama’s birth), and supporters like Donald Trump, are. On their website they claim (in bold letters): “We seek strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless to the momentary passions of the body politic.” A closer look at the constitution may reveal that they’re the ones with the momentary passions.

Daniel Freedman is the director of strategy and policy analysis at The Soufan Group, a strategic intelligence consultancy. His writings can be found at www.dfreedman.org. He writes a fortnightly column for Forbes.com.

 

Oh.

I guess I thought that the electoral college could ask for a notarized copy when they count up the delegates. It should have been sorted out between the election and the inauguration.

Obama could just supply a notarized copy to the judge in Georgia but then he would have to do that for every court in the country. It should just be settled before they take office. What a mess. So it has to trickle up to the SCOTUS and then he'll supply the notarized copy?

 

"He is a bottomless cup of daft." LoL.
You're quite right of course.....

 

The law in Georgia is a state law. I haven't read the statute but it seems an individual wanting to be on the GA ballot for a federal position can be challenged over his eligibility to be on the ballot. If that person is judged not to have demonstrated his eligibility he cannot be on the ballot.

If the GA court has ruled against that person and the Sec. of State of GA agrees that person is then not on the ballot. Of course, this can be appealed through state courts and then probably through federal court.

Of course, Obama is going to have to show he is a natural born citizen in the appeals. The losing party (the challenger or the Obama) can probably get appeals courts to keep the appeals going until it gets to the SCOTUS to finally make a decision on the natural born citizen question.

 

Birthers don't even have a challenge. All they do have is an invalid hysterical claim , perpetuated mainly for various very sad political purposes.

 

I see.

Crazy. You could have a general election ballot in Georgia without the incumbent on it? Its madness. The electoral college should certify presidents before inauguration so they can show their documents one time and be done with it.

If I was a sitting President I doubt I would let a state court judge drag me in a courtroom either.

My gripe is that there are people who think this is a surrogate for defeating the guy in an election. They think they can get a judge to just declare that Obama has to pack up and leave the whitehouse.

 

The courts have dealt with loons before. You can't get away with internet b.s. Look at the beauty of this code. Sitting there all along... calling bullshit on all you loons.

Produce the evidence for the court, or accept the charge is well founded.



Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-1-2

The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. The rules of evidence are framed with a view to this prominent end, seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence.


Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-4-22


If a party has evidence in his power and within his reach by which he may repel a claim or charge against him but omits to produce it, or if he has more certain and satisfactory evidence in his power but relies on that which is of a weaker and inferior nature, a presumption arises that the charge or claim against him is well founded; but this presumption may be rebutted.


http://law.onecle.com/georgia/24/index.html

 

They are supposed to be vetted by the party. In the 2008 election the Democratic party strangely left out the statement that Obama was qualified to serve as President on the party certification to each state.

It is supposed to say:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

But the bold part above was NOT on the democratic certification for Obama. It WAS on the certification letter for McCain.

 

Wow.

Well, the dems don't feel they have to submit budgets or gain congressional approval for appointees or any of that pesky constitutional stuff so it makes sense.