I'm not sure,but declining to hear a case without comment doesn't sound like "dismissed on procedural grounds" Donofrio v. Wells In October 2008, Leo Donofrio, an attorney from New Jersey, filed suit to challenge the eligibility of Obama, Republican presidential candidate John McCain (see details here) and the Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.[5] Donofrio asserted that all three candidates were ineligible: Obama due to having dual U.S. and British nationality at birth (the latter via Obama's father), McCain due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Calero due to allegedly still having Nicaraguan citizenship.[54] Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born outside Hawaii.[147] Also, Donofrio did not challenge the fact that Obama is a U.S. citizen and instead challenged only whether Obama is a natural-born citizen. The case was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, the Court declined without comment to hear the case ===== Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz On October 31, 2008, Greenwich resident and health-food-store owner Cort Wrotnowski filed a suit in the Connecticut Supreme Court challenging the authenticity of presidential candidate Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. The suit was dismissed after initial hearings.[149] Wrotnowski appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 25, contending that the British citizenship of Obama's father made the president-elect ineligible to assume office. Leo Donofrio, whose earlier case against Obama's eligibility had been turned down, assisted Wrotnowski's Supreme Court appeal. The request for stay or injunction was denied without comment on December 15, 2008 . Thomas Goldstein, who has argued numerous cases before the court and covers Supreme Court cases, commented that "The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you're a natural born citizen. And that is particularly true in this case, when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama's mother
The supreme court declines to hear a majority of the cases it gets. Under jurisprudence that declination sets no precedent and can not be cited as a victory for any issue. Regarding the certification... the sentence you wrote seems to indicate the court certified the election as well... but I can see how you are spinning it now. Was the passport you posted a diplomatic passport? All this is a bit of comedy you know. Because In a few weeks texas and other states will require the proof they consider legit to get on the ballot. Rather than produce the proof I predict Obama will file suit, arguing that Federal law pre empts the states right to determine eligibility. Why do you think Obama will do that?
1. I said Congress certified the election and a Supreme Court Justice swore him in,thats not spin, its fact.Its also a fact that that makes him President of the United States 2.Obama shows his passport so of course birthers have to make up stories about that.Obamas passport does not state it is a diplomatic passport from the picture shown,what it does state is that Obamas place of birth is Hawaii USA.For his passport to say that he was born in Hawaii he had to provide proof to the federal government that he was born there 3.I doubt any such laws pass,bit it is certainly possible a few loony southern state legislators might pass such bill.What I am certain of is that Obama will be on every state ballot in 2012.I am certain that The Supreme Court will quickly give a reality check to these nutcase state legislators that if the federal government accepts a document as proof of place of birth every state will also do so.Such an act also violates the law that says states have to accept other states official documents,and Obama has provided the State Of Hawaiis official birth certificate.Obama has provided the only birth certificate that The State of Hawaii issues.
Same as everything else... If/when the truth comes out, he will be outed as a poser, phony, fraud and a LIAR!
BTW,what are your thoughts on the Army birther who was 2 years shy of full military retirement pay and benefits who is likely to go to jail,be dishonorably discharged and a convicted felon over the ridiculous birther nonsense ?
I'm thinking he was a pawn of some sort. Of who I don't know. Not terribly smart to blow chunks 2 years before pension. Now he's gonna be breaking rocks all day. But then again Army Docs ain't all that bright anyway. They do join the Army because they can't get into a decent Medical School.
An O-5 simply does not do that. 18 years of service would suggest that he would be smarter than that.
Look at Orly Taitz, she is apparently a Dentist, Lawyer and Real estate agent, or Look at the small number of engineers who are willing to throw a career and their percieved intelligence on the line in order to support ridiculous 9/11 theories. There is something about conspiracy theorists which allows some of these otherwise hardworking and sane individuals to throw caution to the wind, and blow out their entire career based on an absurd Idea. Often times i also find myself wondering how someone can work their way through the entire process of becoming sucessful(which requires people skills and sanity) only to make themselves look like a total lunatic based on a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I dont understand it either because while i have met many people who are successful who have minor quirks it seems very seldom that you meet a successful person who has no concept of logic whatsoever, infact i can honestly say i have never met a successful person who could not apply logic to anything they did. My only prediction would be that people like this have some warped sense which is totally devoid of logic that they will one day end up being a true hero for the history books and thats what drove them to get to the point of being successful and also made them look like a lunatic when they took their shot.
1. Would please show me where Obama himself has proffered a birth certificate to anyone and said that the birth certificate is accurate. You seem to confuse - his campaign (which is not him) with him. 2. When you say everyone has certified him... what exactly did they certify... what evidence did they rely on 3. A supreme court justice swore him in... does that really mean anything. He bumbled the oath does that mean anything? (this seems like throw away point to me.) 4. Does HI have the originals.. they said yes.. So if you are attempting to figure out if he is a natural born citizen and you are a court of law... you will ask to see the originals. If you are issuing a drivers license you might accept a current HI birth certificate but that does not mean you have to accept it as proof of birth place.... not when there original docs... You seem to confusing a valid certificate with proof... Proof frequently comes from the best form of evidence.