SCOTUS Won’t Hear Obama Citizenship Case

Just another way to try and steal this election. Love the last line.

It seems unfortunate that people who are concerned for the constitutionality of an election should be classed as “Conspiracy Freaks”.

From my reading of the issue, there is a real concern as to the legitimacy of Barack Obama's status as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Hawaii allows for a recently born child to be registered in their state and to receive a “Certificate of Birth” which is different from a “Birth Certificate”.

IF Obama's unwillingness to provide undeniable proof of his birth IN Hawaii, and IF the US Supreme Court refuses to perform their duty as a guardian of the Constitution, then all that is left to the People of the United States is to 1) rely upon Congress to protect our Constitutional way of life or 2) to take the power back from the govenment as was declared in our countries founding documents.

If the people of the United States believe it is proper for a President to be above the law, and are unwilling to fight for the Constitution that this country was founded upon, then it would appear that our constitutional way of life is hanging by a thread.

Assuming that Obama is a legitimate candidate for the office of President, I have no problem with his taking the Oath of Office. However, he should not be ABOVE the very law he is swearing to uphold when he takes that oath. The same goes for McCain.

But in either case, name calling shows a lack of responsibility from a journalist, assuming that the author of this article is one.

I completely agree with Dean and how I have yet to see his birth certificate verified. However, I was always under the idea that if one of their parents were from that country and still legal citizens that they would be granted 'natural born status.'

For instance, if you had one parent from Colorado and the other from Paris, France and they happened to be taking a short vacation in Toronto say and you were born, you were still considered a natural born citizen.

I did not intend “conspiracy freaks” as an insult, but rather a statement of fact.

The conspiracy: Without a shred of evidence supporting their position, and despite a mountain of evidence refuting it (the certification of live birth, Hawaiian officials vouching for the existence of Obama's birth certificate among state records, a birth notice in a Honolulu newspaper), some people irrationally cling to the ridiculous and, indeed, refuted notion that Obama is ineligible for the presidency and something improper and/or sinister is going on here.

Webster's Dictionary defines “freak” as “a person who is obsessed with something” — such as, say, the pursuit of a frivolous lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.

I think “conspiracy freak” is a perfectly reasonable term for such people.

But, as I said, better luck next time.

Mr. DeLong,

I have served our country faithfully, including being deployed for both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom I. I love the Constitution and I love our country. I know what it means to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have been all over the world, and truly believe that the U.S. is the best place on earth. The Lord knows we have our problems, but it is still the only country I want to call home. I give this information so you will understand that I do not speak about upholding the Constitution lightly. I did not vote for either Senator McCain or President Elect Obama. I could not in good faith cast my vote for either candidate because I disagreed with both candidates on various issues and personally believe a vote cast for the 'lesser of two evils' is a wasted vote. As a citizen of our democratic Republic, that was my God-given right. Just like it is my right, and responsibility, as a citizen to ensure that the individual serving as President of our Republic is qualifed to do so according to the Constitution. This has nothing to do on a personal level with President Elect Obama. If Senator McCain had won the election, and the same issue was raised, I fully expect him to prove his eligibility. No one is above the Constitution.

Mr. DeLong, I do not want our country to be divided over such a ridiculous issue which could be easily addressed and settled for good. I sincerely hope, that when I say divided I am talking about a small group, the ones you so eloquently term 'conspiracy freaks'. I do not want 'these people' to have even a shred of an arguement to cling to for the next 4-8 years of President Elect Obama's Presidency. I want to be able to say to people who do not support him, 'I understand if you do not support his views on issues, but he is the lawfully elected President, and as such, it is our duty to support him.'

I am sure President Elect Obama is a legal citizen of the United States, as I would fully expect the DNC to have done their due diligence and ensure he was eligible to run for the POTUS before nominating him to do so. My concern Mr. Delong is that the President Elect, as a citizen of the United States, has refused to prove his eligibility to be President when asked to do so by another citizen.

I will fully support the President of the United States, regardless of my personal opinions, because that is my responsibility as a citizen. But as President, he has the responsibility to the citizens of this country to prove his eligibility when asked.

Section 1401 states that “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…” Even if one assumes Obama was born in Hawaii, the lawsuit is not that of deranged conspiracy theorists, but actually raises an interesting legal challenge that asks the Court to define the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in section 1401 and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Most assume that “subject to the jurisdiction” means the person is subject to US criminal prosecution, which would include most everyone. However, numerous sources from the time period during which the 14th Amendment was adopted imply otherwise. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s parents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act. In fact a Senator involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated: “[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Numerous other Senators during the confirmation process made similar statements explaining the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction.” This understanding was confirmed by the Courts in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), but a subsequent case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held otherwise. There are numerous legal scholars that challenge the “birth right” citizenship afforded to the children of illegal aliens born on US soil, and, in fact, Justice Alito refused to discuss his opinion on the subject during his confirmation process, because he recognized that there was a possibility that a case on the subject might come before him. All this assumes that citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment is the same as “natural born citizen” as used in Article II section 1. However, the Supreme Court has never ruled on that issue and that assumption is fraught with problems. The preeminent treatise on international law at the time that the Constitution was ratified was “The Law of Nations,” by Emerich de Vattel. This treatise has recently been cited by Justice Scalia as relevant in interpreting the meaning of the US Constitution. In it de Vattel states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” So, even assuming Obama was born in Hawaii (leaving the conspiracy of a false certification of live birth aside) there are still interesting legal issues. Is the son of a British subject born in the US (who at time of birth was a dual US / UK citizen) a “natural born citizen” as used in Article II, Section 1. The answer is far from clear, and, frankly, appears to be above your pay grade. I recommend that people address this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and debate it with facts and legal arguments and not dismiss it with ad hominem attacks of “conspiracy freaks.” Thank you.

Barack Obama was born in Oahu, in Hawaii, the 50th state in the USofA, in August 1961. That makes him a citizen of the United States.

See Certification of Live Birth at http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcerti… and then stop this ridiculous nonsense.

President-elect Obama's citizenship has been verified and certified. Those who continue their absurd pursuit of this bogus argument that he is not legally qualified to be president are beginning to sound certifiable.

Matt and all of your Left Wing Whackos…here are the facts…yes facts…not inuendo and propagando you spew in an effort to derail the truth coming to light…

It shouldn't come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.

I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.

The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).

There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation is unconscionable at best. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. The US Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.

When a lawsuit is first filed, it's time for allegations, and it's too soon for evidence. Evidence can be obtained in “discovery” but only if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Otherwise we have a chicken-and-egg situation: can't file the lawsuit without having the birth certificate and/or other document(s) in hand, and can't subpoena the documents without first having a lawsuit filed.

No point talking to you, really, DeLong, but this may be helpful to someone:
1. An online jpg is not evidence. If you accept such a thing as evidence, you're just playing pattycake and making sandcastles. If you believe every picture you see online, try this: http://www.russpage.net/obamapalin-dancing-with…
2. Whoever read you that Hawaii announcement misrepresented it. It said only that a birth certificate was “on file.” Said NOTHING about what was in it. Didn't even say that the officials had actually looked at the certificate (they may have looked at an index, we can't tell from the announcement.)
3. I dunno about the birth notice. Newspapers don't accept phone calls? Anyway, try bringing a newspaper announcement with you to the DMV and see how far it gets you.
Pretty small mountain, huh?

Mr. DeLong, next time you borrow that dictionary, you ought to look up “conspiracy.” No one has alleged a conspiracy — only one liar and a lot of people looking the other way. Everybody has maintained plausible deniability. (Even Mr. O, cuz he can always say he doesn't remember being born and he hasn't actually read his birth cert.)

When a lawsuit is first filed, it's time for allegations, and it's too soon for evidence. Evidence can be obtained in “discovery” but only if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Otherwise we have a chicken-and-egg situation: can't file the lawsuit without having the birth certificate and/or other document(s) in hand, and can't subpoena the documents without first having a lawsuit filed.

No point talking to you, really, DeLong, but this may be helpful to someone:
1. An online jpg is not evidence. If you accept such a thing as evidence, you're just playing pattycake and making sandcastles. If you believe every picture you see online, try this: http://www.russpage.net/obamapalin-dancing-with…
2. Whoever read you that Hawaii announcement misrepresented it. It said only that a birth certificate was “on file.” Said NOTHING about what was in it. Didn't even say that the officials had actually looked at the certificate (they may have looked at an index, we can't tell from the announcement.)
3. I dunno about the birth notice. Newspapers don't accept phone calls? Anyway, try bringing a newspaper announcement with you to the DMV and see how far it gets you.
Pretty small mountain, huh?

Mr. DeLong, next time you borrow that dictionary, you ought to look up “conspiracy.” No one has alleged a conspiracy — only one liar and a lot of people looking the other way. Everybody has maintained plausible deniability. (Even Mr. O, cuz he can always say he doesn't remember being born and he hasn't actually read his birth cert.)

You make a false assertion………..according to federal law, anyone born in the United States is a citizen by birth, or in other words, “natural born.”

Please show me where a natural born citizen is defined in these description of 'legal citizens'.

You can not argue that a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen are one in the same. The 'Qualification Clause' indicates an 'Expressed difference'.