On February 2, 2009, Attorney Philip J. Berg’s case Berg v. Obama,
in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, was referred to a Merits Panel.
Thanks to the The Right Side of Life website for the heads up.
“Attorney Philip J. Berg, the Plaintiff in his Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Berg v. Obama, yesterday had his case referred to a Merits Panel. Below is a posting from FreeRepublic.com regarding the PACER docket:
12/09/2008 Open Document ORDER (SCIRICA, Chief Judge and AMBRO, Circuit Judges) denying Appellant’s Motion an Immediate Injunction to Stay the Certification of Electors, to Stay the Electoral College from Casting any Votes for Barack H. Obama on December 15, 2008, and to Stay the Counting of any votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution of Appellant’s Appeal. Panel No.: ECO-16. Scirica, Authoring Judge. See Order for complete text. (CH)”
“01/28/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring Motion by Appellee Federal Election Commitee For Summary Affirmance to the merits panel. It is noted that Appellant filed his brief and appendix on January 20, 2009, counsel for Appellee Federal Election Committee, is directed to inform this office in writing within seven (7) days from the date of this order if they intend to file a brief or rely on the Motion for Summary Affirmance in lieu of a formal brief, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH)
02/02/2009 Open Document CLERK ORDER referring the Response of Appellant to Appellee Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance to the merits panel, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL. (CH) [emphasis from posting]”
“My non-attorney take is that the Clerk has decided (based on the type of case and protocol thereof) to refer Berg’s case to a Merit Panel where, not surprisingly (!), the merits of the case will be considered prior to their being a judgment made (the document goes into more detail on how all of this could transpire: the kind of judgment, the process for making said judgment, etc.).
Does this mean anything in terms of the content of the case? I’m going to say it doesn’t, and instead say this is part of the process. However, I’m sure a number of the lawyer types that have been producing copious amounts of commentary on my blog (thanks for that!) will be happy to extrapolate more judicial theory on this issue.
-Phil”
Read more here:
Citizen WElls 
Very interesting. Thanks CW. I’m not an attorney so I’ll defer speculating.
Here’s an interesting commentary about Obama literally turning up the heat in the Oval Office and asking others to conserve:
http://wbztv.com/video/?id=72446@wbz.dayport.com
Has obama ever been asked directly if he is a natural born citizen?I do not think so.Everything people are asking him to provide has been sealed.Instead of asking for anything to prove he is someone needs to ask obama are you a natural born citizen?Obama has not answered this question because he has never been asked.Someone needs to ask obama this question and have his answer recorded.This may be harder to accomplis then getting him to unseal all his records.So who is able to ask him this question?Think about it!
indirectly obama responded by signing Rhode Islands SOS paperwork where he certifies he is eligible to be POTUS per the Constitution.
New AOL poll–Should Obama build a basketball court at the White House?
Vote here:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/03/hot-seat-white-house-basketball-court/
Somehow, that seems positive to me.
Usually they just dismiss everything, and never give anything a chance. Could this be what we are waiting for?
It’s easy to ask. It just requires someone in the Press Corps at the White House to do so.
That’s the tough part. If someone knows anyone who’s a member that would be helpful.
CW, I am not exactly sure what this all means, hopefully not a stall tactic. There is much corruption in our government for us to deal with, so hopefully this will speed up correcting the President issue sooner than later.
CW, are you going to do a column or something on New Hampshire’s Resolution?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
Kim.
I read the NH Resolution quickly and want to revisit it.
I am very busy on many fronts. Still playing catchup.
We got in the mess we are in over many years.
It will take some time to fix things.
Hi CW, I’m new here but have been following all the developments. Thank you for this site.
This is a bit off-topic for this particular blog, but I’ve never seen it addressed so I’ll ask: When BO went on his little junket overseas before the election, did he need a passport? If so, did the U.S. issue it? Blindly?
This has no particular significance. It is routine. The three judge panel will decide if oral argument is necessary to decide the case or whether the court can decide the case on the basis of the briefs and the record alone.
In Obama’s acceptance speech(or one of recent his speeches) he verbally admits to being the son of a Kenyan. He said this himself. By virtue of his heritage he is ineligible to be the President,because he was born a British subject, and citizen. In addition he became an Indonesian Citizen. This means that he possesses two citizenships. Our Constitution does not allow a President of the US to hold multiple citizenships. It would seem that all of the above would be enough to remove him from the Presidency. Now there is talk of an attempt which is forthcoming to use the Article 138 of the UCMJ against him. This allegedly is an article which addresses REDRESS. Essentially it allows the petitioner to the right to “redress”. The petitioner is allowed to question facts surrounding the subject matter. It is highly doubtful that UCMJ law can be used against Obama even though he is the Commander in Chief. My best guess is that the law under which he would ultimately be tried if at all would be Civil Law. I still think that the best way to accomplish the final decision against him is to convene a Federal Grand Jury. This is a place where his gift of gab will not help him. Nor can outside influences be brought to bear on jurors without risking severe punishment to themselves if they are caught.
Obama attended Occidental College as a foreign student and received US Government money. How was he able to obtain the money? He had to have the paperwork to prove his Indonesian citizenship. In addition Indonesia would have required all of his background,including his birthplace to grant him citizenship. If his mother lied to Indonesia,and they believed it then it will be useless to pursue anything related to his Indonesian adoption,because the paperwork will show that he was born in Hawaii. If we are to disprove this we need to find the POE records that his mother generated on her return trip from Kenya with infant Barack Jr. If this record is found neither the present US Government,or the Courts can do little to discredit the INS. The INS form that Stanley Ann D.Obama would have filled out will bear Barrack’s birthplace, and her signature. In all probability the POE record will reflect exactly the information contained upon his vault COLB ai Hawaii. I personally believe that this is the long and the short of it. There are people who allege that they are holding all sorts of evidence which can be used to bring him down. To that end I ask “What are you waiting for? Get your EVIDENCE out there by publishing it in every newspaper in the world. If your evidence is strong enough the publicity will do more to bring him down than anything else. In the final effort “publicity”is what will bring it all to a screeching halt.
The worst court is public court if your name is tarnished you can be ready to be taken down, clemens,bonds ,macquire,paleimero,oj,dashule, etc all names are gone down in flames
SueK.
I am told that he used a US Passport in 2006 for his Kenya trip.
In obamas mind no one has asked him if he is a natural born citizen so he is not deceiving anyone.He states on his website his birth information, even in his speeches he mentions his father is Kenyan, so he feels he is not hiding his birth information.Unless someone confronts him directly with the question are you a natural born citizen will the truth be on record for all to hear and see.Asking him does not mean you will get a yes or no answer however.Don’t count on the msm to ask him.
Just an idea, we should have a march like the million dollar me march. The theme would be about calling for “transparency in our Government”. Obama is asking for it so why don’t we give it to him. People carrying signs asking Obama to unseal his records for transparency sake and by doing so he will unite the country. Let the media in on it . The bigger the group, the more publicity we will have.
Just a thought.
stand up and fight,
You are incorrect. Obama filed as a candidtate in all 50 states, most of who require him to sign affirming that he fulfils the Constitutional requirement of POTUS.
And, of course, it remains that the Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
Re: “Our Constitution does not allow a President of the US to hold multiple citizenships.”
It does? Show where it says that.
IF you can get five votes on the Supreme Court to say that “natural born” means that you cannot hold multiple citizenships, then fine.
But I figure that this view has at most three votes. The other six hold that “natural born citizen” is the US equivalent of “Natural Born Subject” under British Common Law, and British Common law held that anyone born in the realm (other than children of foreign diplomats and other minor exceptions) was a “Natural Born Subject.”
I’ve been thinking of Macchiavelli a lot this year. Even looked him up a few times. Funny how his name keeps coming up.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/congress_the_new_power_class.html
smrstrauss ,
i don’t think there is anyone on SC who disagrees with meaning of natural born citizen (and that is BOTH parents have to be US citizens). Even Senator Leahy and Homeland security chief Chertoff said as much in last years congressional record. And Obama knows this too, because he co authored a resolution to approve McCain as eligbility , but he purposely wrote the words US citizen in resolution instead of natural born. The reason he did this is because he knew McCain was natural born (son of two US citizens) and he knew that he wasn’t (his father was not US citizen). Therefore he tried this tactic, an end around the Constitution, to try and grandfather himself in.
So far none of the cases before the supreme corut has asked them to clarify natural born citizen. They have all dealt with standing, and damaging, and other issues. The core , beef, of the case has been deflected.
sorry about ytpos…i type too fast
Re: “Even Senator Leahy and Homeland security chief Chertoff said as much in last years congressional record.”
NO, they did NOT. What they said was that in addition to someone who was born in the USA, they hold that someone who has two parents who were US citizens is also a US citizen even if he was born OUTSIDE of the USA.
The latter is McCain. He qualifies, they said, because he had two US parents even if he was born in the Canal Zone. That makes him just as good a natural born citizen as Obama who qualifies because he was merely born in the USA.
All you had to be was born in Britiain to be a “Natural Born British Subject.” Our law stems from their law. We use “Citizen” instead of “subject.”
What they were saying is that in addition to the Natural Born Citizens who were simply born in the USA, they feel there is an additional group that should also be considered Natural Born Citizens, meaning the children of two US citizens even if the person was not born in the USA.
In fact, this is NOT British Common law. It stems from our citizenship code, which is US Code Title 8, and it may not be right. But it certainly does not mean that a Natural Born Citizen has to have two USA parents as well as being born in the USA (if so, McCain would not have qualified).
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/1410250,CST-NWS-rezko03.article
Re: “So far none of the cases before the supreme corut has asked them to clarify natural born citizen.”
Absolutely true. Good luck in getting them to rule the way you want.
At least two Supreme Court justices, Alito and Scalia, had fathers who were born outside of the USA, in Italy. It is likely–I have no information either way–that both fathers were naturalized before the time of the future justice’s birth.
But justices in such a situation might well ask themselves: “Am I any more loyal to the USA because my father was naturalized before I was born than I would have been if he had been naturalized AFTER I was born?”
And they might say: “I have friends who were born in the USA and one of their parents was naturalized after they were born, why shouldn’t they be eligible to be president?”
And then they will ask–“Where are the actual words that say ‘both parents must be citizens’?”
You cannot win without both Alito and Scalia–and Kennedy too, but he is already likely to be on the other side. Even Roberts is a questionable vote. Why? Because he knows that the British common law merely required someone to be born in Britain to be a Natural Born British Subject.
Anyone down on faith! Well 2 weeks ago i was about to take off on a flight at 1030 am. they show the video on safety and crashing in water. I said to myself, noone survies a plane crash or landing in water, you just need to be ready with god when the time comes. Well me of little faith as i put on the car radio at 430pm and hear about theplane landing safetly in the the hudson in new york and all survied. Wow! Don’t ever give up on faith it will be richly rewarded
strauss
you are sorely confused between the different types of citizenship
natural born
native
by statute
naturalized
Obama may be a naturalized citizen at this point only by virtue of his being adopted by Crow Indians.
The Constitution holds out only one exception for dual citizenship for those who would be POTUS, and that is for the founders alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. This is called the “grandfather clause”.
John Bingham makes the definition of “natural born” abundantly clear, as does US v Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg. The fact that Obama, Leahy, and Chertoff concur that a natural born baby is born of “US Citizens” is only in agreement with legal precedents. Nowhere is there an allowance for only one US citizen parent. Nowhere is there an allowance for dual, triple, quadruple citizenships. Nowhere is there an allowance for illegal aliens, which up until his Crow adoption Barack was, to be POTUS.
smrstrauss
Actually, it was Emmerich de Vattel, the Swiss, who said that the parents were to be “CITIZENS.”
Just in case you have not read the passage, I’ve copied the original French, and attached the applicable provisions of the common law in parentheses —
In “The Law of Nations,” in the Book called CITIZENS AND NATIONS, in the Section numbered § 212, de Vattel wrote: “The natives or natural-born CITIZENS (‘les [citoyens] naturels (jus sanguinis) ou indigenes (jus solis)’), are those born in the country, of parents who are CITIZENS (qui sont nes dans le pays (jus solis) de parents citoyens” (jus sanguinis)).” Simplified: “Born on American soil; of two parents American.”
That is how Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito will also understand this passage — no doubt.
This is what Justice Horace Gray wrote about the 14th Amendment, First Sentence —
“The Court said: ‘This sentence of the fourteenth amendment is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing Law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed,-[1]’born in the United States,’ [2] ‘naturalized in the United States,’ and [3] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’; in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States.'”
In other words, the 14th Amendment did not change what the Founding Fathers understood what Emmerich de Vattel wrote.
Therefore, ‘citizenship’ is a stool with three legs:
the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is a modifierof both ‘born’ and ‘naturalized.’ The most common interpretation of “subject to’ is ‘subject to the laws of,’ and ‘within the limits’ is ‘on the soil, or within the borders’ of the United States.
None of this is a mystery — and by their routine denials of cert, SCOTUS has allowed all of this to remain the status quo.
What this also means is that there is no eye in the needle of common law through which Barack Obama can pass to become a ‘natural-born CITIZEN’ — and he knows it.
Yes, the Constitution does NOT define who IS a ‘natural-born CITIZEN.’ Why? Because it is ‘natural-born CITIZENS’ who are those who are the sovereign people in the Preamble of the Constitution, who define the Constitution, who draft, ratify, and amend the Constitution, who are themselves ‘children born in the country of parents who are its CITIZENS.’
SCOTUS is not in a position to DEFINE the phrase ‘natural-born CITIZEN.’ That has already been defined for them.
The founders sought to prevent disloyalty to America and even transference of loyalty by virtue of multiple citizenships. Note that Obama refers to himself as a citizen of the world, not an American. This is the problem with being a citizen of several countries, there is no loyalty or identity with any particular one.
The spirit and intent of the Constitutional requirements for POTUS are clear: No Divided Loyalties. Obama can not but have them. In fact he could be conscripted into the Indonesian army.
Footnote —
The first phrase of the Presidential Qualification Clause applied ONLY to those BORN after the adoption of the Constitution on March 4, 1789.
The second phrase of the Presidential Qualification Clause ceased to be enforceable after March 4, 1789, but had been applicable to EVERY citizen at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, including Andrew Jackson.
Therefore, the first ‘natural-born Citizen’ under the first phrase who became President of the United States was John Tyler, born in Virginia in 1790.
excuse me mrstrauss, from the congressional record.
Chertoff: “My understanding is that a natural born citizen is one who has two parent who are US citizens”.
Leahy: “So is my understanding.”
End of discussion.
*parents
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
it’s pretty clear what chertoff said, read it for yourself. No qualifiers, no nothing. Plain English. Unfortunately, like counterfeit marriage the far left liberal toons want to change even the common every day English language to the jibberish that matches their mind, or lack their of.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5651516.ece
maybe we should all sign a petition that OBamA is drunk with power??
Does anyone know if a copy of the POE
form signed by Obama’s mother has already
been discovered?
Maddie —
Lawyers returned to look for the document, only to be stopped at the door by guards who said that they could only have access under a subpoena.
This was their clue that the files had been scrubbed.
It is my guess that the document, whihc began with the letters “CD” meant that it was a “Customs Declaration” filled out aboard an aircraft.
It just keeps getting more interesting. Stay safe. God Bless America. 🙂
Don’t most of us have the sense that Obi-wan is getting closer, day by day, to succumbing to the relentless pressure? Thre are so many fronts he has to battle on. It’s almost as though the maxim at war of fighting on two fronts is becoming politically prophetic He can’t hold out.
Look at what just happened: his top pick for HEW, Tom Daschle had to be scrubbed because of tax problems. Before this his pick of Governor Bill Richardson was a bust because of criminal investigation. And his other pick for HEW(?) had to be dropped.
Has Obama had any ‘victories’ yet? Is the country shouting ‘Yippee” at all? He needs Yippees! But he won’t get them soon I feel.
I sense the MSM becoming tired of carrying his water. He’s a flake… and they’ve been had. Nobody likes to be one noted for aclaiming the kings clothes when the little boy says otherwise.
He got his FIRST US passport when he became a US Senator. What went on behind the scenes to achieve that would be fascinating to know!
Obama has killed more people, flubbed more picks, and screwed up more than Bush did in his first two – weeks of office.
just a fact ma’am, just reporting the facts.
Brian H, I believe all US senators automatically get a passport regardless of whether or not they are a natural born citizen, senatorship does not require one to be a natural born citizen. Just a US citizen, I believe.
Hey you guys, this is my saying: Even if his Mother was the “Statue of Liberty” and OB was born in the New York Harbor, he still would not be a Natural Born Citizen! Somebody is going to get into alot of trouble before it’s all over. H
From MommaE blog radio:
Hi,
I just want to tell you that this afternoon’s show is on.
All kinds of good things to talk about and it will be 90 minutes of hot topics, updates and fun. It should be a HOT, rocking show, as well as interesting.
Please post this on your web site, blogs or any blogs you are associated with or have access to and send to everyone in your address book.
Link, schedule, call in number and times for the Show is below!
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
Call In # 347-237-4870
NOON PM Pacific Time
1:00 PM Mountain Time
2:00 PM Central Time
3:00 PM Eastern Time
I hope to see you all there. There are 3 ways to listen to the show, they are as follows:
1. When you get to the Show page if the show doesn’t immediately start playing for you,
you can click on the radio on the right, minimize the page and listen while doing something else.
2. You can enter the chat as a Guest and read what is being said while listening.
3. You can register/log-in and chat while listening.
The choice is yours.
I hope to see you all there.
MommaE
Re: Chertoff: “My understanding is that a natural born citizen is one who has two parent who are US citizens”.
Leahy: “So is my understanding.”
Yes, they both were saying that McCain is eligible to be president ALONG with Obama. They are NOT saying that you have to have two parents who were US citizens at the time of birth in order to be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
IF Leahy and Chertoff had thought that a president had to have TWO parents who were also citizens, then of course both of them would have to be filing suits against Obama on the grounds that he is not president. Instead, both of them attended the inauguration.
There is a way to find out for sure what they meant, which is to ask. Leahy can be reached care of the US Senate. I don’t know how to get in touch with Chertoff.
The fact is that in all legal discussions of who is eligible to be president, the criteria of merely being born on US territory is the common view. The criteria that you can be president if you have two parents who were citizens even though you were born outside of the USA is the less common view. (Virtually no one has the view that you have to be born in the USA and have two parents who were citizens.)
Click to access pryor_note.pdf
It says:
“Despite its. apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution” has never been completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as “natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,” qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.” Eligibility for children of American Indians born on reservations, persons born in United States territories, children born on American military bases, and children of United States diplomats stationed abroad is also uncertain.”
In my view, it would be great to add children born abroad of two USA citizens to the ones who are born in the USA. Yale Law Review says that there were a little more than a million such citizens in 1980; that might mean about 1.5 million today.
But adding children born abroad does not and should not take away the rights of the MILLIONS who were merely born in the USA.
The question you raise is whether a child born in the USA with one parent who is not a citizen or NO parents who are citizens should have less rights than those whose parents were not citizens.
Do we want to set up special classes of citizens–those that are born here of two US parents are better than those who were born here of one US parent, who are better than those who were merely born here?
I hold, and many others as well hold, that anyone who was born on US soil is an American citizen for ALL purposes, even the presidency, even if (1) his father was not a US citizen; or (2) his mother was not a US citizen; OR if (3) neither of the parents were US citizens.
Obama was born in Hawaii. Unless you can prove that he was not born in Hawaii, his natural born status stems from the location of his birth, Hawaii. The fact that he had dual nationality for a time did not and cannot affect that. The fact that his father was not a citizen of the USA cannot affect it. The only thing that affects Natural Born citizen status is the location of birth.
The theory that a Natural Born citizen requires more than merely birth in a country stems from the early 18th century theorist Vattel, who held: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
However, Vattel also wrote: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
So, clearly Vattel recognized that British law was different from the laws of other countries with regard to the birth of citizens. He thought that British law “naturalized” the children of non-British persons if they were born in Britain. But British common law was less complex than that.
It did NOT consider British-born children of non-subjects different from British-born children of subjects. It considered EVERY CHILD born in the realm (with minor exceptions such as the children of diplomats) to be “Natural Born Subjects.” And our law stems from the British Common Law.
Our definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject” except that we are not subjects of a king.
And, according to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” That cannot mean that a child born in America with parents who are citizens has the right to be president and a child born in America who has only one or even no parents who are American citizens does NOT have the right to be president. In the eyes of the Declaration they are, and should be, equal under the law.
Also, there is the strict constructionist argument. IF the writers of the Constitution had wanted to bar someone with allegiance to any other country, they would have said precisely that. They would have said: “no one with allegiance to another country,” Or they would have said: ” No dual nationals” Or they would have said: “A Natural born citizen is one who is born in the USA of parents BOTH of whom were citizens.” But they left Natural Born Citizen just as ordinary language—implying that it is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject.”
Also, it is likely that Article II was amended to some extent by the 14th Amendment which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. “
Critics of this meaning that Natural Born means simply that someone was born in the USA say that this merely refers to the large category of ordinary citizens and not specifically to the requirements to be president. Quite true.
But the 14th Amendment sets up two categories of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born in the United States. It is difficult to see why those that are born in the USA are not Natural Born Citizens. Meaning why shouldn’t an interpretation of Article II use the 14th Amendment as guidance as to citizenship? At the very least, the 14th Amendment gives guidance to the definition of Natural Born Citizens, tending to confirm that Natural Born Citizen means the same thing as Natural Born Subject under British Common law.
A final point is the question whether my parents’ nationality at the time of birth affects my real allegiance in any way. This is like saying that because my father was a Baptist at the time I was born, I must be a Baptist all my life. Nobody believes that today, and it is just as hard to believe that the writers of the Constitution believed that absurdity in the 18th Century.
Re: “He got his FIRST US passport when he became a US Senator. What went on behind the scenes to achieve that would be fascinating to know!”
Who says? Who told you this?
It is baloney!
If he did not have a US passport, how did he get from Indonesia to the USA when he returned to go to school in Hawaii?
On an Indonesian passport? The Indonesian Embassy (you can call them to check) say that he was never an Indonesian citizen and never had an Indonesian passport.
But, let us assume that they are lying, and that Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport to the USA. That would have meant that he would have had to receive a US Visa to get from Indonesia to Hawaii.
If there were such a document, it would be in the files of the US State Department in Washington and available under the Freedom of Information Act. But there isn’t such a document–though I encourage you to seek for it, which is better than mere speculation and whining.
smrstrauss —
Pryor’s article is not particularly sound on the law —
The law is well-established (since 1790, in fact) that children born overseas of American parents are “naturalized citizens,” and the military helps parents gather the necessary forms to register their children with the local U.S. Consular office — whether in Japan, Germany, or Turkey, wherever there is family housing as part of a U.S. overseas base.
BTW — when the facts will be properly disclosed with respect to Senator John McCain, then it would be clear that he NEVER was qualified to be President of the United States, and that all of the activity by the Senate, his attorneys, his book publishers and news reporters were actively engaged in a major cover up. There are attorneys looking into that, as well. But they say, who cares? — He lost.
BTW, you overlook two key phrases in the Wong decision that makes it inapplicable to Obama —
Wong’s parents were “permanently domiciled” in the United States, and
Wong had a witnessed U.S. birth certificate that he presented to the court, showing that he was born at a specific address in San Francisco.
So, Wong’s case will not help Obama, because his father was in this country on a temporary student visa with no intention of residing in this country.
In fact, Ann Dunham was on record with witnessed that it was her intention to move to Kenya, as she later did move to Indonesia.
Obama knows this —
The above postings of smrstrauss are interesting and seemingly well articulated. They are quite misleading in several senses:
1) There is evidence BHO was born in Kenya
2) Hawaii issues COLB for persons born outside Hawaii, but does not accept the COLB as proof of birth in Hawaii
3) Founders clearly understand the intent of natural born meant no divided allegiance and meant each parent must be a US citizen at the time birth of the candidate (see Federalist Blog, PA Madison)
4) No other definition of natural born can be made by law or regulation or even SCOTUS case without amendment to the Constitution, which has not and will not occur.
5) BHO is a usurper and well aware of this, hence his extraordinary efforts to hide facts of his past.
6) srmstrauss is misleading citizens for purposes only he can understand
Bill G.
You are correct.
It seems that everything hinges on the question: Was BHO born in the US as he claims; or, was he born in Kenya as his grandmother claims?
How do we get to the truth?
So far, all the courts have been doing is stalling and avoiding the question. Are they all just chicken or what?