The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Local

    Court refuses to halt sniper's execution

  • National

    DAVIS: Yankee hater finds love for team

  • National

    Gulf Coast preps as Ida weakens to tropical storm

  • Politics

    Abortion a main issue in health debate

  • Sports

    Redskins still going south

  • World

    Ex-Soviet Union struggles with democracy

  • Politics

    Health bill faces roadblocks in Senate

Home » News » Editor Favorites

Friday, December 5, 2008

Court to weigh question about Obama citizenship

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

Unlikely decision could deny him presidency

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Videos
Subscribe to this story's comments

doublehook

So if the court finds that he is not a citizen by birth, voiding his candidacy and election...do we get McC by default or is there another election, or will Harry Reid continue to violate the Constitution? Maybe it will be Joe Biden by default! ! ! !
Mark as offensive

steveb777

Obama has been dishonest and secretive about his past. Anybody with a bit of common sense knows that online documents can be altered (as the factcheck docs appear to have been). Okay he has unknown docs on file in Hawaii, but he also has unknown sealed docs on file in Kenya. Why does he have sealed docs in KENYA??? I could go on an on. If he has nothing to hide, release the documents! I WANT TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!
Mark as offensive

DrJim77

Constitutional vs Common law pertaining to the definition of natural born citizen must be clarified by SCOTUS.. If a POTUS is elected by the electoral college and then in a year from now is shown to be ineligible.. Every law, appointment to office would be illegal and or null and void.. Or worse.. If USA was attacked, POTUS would be powerless to command the military.. The supreme court must NOT allow this to occur... whoever is president SCOTUS must protect us
Mark as offensive

jj1

I'm not sure Ruggercop can calm down enough to get the point of this: the question is whether he really was born in Hawaii or whether he was born somewhere else such as Kenya. A reasonable enough question. And surprising that Obama wouldn't have produced a more legitimate birth certificate by now.
Mark as offensive

AceTomato

If some of you can let go of thinking this is desperate measures by Republicans to remove Obama, you might notice that it is a fascinating question of Constitutional Law. The Constitution requires the President be a natural born citizen - so what does that mean exactly and how is it tested? Who determines it? If Obama were to be disqualified as POTUS, it would not automatically go to McCain (and frankly, most Republicans are not enamored of McCain). I think, and may be totally wrong, that the Dems would have to nominate someone else and the election reheld. If so, the Speaker of the House would step in. That's Pelosi. Pelosi is probably the one person Republicans would want to see LESS than Obama in the white house (okay, Dodd, Reid and Frank are runners up, too). It's not an attempt to give McCain the win. It's a question of whether Obama belongs in the process to begin with.
Mark as offensive

mediawatch1

It's easy to see the almost hysterical level of excitement in the the Republican posts, almost like a lynch mob. These people are taking a huge gamble, the reputation and future of their party is at stake. If this turns out to be a groundless charge against Obama, these people and their party will be discredited even further than they are now. The nastiness of this citizenship pursuit, the presidential campaign and the conservative posters online will stick in the minds of the rest of us Americans, and the citizens of many other countries, forever. All of these things, added to the disgusting recent Republican sex scandals and corruption charges, have destroyed the image and reputation of the Republican party. It's fine by me, because the Democrats will certainly benefit from it for decades to come.
Mark as offensive

AceTomato

Pssst to Mediawatch: Berg (lawsuit #1) is a Democrat. Keyes/Donfrio (California electorate suit) is the American Independent Party. If all this is Republican meanness, why doesn't Obama just release his birth certificate and prove everyone wrong? Why spend over $500,000 in legal fees to AVOID producing it? You don't have to belong to any particular political party to find that a little weird. It's a $12.00 document he claims will prove he is eligible, yet he is doing everything he can to not produce it. Makes ya go "Hmmmmm . . "
Mark as offensive

njguy1

The Donofrio case being conferenced tomorrow challenges three candidates as ineligible: McCAIN (born in Panama and able to get American citizenship from his two parents but not natural born citizenship) OBAMA (born into a situation of dual citizenship due to his father being Kenyan and transferring British citizenship, creating a Constitutionally impermissible "divided allegiance" at birth which found the U.K. in a position to exercise "jurisdiction" over Obama) CALERO (Socialist Workers Party candidate who was born in Nicaragua, is still a citizen of Nicaragua, but who is in the U.S. on a Green Card) Amazingly, Calero was on the ballot for president in NJ and in other states, showing that there is no gatekeeper process in place. The political parties apparently are not "vetting" their candidates, the "certifications" coming from the nominating conventions don't certify basic eligibility but only the fact of winning the "nomination" of the parties, and most of the state Secretary of State offices are not discharging state-statutory obligations of screening for eligibility, either. A handful of states had SoS challenges to Calero to keep him off the ballot, which those Secretaries of State could have researched by looking up a Wikipedia on him and learning he lacked even basic citizenship. If Donofrio v. Wells were to be favorably resolved by adopting the legal "originalist" argument advanced by the plaintiff, McCain would be "out" just as much as Obama, on eligibility grounds. Because the case originated in NJ, a local town Forums in a small NJ municipality has been tracking it with some interesting research along the way. It would be a fascinating case of first impression for a phrase which has never been defined by the highest court. It took over 200 years for SCOTUS to issue a ruling about the Second Amendment; there's a lot of unplowed ground in the Constitution. The Courts only deal with the need to interpret the Constitution when real cases with real facts present themselves. People interested in some of the laws, statutes and "legislative history" can read and learn at the link below. http://www.ventnorevoice.com/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=1124
Mark as offensive

AceTomato

Very interesting, NJGuy. I thought this was crackpot hooey for a long time, but as the suits began to crop up and I read the legal arguments and looked at the evidence, the question of law became very more serious. I found myself digging up old constitutional law cases and works on the various methods/theories for interpreting the constitution to examine how this question might be worked out. No wonder Clarence Thomas is interested. I think Berg thinks removing Obama will result in Hillary nomination (and probably a Hillary win). He may actually be right. Depending on what happens, anyway. If I was on SCOTUS I'd love to chew this one over. It's the stuff of dreams for judges who love the law.
Mark as offensive

road_warrior

Everybody is talking about this and blogging about this but it doesn't matter even a little. Of course the courts are going to want to hear this out just to say that they did but nothing, absolutely nothing will be done. Not only is Obama the soon to be president of the United states but thanks to the liberal illuminati he is also probably the most popular figure in the world. He is a rock star and there is no way this scandal will ever hit the streets if there is even any merit to it.
Mark as offensive

rachel_questions

When I first heard about this issue I thought it was just a political smear tactic, however the more I followed it, the more I began to believe that there is something seriously wrong. A large portion of this is due to Obama having all his records sealed and having spent more than $500K to prevent those records from being made public. This is unbelievably suspicious, as well as unbelievably insolent of Obama. I am a retired peace officer and I swore an oath upon being hired to uphold the United States Constitution. I took that oath very seriously at that time and I continue to do so to this day. When I graduated from college I spent several hundred dollars getting dozens of certified copies of my birth certificate, college transcripts, and high school transcripts because along with every application I submitted for an entry level position with police/sheriff/probation departments that I applied to I was required to submit these documents along with copies of my diplomas. I also had to submit a list of all the addresses where I had lived since becoming an adult, and any trips I had made out of country. This information was used to conduct background investigations since I was applying for jobs that required a security clearance. Obama is applying for the highest office in the land and is refusing to produce these documents, even though Obama admits in his book that he has a copy of his birth certificate. I looked over my own birth certificate recently and went over the information on it. It clearly states on the document the address and Parish (I was born in Louisiana so the term "Parish" would be the equivalent of "County") where I was born, as well as who delivered me. I also went over my college transcripts and there are fields on it that indicate what your citizenship is as well as what grants, scholarships, and financial aid you received during your education there. I am sure that grad schools would have similar information on their transcripts as well. This is a link to an excellent article describing what the term 'Natural Born Citizen' means as defined by the author of the 14th Amendment (towards the bottom of the article). http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html "Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Personally, after following this issue for the last couple of months, I have now come to the realization that I will never accept Obama as POTUS because Obama has failed to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for that office. The duty of SCOTUS is to protect the US Constitution and to ensure that the tenets therein are followed. I have no doubt that SCOTUS will do the right thing by hearing arguments for this case.
Mark as offensive

Desperado

I like Paul Madison's (Federalist Blog) explanation of the constitutional term "natural born citizen" means. I like it because it is the only definition that would accomplish the sought goal of requiring the President to be natural born: attachment to this country. Any other definition just returns us back to ANYONE can be president if they were lucky to been born on one inch of claimed US territory. I also think the reason Obama won't release his original BC is because he doesn't want the recorded hospital he was born revealed.
Mark as offensive

mason1

Ruggercop, Your offensive speech matches your ignorance. The Framers grandfathered themselves in. See the next part of Article II where it says,roughly, "or citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution". They included themselves, but wanted no one else with possible foriegn allegiance to become President. If Obama is disqualified before the electors vote, the parties would get to decide who their respctive candidates are. And the DNC did such a bang-up job last time. Don't you think they would put up Hillary?
Mark as offensive

CommissionerGordon

The real gamble here is, and always was, Obama's. And, the DNC’s. Perhaps you don’t think they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Recall for a moment that Obama’s focus at Harvard was Constitutional Law. His friend, Sarah Herlihy, wrote all about the Constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural born citizen. Opening the introduction to her Law Review article in 2005 she said, “The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,….” Get the picture? They knew exactly what they were doing. The stonewalling response to the lawsuits confirms that. So does the huge sum of money paid to his legal teams to keep the matter out of court. And, so does the classification of his vault birth certificate and his school transcripts as Top Secret. There is definitely something to hide. So, is it really any wonder that Obama now holds the record as having the most pre-inaugural press conferences? He held multiple press conferences, allowed greater "access" for interviews, established the Office of the President-Elect, entered negotiations with heads of state, why? All the public appointments, the constant visibility of his developing administration, all this attention-seeking behavior is a desperate attempt to make his status appear legitimate, and to make it harder for authorities to evict the One with squatter’s rights. But, was it really that big a gamble, anyway? Maybe not, if the plan included this worst-case scenario. President Pelosi issues a blanket pardon to cover the entire conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, and illegal immigration status of both Barack and Auntie Zeituni in order to “heal the nation’s wounds” and to stop the rioting. In fact, she confers upon both of these illegal immigrants the honor of United States citizenship. So now Obama’s out of office, but he’s not in jail. And, he is certainly not financially ruined. In fact, he now becomes the most sought after guest on every liberal talk show. The additional book or books he may or may not write, the endless and exorbitant public speaking fees, the hero’s glory for going against the man; heck, he may spin his own television/radio program, African-American studies in law and government institute, high-end cosmetics, and designer line of clothing! One thing I liked about Obama, the man; he dressed well. If only that were his legacy. Even as the Democrats in Congress ensure that Obama’s and the DNC’s treachery goes unpunished, a very large breach of trust has been created and will endure for ages. Whether the election crimes will be un-investigated, just like the unexamined Democrat-driven origins of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, that brought on world-wide financial collapse, remains to be seen.
Mark as offensive

UnbamboozleUs

Thank you, Mr. Ramstack, for properly researching this article. I have read many stories about the various cases challenging the eligibility of the individuals who ran for president, particularly the Donofrio case, and this is the first one that actually reported the story accurately. What a breath of fresh air. This matter involving constitutional law (our highest and most revered last I checked) absolutely must be resolved before this country can move forward in a productive and honorable direction.
Mark as offensive
‹‹ previous123next ››

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  2. Parents buying homes for kids at college
  3. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  4. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  5. Inside the Beltway
More Top Stories »
  1. House OKs health reform bill
  2. Sniper's ex-wife speaks out on abuse
  3. Annandale man killed in hit-and-run
  4. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
  5. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies

Most Shared

  1. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  2. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  3. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
  4. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  5. The enemy at home
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment
  2. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies
  3. Parents buying homes for kids at college
  4. Sunshine vitamin stirs new debate
  5. Patent case goes to Supreme Court

Most Commented

  1. House OKs health reform bill
  2. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  3. Army chief wary of backlash against Muslim soldiers
  4. EDITORIAL: Mr. Obama, stay away from this wall
  5. Health bill faces roadblocks in Senate
More Top Stories »
  1. Lieberman vows probe of Hood rampage
  2. Obama: It's Senate's turn on health care
  3. Israelis unsure of U.S. support
  4. Suspected Fort Hood shooter is awake, talking
  5. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • POTUS Notes

    New Dem talking point on Obama approval doesn't wash

  • The Back Story

    12 arrested at Pelosi's office

  • Belief Blog

    New Vatican constitution released

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Redskins 360

    Zorn defends Hall

  • Tara's Two Cents

    On their way to summer vacation..

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.