Its not over yet!

[phoneguy]

I hate to be negative and I will adamantly deny leaning one way or the other on the issue of the BC, but how difficult would it be for politically-connected folks to come up with a "legitimate" BC? I mean, you could come up with one whether it was genuine or not considering the state of government records back in the 60's, no?

I wonder why he did not present his BC at any point and have all this stopped. All he has done is present lawyers, that are trying to avoid presenting the BC.

I also am having a hard time understanding why getting a BC has been such a hassel. When I needed a certified copy of official State of Georgia BC for a passport app, I went online, paid 20 bucks, and had the thing 3 days later.

[RiveraRa]

Im not trying to make this post about Obama but about the Naturalization Act of 1790/5/8 and what is has to do with being eligible for office. This post is meant to be more of an intellectual exercise...

The constitution says:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President..."
The founding fathers only wanted people born on US soil to be able to run for president. They did not want congress to have the power to decide who is allowed and who isnt. Hence their wording...natural born citizen, or citizen at time of adoption of the constitution.

The Naturalization Act of 1798 was passed by congress. This act did exactly what our founding fathers didnt want...it allowed congress to to decide who is allowed to run by broadening the term of natural born.

Also, another thing to think about....
If Obama gets sworn in, congress passes bills, those bills have t be signed by the president.
Say they find out 2 years later that he is not a natural born citizen. Therefore, will every bill he signed be null and void?

[Purplehood]

RiveraRa, please clarify.

Are you stating that you would not want the children of Servicemembers that were born overseas to be eligible to run for the Presidency (like John McCain)?

[Supercat]

McCain was born on a US military base, which is recognized as US soil by the government.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[RiveraRa]

agreed...military base is considered US soil....

[wesley1962]

Sorry to interject with bad news...U.S. military bases on foreign soil ARE NOT considered U.S. soil as it relates to the 14th Amendment. Nearly all overseas bases are governed under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that outlines what things the U.S. can handle on the property and what the host nation retains authority over. I had a child born aboard a NATO airbase in Iceland and she was given an Icelandic birth certificate and a Report of Birth Abroad by the Navy hospital at that base. Her U.S. citizenship is based on the citizenship of her parents and both of us are U.S. citizens by birth.

[barres]

Sorry to interject with bad news...U.S. military bases on foreign soil ARE NOT considered U.S. soil as it relates to the 14th Amendment. Nearly all overseas bases are governed under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that outlines what things the U.S. can handle on the property and what the host nation retains authority over. I had a child born aboard a NATO airbase in Iceland and she was given an Icelandic birth certificate and a Report of Birth Abroad by the Navy hospital at that base. Her U.S. citizenship is based on the citizenship of her parents and both of us are U.S. citizens by birth.

Didn't happen on a US military base. Apple and orange comparison.

[wesley1962]

wesley1962 wrote:
Sorry to interject with bad news...U.S. military bases on foreign soil ARE NOT considered U.S. soil as it relates to the 14th Amendment. Nearly all overseas bases are governed under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that outlines what things the U.S. can handle on the property and what the host nation retains authority over. I had a child born aboard a NATO airbase in Iceland and she was given an Icelandic birth certificate and a Report of Birth Abroad by the Navy hospital at that base. Her U.S. citizenship is based on the citizenship of her parents and both of us are U.S. citizens by birth.

Didn't happen on a US military base. Apple and orange comparison.

It is not an apple and orange comparison. The base, while conducting NATO missions and referred to by all as a NATO site, was in fact U.S. Naval Air Station Keflavik. This makes the comparison 100 percent accurate. Many bases function under the guise of NATO but are in fact ran by the military of one specific nation.

[tbranch]

I think the laws have changed since the 1950's. I was born in a civilian hospital in Paris France. I have a French Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Naturalization (both my parents are US citizens). My oldest son was born in Germany on a US Base and has a Report of Birth Abroad in the 1980's.

My understanding is I am not eligible to be POTUS but my son is...

Tom

[barres]

It is not an apple and orange comparison. The base, while conducting NATO missions and referred to by all as a NATO site, was in fact U.S. Naval Air Station Keflavik. This makes the comparison 100 percent accurate. Many bases function under the guise of NATO but are in fact ran by the military of one specific nation.

Then my apologies. Your initial post stated the base was a NATO base, not a US Naval Air Station.

[wesley1962]

No problem... I should have been more specific in the original post.

[bkj]

Unless I'm reading whats posted on SCOTUS's website, it looks like both applications were denied. I see where it reads that a response is due by Dec. 1st, but as it stands, Justice Souter denied both applications!

Justice Souter denied the application requesting an injuction to postpone the Nov 4 election until the issue of Obama's citizenship was resolved. His denial of the injunction simply allowed the election to be held.

Nobody knows what the Court will do after Dec 1 if Obama doesn't produce his original birth certificate. However, if the Court decides he's not a US citizen between Dec 1 and Dec 13, when the Electoral College actually meets and casts its' votes, then I guess McCain would be President. I don't see that happening, though. That would likely start such civil unrest that it would result in another civil war or revolution. And that's something NONE of us want.

If Obama where disqualified at this point would his electorates be free to vote for anyone they wanted. Would those loyal Democrats vote for McCain or would they vote for ………….Hillary?

[srothstein]

I have been looking at this case more closely. So far, I don't think it will go anywhere. The case was appealed from a motion to dismiss by the court of appeals. They granted the motion due to lack of standing. Right now, SCOTUS is just looking for an answer as to whether or not they should grant the writ of certiorari. Other than a few posts on blogs, I find nothing requiring Obama to produce anything like a birth certificate. I think that will not come until after they grant cert.

And, since the plaintiff has not yet been harmed, I don't really see he has standing. He might be able to re-sue now claiming his ability to vote for a valid candidate was the harm, but I don't believe the courts would buy that.

IMHO, this case is dead on technical legal grounds. Someone might be able to sue after Obama is sworn in, but again, proving the standing is hard. McCain or Hilary might be the best bets. Hilary could even sue now, but I just do not see it happening.

[phoneguy]

Knowing the court in recent years can swing to the touchy-feeley, instead of the strictly legal/constitutional, even if they agreed with the position, they would not overturn Obama's election because of the civil unrest it would cause.

[evilmercer]

If Obama where disqualified at this point would his electorates be free to vote for anyone they wanted. Would those loyal Democrats vote for McCain or would they vote for ………….Hillary?

They would have to vote for the person that won second place in their areas. The votes were for the candidate not the party. So without Obama on the ballot McCain would win pretty much every electorate because there would be almost no votes for anyone else. Another election should not happen because nothing says that the democratic party has to have someone running. It is their fault for not doing their homework.

Votes are for people not for parties!


IANAL

Knowing the court in recent years can swing to the touchy-feeley, instead of the strictly legal/constitutional, even if they agreed with the position, they would not overturn Obama's election because of the civil unrest it would cause.

If they do not and it truly is unconstitutional for him to be potus then there should be civil unrest! If they allow that then who thinks they will not think twice about burning the rest of the constitution??