[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Agreed. And, while you're at it, be sure to make public *everybody's* birth certificate.

There's very few jobs where natural citizenship is a requirement. We have someone who wants to have one of those jobs where there are legitimate questions regarding where exactly he was born.

As past precedent proves, when it comes to documents involving political figures, these things can be forged in order to either cause trouble or keep trouble from happening. What if the original copy is found, but there is clear evidence that it's a forgery placed into the records well after Obama was born? It wasn't until copies of the originals where provided that it was determined that the documents "proving" George Bush had problems while in the reserves where likely forgeries.

It's a good idea, if for nothing less than the sake of complete transparency, that when there are questions, everything is done to answer those questions. Not doing that is how conspiracy theories flourish. I'm pretty sure if Obama just releases the original, and there aren't any actual discrepancies, that the whole thing will go away. I'm pretty sure Obama knows this as well. The fact that he doesn't just make it "go away" brings up more questions than answers.

[besson3c]

Maybe he doesn't want to add credence and assign validity to what he feels is a silly accusation? Is he supposed to defend himself to each and every accusation?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's very few jobs where natural citizenship is a requirement. We have someone who wants to have one of those jobs where there are legitimate questions regarding where exactly he was born.

Please define "legitimate." Apparently none of the courts who have heard the Berg case and similar cases have thought that these questions are "legitimate."

As past precedent proves, when it comes to documents involving political figures, these things can be forged in order to either cause trouble or keep trouble from happening. What if the original copy is found, but there is clear evidence that it's a forgery placed into the records well after Obama was born? It wasn't until copies of the originals where provided that it was determined that the documents "proving" George Bush had problems while in the reserves where likely forgeries.

I really would like the naysayers to just say what they think. The state of Hawaii has said that they have personally inspected Obama's original birth certificate. Are they unqualified to verify the authenticity of a Hawaii birth certificate? Is the state of Hawaii complicit in a cover-up?

I'm pretty sure if Obama just releases the original, and there aren't any actual discrepancies, that the whole thing will go away. I'm pretty sure Obama knows this as well. The fact that he doesn't just make it "go away" brings up more questions than answers.

I'm pretty sure the posters in this thread have thought about this issue waaaaay more than Obama, his campaign, or the transition team have, so I don't agree that it raises any questions.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The more I think about it, the more I hope Obama can't produce the required documentation.

It was be a wildly amusing spectacle of disaster to say the least.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The more I think about it, the more I hope Obama can't produce the required documentation.

It was be a wildly amusing spectacle of disaster to say the least.

Now you're getting it. Pass the popcorn!

[nonhuman]

Was one of Obama's parents a US citizen? If so, then he could have been born on Mars and would still be a natural born citizen. The children of US citizens are US citizens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe he doesn't want to add credence and assign validity to what he feels is a silly accusation? Is he supposed to defend himself to each and every accusation?

No.

But, HE IS having to defend himself already. I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper, easier and use less resources simply to release the document in question. In situations like that, it should be a no-brainer. I'm guessing that either there's something fishy that has gone on with his original birth certificate, or there's something potentially embarrassing on the original.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Was one of Obama's parents a US citizen? If so, then he could have been born on Mars and would still be a natural born citizen. The children of US citizens are US citizens.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

• Anyone born inside the United States

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Talk about spoiling all the fun. The bolded bit would apply to Barry if he was born in Kenya.

[Doofy]

So, Barry is eligible as far as "natural born" goes. So what's he hiding? Was he born a girl?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Was one of Obama's parents a US citizen? If so, then he could have been born on Mars and would still be a natural born citizen. The children of US citizens are US citizens.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that the Constitution never fully defines what a "natural born citizen" is. That said, the Naturalization Act of 1790 says "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". It was further amended by the Naturalization Act of 1795 to include "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".

At first glance it seems to me that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be a natural born citizen since his father was resident in the U.S. prior to his birth. But then again, I'm not a scholar...so I could be totally off base here.

[Mac User #001]

Oh, oh, oh, I know what happens December 2nd! Grand Theft Auto IV for PC comes out! And I'll be picking it up! That's what this thread is about, right....?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No.

But, HE IS having to defend himself already. I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper, easier and use less resources simply to release the document in question. In situations like that, it should be a no-brainer. I'm guessing that either there's something fishy that has gone on with his original birth certificate, or there's something potentially embarrassing on the original.

Who is he having to defend himself to? Who has been grilling him, and who has covered this?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No.

But, HE IS having to defend himself already. I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper, easier and use less resources simply to release the document in question. In situations like that, it should be a no-brainer. I'm guessing that either there's something fishy that has gone on with his original birth certificate, or there's something potentially embarrassing on the original.

So far the only people expending resources on this are the people who are filing futile lawsuits. Obama hasn't put any effort into "defending" himself -- in fact, that's the entire crux of Berg's argument.

Thanks to nonhuman/Doofy for providing the conditions of being a "natural born citizen." Talk about a letdown!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You still don't get it, do you? The Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. Not just a citizen. That's what's in dispute. AARGH, I don't know why I even try to get through to some of you.

Hawaii says he's a natural born citizen.

Game over. Let's move on. Obama doesn't need to produce anything.

[goMac]

I believe that Doofy may be a citizen of Iran, and as such would be under export controls by the US.

I request that he produce his birth certificate to prove otherwise in order to meet my whim.

Once he has done that I will continue making absurd requests because by producing a birth certificate he has validated my moronic arguments.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I believe that Doofy may be a citizen of Iran, and as such would be under export controls by the US.

I request that he produce his birth certificate to prove otherwise in order to meet my whim.

Right, it's in my left hand right now. Took me 30 seconds to retrieve it. What time shall I be expecting your TV crews over?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, it's in my left hand right now. Took me 30 seconds to retrieve it. What time shall I be expecting your TV crews over?

Oh you think I'm coming over there?

Oh nonono. You need to make a grand appearance over here. You see, I'm making the accusation, so you need to come here and prove to me that what I'm accusing you of isn't true.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, it's in my left hand right now. Took me 30 seconds to retrieve it. What time shall I be expecting your TV crews over?

How about you just post it publicly to the Internet?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Oh you think I'm coming over there?

Oh nonono. You need to make a grand appearance over here. You see, I'm making the accusation, so you need to come here and prove to me that what I'm accusing you of isn't true.

Did I require that Obama come over here to show his birth cert? No.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How about you just post it publicly to the Internet?

I'll be sure to do that when I run for president.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Did I require that Obama come over here to show his birth cert? No.

I'm simply using the same metrics the legal proceedings against Obama are.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll be sure to do that when I run for president.

Why would running for President change things? Obama is under an obligation to prove he is a US citizen to the feds, not to you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Why would running for President change things? Obama is under an obligation to prove he is a US citizen to the feds, not to you.

You're becoming boring and moronic now. If you don't understand the difference between someone running for a position which requires that they're born under certain conditions and a person who isn't running for that position then quite frankly you're a retard. This thread was resolved until you showed up - why don't you crawl back under your rock?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're becoming boring and moronic now. If you don't understand the difference between someone running for a position which requires that they're born under certain conditions and a person who isn't running for that position then quite frankly you're a retard. This thread was resolved until you showed up - why don't you crawl back under your rock?

Well, let's say you did produce your birth certificate, and I disputed that it was real.

Who would be the ultimate authority with the final say on the matter?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well, let's say you did produce your birth certificate, and I disputed that it was real.

Who would be the ultimate authority with the final say on the matter?

http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/
And if you knew who I was (if, say, I was a presidential candidate), you could go look at my birth registration for yourself. Easy.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/
And if you knew who I was (if, say, I was a presidential candidate), you could go look at my birth registration for yourself. Easy.

So, to clarify, you're saying the ultimate authority on any issue involving a birth certificate would be the issuer of the birth certificate?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So, to clarify, you're saying the ultimate authority on any issue involving a birth certificate would be the issuer of the birth certificate?

No. The hospital I was born in issued the certificate. The address I gave you up there isn't the address of the hospital I was born in.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. The hospital I was born in issued the certificate. The address I gave you up there isn't the address of the hospital I was born in.

So then you're saying the government that processed the certificate is the authority on whether or not you were born in the UK? (which I'm assuming you were... wherever it was you were born)

So if the government says you were born where you say you were, do I really need you to fly out here and show me your birth certificate?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So if the government says you were born where you say you were, do I really need you to fly out here and show me your birth certificate?

Haven't you been around long enough to know Doofy's position on anything related to government?

greg

[Indecision08]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What happens if B Hussein O II does not comply with SC Justice David Souter's order to produce his birth certificate by December 1st ...

Obama wasn't ordered to produce a birth certificate by Justice Souter -or anything else for that matter. You -and all the other people getting worked up over this- ostensibly want the laws to be followed but you either don't understand the basic legal rules that apply or cynically misrepresent them for political purposes. You're arguing distinctions without difference.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

That December first deadline is automatic per:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrule...ofthecourt.pdf
Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs;
Supplemental Briefs
1. A brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari
may be filed by the respondent in any case, but is not manda-
tory except in a capital case, see Rule 14.1(a), or when or-
dered by the Court.
2. A brief in opposition should be stated briefly and in
plain terms and may not exceed the word or page limitations
specified in Rule 33. In addition to presenting other argu-
ments for denying the petition, the brief in opposition should
address any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the
petition that bears on what issues properly would be before
the Court if certiorari were granted. Counsel are admon-
ished that they have an obligation to the Court to point out
in the brief in opposition, and not later, any perceived mis-
statement made in the petition. Any objection to consider-
ation of a question presented based on what occurred in the
proceedings below, if the objection does not go to jurisdic-
tion, may be deemed waived unless called to the Court’s at-
tention in the brief in opposition.

3. Any brief in opposition shall be filed within 30 days
after the case is placed on the docket, unless the time is ex-
tended by the Court or a Justice, or by the Clerk under Rule
30.4. etc

Also, IF any court ever requested or requests proof of birth from him the Certification of Live Birth you show would be legally sufficient. It says so right on the document, ...

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

... and it is made clear in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding admissible evidence.

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/civil2007.pdf
Rule 44. Proving an Official Record
(a) MEANS OF PROVING.
(1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an offi-
cial record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible
and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or
commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative
or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:
(A) an official publication of the record; or
(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of
the record — or by the officer’s deputy — and accompanied
by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certifi-
cate must be made under seal:
(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or
political subdivision where the record is kept; or
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and
with official duties in the district or political subdivi-
sion where the record is kept.

The custodian of those vital records in this case would be Alvin T Onaka, the Hawaii State Department of Health Registrar, who attached the seal and his signature to the back of the document you are showing in the opening post. He would attest to the authenticity of that document again as he has already done publicly several times. He would thereby reaffirm that the vital record in Hawaii reflects birth of one Barack Hussein Obama II in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, USA on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 pm.
Making Obama a natural born citizen of the United States of America per:

US Code TITLE 8, § 1401 Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
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;...

Nothing Obama -or either one of his (step) parents- did when he was a child changed or changes that per:

TITLE 8, § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

... and he has done none of the things mentioned in §1481 as an adult either.

In all likelihood SCOTUS will not hear this Berg Appeal but even if it does it will more than likely follow judgments previously rendered by Surrick (District), Ambro and Jordan (3rd Circuit). A legal decision that can be reached without seeing a birth certificate in any shape or form.

So ... what happens on Dec. 2nd? The next bureaucratic phase of this particular appeal is entered per the rules of the court referenced above. Nothing more dramatic.
The conspiracies won't go away but -eventually- these lawsuits will. The curiosity of reasonable people has already been satisfied by the information on the Certificate of Live Birth Obama publicly released for that purpose in June 2008.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Talk about spoiling all the fun. The bolded bit would apply to Barry if he was born in Kenya.

The law changed in the 1980s, Doofy. He may not qualify under the law in effect at the time of his birth.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is he having to defend himself to? Who has been grilling him, and who has covered this?

So there's been no attempts by his legal team to squash the lawsuit?

Regardless of how it affects his ability to be President, would it be embarrassing for him to be caught in potential lies about his background that a complete record of birth (or lack thereof) could produce? Either a genuine citizenship issue or something potentially embarrassing are the only two valid reasons I can think of why someone wouldn't just make the whole thing go away by producing the document in question, which would be a really simple task.

[Wiskedjak]

Reading *all* of the above, rather than just ignoring the bits inconvenient to what I want to believe, this whole thing seems like nothing more than harassment to me and a waste of taxpayer money. It sounds as though Obama has proven that he is a natural born US citizen to everyone except those unable to accept that their preferred candidate lost the election. Those people are requesting an unreasonable disclosure of information which will likely never be disclosed (and shouldn't be disclosed simply to meet unreasonable demands), creating the perfect environment for conspiracy theory generation.

My theory:
The courts won't demand Obama to publicize his birth certificate on the grounds that they already have sufficient evidence that he was "naturally born".
Obama won't publicize his birth certificate.
Conspiracy theories will continue from those unable to accept the results of the election.

[Wiskedjak]

The irony is that those who cheer this attempt to use the courts to overturn this attempt to use the courts to overturn the results of the election are probably the same people who vilify attempts to use the courts to overturn the results of the election results of Proposition 8.

[dcmacdaddy]

Looks like someone else is trying to get in on the Obama-is-not-a-citizen action with a motion before the Supreme Court. This new guy is in New Jersey and while Justice Souter originally denied his request, Justice Thomas re-submitted the request and approved it.

More details of the filing can be found on the SCOTUS website here (Docket for 08A407).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The law changed in the 1980s, Doofy. He may not qualify under the law in effect at the time of his birth.

From Berg's web site.

U.S. law pertaining to births abroad, from “Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986,” in order to register the child’s birth as a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, he or she must be: 1. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR 2. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which must be after the age of 14. Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 14.

11/07/08 status of the case

For Immediate Release: - 11/07/08
U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants' response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg's reply will be submitted thereafter.

Berg takes question 10/30/08

Also from the Berg site

Mr. Berg has been receiving phone calls today asking for a copy of "the order from the Supreme Court requiring that Obama produce his citizenship documentation."

Mr. Berg has not received notification of any such order or anything similar to it, nor is it posted on the Supreme Court website.

This must be regarded as an unfounded rumor until it appears on the Supreme Court website or Mr. Berg receives notification.

If and when the Court does issue such an order, we will post it immediately.

as has been pointed out, my OP is incorrect in stating Justice Souter made such order, My bad.

[dcmacdaddy]

For Immediate Release: - 11/07/08
U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants' response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg's reply will be submitted thereafter.

This Berg fellow still doesn't seem to understand the legal aspects of what he is requesting.


In his banner headline at the top of the press release he indicates that the "U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS" when that is not what the Writ does. The Writ of Certiorari is not a request to "OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS" to produce information, it is a request made to the Court by Berg himself and has NOTHING to do with the content of his suit that was dismissed by a lower court. His headline should read "PHILIP J. BERG AWAITS RESPONSE TO BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI".

"OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS" won't even enter the picture unless/until the SCOTUS decides to respond in the affirmative to Berg's request for Writ of Certiorari and chooses to review the lower courts ruling. And at that point, "OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS" won't be appearing before the SCOTUS to plead their case, they will simply be names on a decision that is being reviewed for it Constitutional lawfulness.

The whole issue of Constitutional lawfulness in regards to a Writ of Certiorari is one thing Berg seems to not understand at all. If the SCOTUS assents to his request for a Writ of Certiorari on 01 December 08, all they will have done is agree to review the lower courts ruling on the grounds of its Constitutional lawfulness. The SCOTUS would be reviewing the validity of the legal basis the judge in the lower court used to make his decision. The SCOTUS would NOT be reviewing the contextual elements of the case for factual correctness. That is not what the SCOTUS does, they review cases to determine matters of Constitutional lawfulness not factual correctness. In other words, the SCOTUS would be reviewing the legal basis used by the judge in the lower court in making his decision and NOT the validity of the facts presented in the case to the lower court judge. The SCOTUS will be, in essence, reviewing the Constitutional knowledge and legal acumen of the lower court judge and not the factual correctness of the defendants argument in the particular case before the judge.

[Wiskedjak]

My guess is that Berg understands *exactly* the process, but that he's trying to generate misunderstanding among those who don't. If the court doesn't order Obama to produce his birth certificate, my guess is that Berg wants to convince people that's it's part of some conspiracy/cover-up.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

My guess is that Berg understands *exactly* the process, but that he's trying to generate misunderstanding among those who don't. If the court doesn't order Obama to produce his birth certificate, my guess is that Berg wants to convince people that's it's part of some conspiracy/cover-up.

That's a possibility I never considered.

Although, if your argument is correct, the conspiracy folks are going to be caught up in a terrible quandary. Those on the left who hate the SCOTUS for "giving" the 2000 election to Bush will suddenly be aligned with those on the right who hate the SCOTUS for "giving" the 2008 election to Obama.

Maybe the two of them coming together in communal hate of the SCOTUS will be like matter and anti-matter coming together, they will annihilate each other upon contact. Wouldn't that be awesome!

[macintologist]

Straight from United States code

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
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;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

[tie]

I'm still waiting for Doofy to produce his birth certificate. If it is so easy to come up with, then where is it? Why isn't it on the NY Times front page? Has he donated it to the terrorists he's been "palling" around with so they could get passports?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm still waiting for Doofy to produce his birth certificate.

Vote me in as prez, I'll show it to you.

[Wiskedjak]

Shouldn't one have to prove their natural-born citizenship just to *run* for President?

[torsoboy]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

They say that they have physically held the certificate, and the Hawaii hospital officials have stated for the record that they have pulled and reviewed the original birth certificate and that it is valid.

Obama's team requested the certificate in 2007, so it was before the primaries had begun.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Straight from United States code

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

This the current law. BO's birth must comply with the law as it was in 1961

If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which must be after the age of 14.

BO's mother was 18 at the time of his birth. If she were 19 then it woul not matter where he was born.

[Chongo]

This guy claims to have confirmed the COLB is a forgery
Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This guy claims to have confirmed the COLB is a forgery
Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

Claims are very easy to make without presenting any evidence to back up your claims.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This the current law. BO's birth must comply with the law as it was in 1961


BO's mother was 18 at the time of his birth. If she were 19 then it woul not matter where he was born.

Are you quoting united states code from 1961 or a Hillary Clinton blog's interpretation of it?

[macintologist]

My university is a federal depository, I'm gonna look at the US Code of 1961 and see exactly what Title 8 Section 1401 says about naturalized citizenship.

[Chongo]

the current law.
IF born in Kenya as his paternal grandmother claims
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...8----000-.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1408
§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
([4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years—
(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and
(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
The proviso of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section.

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...---000-.html#g
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;