If there is nothing to hide.. why not disclose all.

Very simple.

the supreme court is there to uphold the constitution, and rule on points of consitutional law, of which this is one, since eligibility for potus is described in the constitution itself. the justices have to sweat to protect the constitution upon becoming a justice.

with regard to disclosure, obama has disclosed far from all. in fact, hes disclosed barely anything

What does he need to disclose beyond a birth certificate?

let me clarify birth records - he will not disclose his full form birth certificate. we have established that he has disclosed a certificate of live birth but this is worthless in this context.

not at all. i keep saying he likely WILL be sworn in today. so why would i be embarrassed? i think it is everyone else who will be embarrassed down the line when they realise he was never eligible to be president in the first place. if it doesnt come out today it will come out later, simple.

It can take upto three years to get a hearing in the Court of Appeal in this country, jet alone the House of Lords. That is because Judge of that seniority are rare. To get before them, you need permission. You can't just exhaust all appeals right the way to the top of every single issue ever put to any court.

So, cases are sifted.

Is the presidents eligilbility an important question? Yes.

Is there an arguable point over the plain definition of "Natural born US citizen"? No.

What documents do you need to prove you fall within that definition? A certificate of live birth. Provided.

So the nutters don't get their day out and the Judges can all get on with something more important.

Good to see you here, Don. You are a man of your word.


Walter Tull VC 23 Nov 18:22
OK Don the President-Elect who is not really the President-Elect who has been appointing his cabinet who will not really be the cabinet because some wacky websites say he will not be President even when he is the next President. Rather than focus on some vague conspiracies a challenge for you. You provide a NAME for who you forecast will be inaugurated the next president and I will provide one and we will bump the thread 20/01/09 and each concede who was right.

I go for Barack Obama.





DonWarro 23 Nov 18:25
ok fair challenge. i will go for chuck baldwin. laugh all you like :)

i will be here 20th january to congratulate you, or to collect my congratulations, whichever the case may be :)

LOL ENRDCOCH, my research was done many years ago when my own children were born here in the UK. I am not the authoritative source either, but am confident I know a bit more than Don on the subject of being a natural born citizen. I will leave him to his ramblings, but could not help myself and had to comment.

He's probably surfing the interweb as we speak looking for 'evidence' to feed his delusions.

when will he post on the poker thread as promised to admit he was wrong

defeat accepted, with regard to him being sworn in. not that he is eligible. plenty of people in the us still fighting that argument in court.

anyone who i owe a few bucks too, get in touch on here pls and i will pay up of course

Fair play to Don Warro

From my admittedly short research on t'interweb:

Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore eligible to become president? The answer is yes, according to Ron Gotcher, a noted California immigration lawyer and The Swamp's resident expert on presidential eligibility.

"The poster's confusion," Gotcher writes, "is over the concepts of jus sanguinis and jus soli." Under jus sanguinis, a person's citizenship is transmitted "by the blood" - by inheritance from his or her parents or grandparents. In the United States, we recognize citizenship through parentage in a number of cases.

But it is not necessary to look to the statutes that deal with citizenship through jus sanguinis, since Senator Obama's citizenship derives from jus soli - citizenship through place of birth.

According to Gotcher, "The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "[a]ll 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."

"This was clarified by the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, which provided that 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.'"

"Senator Obama was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a state on Aug.21, 1959 As such, he acquired United States citizenship automatically at birth. While it is not necessary to go into all of the other legal errors contained in the posting (and there are many), the simple fact is that, with rare exceptions (children of diplomats), everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States at birth."

But what about the age of Obama's mother? Remember jus soli--citizenship through place of birth? (c'mon--there IS going to be a quiz). In that case--which happens to be Obama's case--the age of the parents has nothing to do with anything. Under jus soli even the children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens at birth--just ask the pregnant women from Mexico near the end of their third trimester who try to sneak across the border in hopes their child will be born in a San Diego hospital and leave with a U.S. birth certificate clutched in his or her tiny hand.

Except for the children of diplomats, every child born in the U.S. is a natural-born U.S. citizen, period. The parents could be citizens themselves, could be from France, could be Coneheads. Nothing else matters. Only if the child is born OUTSIDE the United States to one citizen-parent does the issue of the parents' age, citizenship, or whatever, come into play.

"All that matters is that the child is born here, " Gotcher says. "This is the reason that you are hearing so much fuss in Congress about changing the law that grants 'birthright citizenship.'" But even such a law, however unlikely to pass, would not be retroactive. If Barack Obama wins the presidential election he can begin choosing the furniture for the Oval Office without watching for immigration agents over his shoulder.

keith - i have gone over everything you have copied and pasted there a hundred times. do i really need to sift through it and pick it apart again for you?? i fully realise you agree with what is said in the article. the simple truth is it is inaccurate.

and lmao you think obama will get re-elected.

i have proved it, you guys have simply chosen not to read all the evidence i have provided. there are several people here who it appears have now read it all and now actually agree with me.

there is no need to continue arguing this point - as it will be settled in court eventually - even if you are right and he is eligible, it will be ruled upon at some point.

"The Fourteenth Amendment commands that "[a]ll 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."

again this refers to citizens. no mention of natural born citizens.

You've proved the intentions of the founding fathers?! Interesting that...

taken from page 5 of this thread - initially written by leo donofrio:

read this by donofrio. then tell me where exactly he is wrong, and how obama is eligible. worth a read for all you doubters

particularly the last bit, where natural born citizen is defined in a text that is relied upon for it's legal reasoning in the supreme court as recently as march 2008.

¡°NATURAL BORN CITIZEN¡±: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA
PREAMBLE

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our ¡°Fourth Estate¡± press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from ¡°The One Corporation - your source for everything¡­¡± (cue eery theme tune). They don¡¯t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There¡¯s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don¡¯t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the ¡°he¡¯s just another Obama hater¡± mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of ¡°natural born Citizen¡± in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather ¡°be¡± the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn¡¯t), but rather that the law shouldn¡¯t be discussed at all.

PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT

Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn¡¯t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn¡¯t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection. McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama¡¯s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a ¡°natural born citizen¡± by the Constitution.


As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will. He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain¡¯s name from the ballots.

I couldn¡¯t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.

IT¡¯S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT¡¯S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.

The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues. I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails. But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger. And the candidates knew that.

I suppose they¡¯ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next. But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call.

OBAMA¡¯S ADMISSION

Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. It¡¯s this very definition which I included in Cort¡¯s Wrotnowski¡¯s brief. Here¡¯s what it says at Obama¡¯s web portal, Fight The Smears:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom¡¯s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.¡®s children. (Emphasis added.)


There it is. Obama is telling you his status was ¡°governed¡± by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii. I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site. I said that over and over, but they¡¯re still lying about my position. Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is the truth now part of a conspiracy?

Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama¡¯s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law.

What have we come to?

The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn¡¯t overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It¡¯s an argument that fails - if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.

My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. It¡¯s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.

The people are subservient to the Document and if we don¡¯t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.

Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.

But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it¡¯s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists. All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published. It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries.

¡°Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,¡± they squawk. Me so crazy. Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn¡¯t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue. And that¡¯s the only issue before the Honorable Court.

That being said, let¡¯s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term ¡°natural born Citizen¡± as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are ¡°citizens¡±.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED THROUGH HISTORY

I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it¡¯s quite the opposite. Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

I understand the countering argument and I¡¯ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog. But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven¡¯t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of ¡°natural born Citizen¡± in its text. It just conveys the status of ¡°Citizen¡±. And it¡¯s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a ¡°Citizen¡± and a ¡°natural born Citizen¡±. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is ¡°Citizen¡±, but the requirement to be President is ¡°natural born Citizen¡±.

From the 14th Amendment:

¡°All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.¡±

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of ¡°subject to the jurisdiction thereof¡± meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ¡±When we talk about ¡¯subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,¡¯ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.¡± Senator Jacob Howard said that it¡¯s ¡±a full and complete jurisdiction.¡±

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can¡¯t claim they were unaware. But we don¡¯t have to take Dr. Fonte¡¯s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison¡¯s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):


It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee¡­ and the one who inserted the phrase:


[T]he provision is, that ¡®all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.¡¯ That means ¡¯subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.¡¯ What do we mean by ¡®complete jurisdiction thereof?¡¯ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull¡¯s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ¡°jurisdiction,¡± as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]


Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power¨Cfor that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us¨Cshall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States¡­All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ¡¯subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,¡¯ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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¡­[6]

It¡¯s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader ¡°John Boy¡± for pointing to Justice Scalia¡¯s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those ¡°fit to bear arms¡± in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant¡­ Other legal sources frequently used ¡°bear arms¡± in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at ¡°footnote 10¡å:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (¡°Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords¡±);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it¡¯s not outrageous to think he might also refer to ¡°The Laws of Nations¡± on the natural born Citizen issue?

I¡¯ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

¡ì 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country

im sure you will not bother reading this because it is long, and will continue to come up with the same points over and over, that are already disproven.

So, let me get your argument clear here:

1) Article two of the US Constitution contains the clause: "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"

2) The Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment provides another source of constitutional doctrine: "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"

3) You're dismissing the 14th amendment on a literalist reading of the constitution and challenging Obama's eligibility on the fact that, while he was born in Hawaii (and subject to the jurisdiction of the US - making him a citizen) he is not a 'Natural Born Citizen'?