edwinrogers says:

Let me see. They could run a mule against McCain and attract 48% of the vote, so long as the mule wasn’t born in Mexico?

QB says:

Democrats eat their own young.

Mister Mustard says:

Oh yeah, man! Let’s make sure we get in Obama’s MIDDLE NAME IN ALL CAPS, so we call all imagine that he’s SADDAM HUSSEIN’S secret gay wife, or at least his kissing cousin.

Jesus.

And freerepublic dot com?? Holy f&ck, Batman! I put more faith in stories about Batboy than I do in the garbage from that site.

People actually get paid to file bunk lawsuits like this? We should have taken Wee Willie Shakespear’s advice, and killed all the m*therf^ckers when we had the chance.

Gak.

Tzerkit619 says:

#4? Oh, and moveon.org is populated by paragons of virtue? If you had actually read the article, you’d note that it’s not some Republican doing this. It’s actually a pretty heavy-hitter in Democratic circles that’s done this. He’s also a former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That tells me he’s not your average everyday ambulance-chaser. #3 was right. Democrats eat there own. I’ll make the popcorn, who wants to watch with me?

bobbo says:

Cracks me up. Issues aren’t issues until someone brings them up. Anyone with an opinion is just being a zealot. FACTS control and we don’t know what they are.

When this first came up I thought the copy of BHO’s birth certificate on his website showing Hawaii ended the discussion==but guess not. Well, in worst case, his mother did the best for him, not thinking about the Presidency back then.

Woot, woot!!!!!!!!

deowll says:

I seem to recall that the exact wording for who can be President might cause both men problems. Please note the word might. I think such suits are a waste of money.

Mister Mustard says:

#10 – Mr. C. Dvorak

And we love you for it.

#12 – Bobbolina

Well, if all the presidential candidates (besides those who have the middle name HUSSEIN) were called by their full names, I’d be less worried.

How many of those talking about Barack HUSSEIN Obama even know what the Dubya in George Dubya Bush stands for? Ever hear anybody say “George WALKER Bush”?

I thought not.

Paddy-O says:

#10 If you posted a link to the Constitution on the Freerepublic, there would be some nuts who would declare said document invalid. LOL

brendal says:

He is T.O.A.S.T.

The Pirate says:

McCain
Obama

No difference.

Vote no!

The Pirate says:

And if you can you’re a fool playing their game. Enjoy that ‘greener’ grass, one day you will see that it isn’t.

Jeff says:

So what we have is a very poorly developed legal argument that is being filed in a Pennsylvania district court. It alleges that either Mr. Obama was not born in the US or that he lost his citizenship when he was over in Kenya after being born in the United States. Wow…

He might actually want to take a long at the United States law on the subject. Here is the possible reasons to remove citizenship:

Citizenship and Naturalization – INA §349

(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 serves 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.

(b)–Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after the enactment of this subsection under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

It is also important to mention that if Mr. Obama was born to an American mother overseas he would still be eligible to be president because he would still be considered naturally born. It is only when the son or daughter is born to a father does it become a question of proving paternity. This is pretty obvious.

On a final note, John McCain is also eligible to run for president. They both are, this is nonsense.

Tony said says:

In reply to Jeff, #24:

I enjoyed reading your comments. Here are some items that might be worth considering, however.

It is really important to get the legal facts correct in this case as all of the action items in the complaint WILL be heard by the Federal Court (by a judge appointed by President Clinton, incidentally) in at least one jurisdiction, and most likely by me-too suits in all the US Districts. For many people, there will be too much at stake to win or lose.
This is really a very serious, non-trivial problem which will be resolved by attorneys in one or more courts of law, not by public opinion, and certainly not by yours or mine.
However, I do understand the passions involved here!

1. Unfortunately, you are looking at CURRENT US law, not the law that was in force at the time that Barack (Barry) Obama (Soetoro)was born in 1961. If you do a quick search at a law library or on Lexis or Westlaw you can readily confirm this. Lots of blog sites have provided the actual law in force at the time – under which IF Barack was born outside of the country to an American citizen 18 years old he would NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen” under the Article II provision of the Constitution governing the eligibility requirements of the office of the President. This item is settled law and not currently debatable.

2. Assuming, however, that the 1961 State of Hawaii’s COLB (Certificate of Live Birth)issued to Barack Obama is correct, the concern over documentation then becomes one of how the birth was reported to the Department of Vital Statistics. If Mr. Obama were born in a Honolulu hospital, the hospital would automatically create the original written Birth Certificate, and submit it to the State. If, however, he was born, say, in Kenya, and his mother returned to the US shortly thereafter, his maternal grandparents could submit an original signed birth certificate to the State themselves, using their own address as the place of birth. This was not uncommon in Hawaii at that time. It would, of course, be a fraudulent filing, and a subsequent US Passport issued to the holder would also be fraudulently issued. It is, of course, possible, that Mr. Obama himself was told as a child that he was born in Hawaii and has assumed that this is true. However, it would not change the fact of non-US birth in this case. Unfortunately, it has been stated that a birth certificate was located in Kenya and that 3 of Mr. Obama’s paternal relatives were present at his birth in Africa.

3. Photographic records of Barack Obama’s Catholic school registration in Indonesia show his name as Barry Soetoro, his citizenship as Indonesian, and religion as Muslim. As it has been reported that Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather, legally adopted the child Barack/Barry, he would have become a dual citizen. Contemporary commentary at the time that Article II and subsequent enabling legislation was written (1789-1789) make it clear that the legal intent of the “Natural Born” clause was to eliminate the possibility of the President service two masters or states or sovereigns – potentially in conflict with each other – in particular if, as Commander-in-Chief the President would be caused to attack his other country and his other allegiance. This is clearly a potential conflict for and dual national citizen, whether born on US territory or overseas by two US parents, and a challenge at the US Supreme Court would be unclear as to its ruling in any other way.

4. When Mr. Obama traveled at 20 to Pakistan, that country was on the no-travel US State Department list (which included North Korea and Cuba, among other countries). To reach Pakistan, it is reported that he used his Indonesian Passport under the name Barry Soetoro. This action, if true, would threaten not only his ability to serve as President but also as a US Senator. See Lexis/Westlaw for applicable case law in District 1, among others.

5. More troubling, however, is that Mr. Obama has signed, under penalty of perjury, on his application to join the Illinois State Bar in front of the Illinois Supreme Court, that he never previously had nor used any other names. This, of course, is not true. The law also does not care whether his previous names were only used when he was a minor child (and this also assumes that he never had a passport issued by the Indonesian government and traveled under it to Pakistan).

6. For the counter argument concerning John McCain (and I am NOT a supporter of his), there is no equivalency. Under the previous as well as current law (in fact, going back to the creation of the American military in the 18th century), a person born to two US citizens, one of which is serving in the Armed Forces or at a US Embassy overseas, is automatically born as a “Natural Person”. The law is also settled on this matter. Again, see case law on Lexis.

The problem with non-attorneys is, of course, that people are generally not familiar with the law, nor the case law that actively rewrites the law itself. Normal logic and common sense often suggest one thing and a court of law finds another. In other words, the law is often an ass – but it is still the law, and wishful thinking will not make this issue go away. Let’s hope that the documentation can be provided quickly or this has the potential to develop into a real crisis within the Democratic Party and perhaps even at a Constitutional level.

Best wishes!

Jeff says:

I am not sure that he even has standing to file the lawsuit. I doubt very much the district court even agrees to hear the petition. He has met the injury and possibly the resolvability requirement, but has failed to show causation because of overlapping arguments that are divisive in nature. You can’t argument to the court that the cause of your action is either A or B and in this case maybe C. You have to pick an argument and stick with it.

This case goes nowhere.