Saturday, October 3, 2009

Obama and the Birth Certificate

Presumably all have heard of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s refusal to permit the release of his birth certificate by the Hawaiian authorities. The rub is that Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part: “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. . .” Hence, unless the Hawaiian birth certificate of President Obama in fact establishes that he was a “natural born citizen”, he is ineligible to be President.

While a slew of lawsuits were filed during the election last year, all were dismissed for lack of standing. Now, a new lawsuit is pending which appears to be postured to force the issue. In Barnett v Obama lawsuit, Army Captain Barnett decided last January that she did not want to accept orders from Obama till he proved he had natural born citizen status and could rightfully ascend to the Office of President of the United States. . .

Her lawsuit is pending. As expected the U.S. Department of Justice is moving to dismiss the lawsuit and a very interesting legal brief in response to the motion to dismiss has been filed. And what the argument comes down to is this: Who decides – the government or the people? I am following this not because I have a dog in this birth certificate fight, but because it does address the division of power between government and the people thus forcing the question: what does the Ninth Amendment actually reserve to the people?

More as it happens in this case.


smrstrauss said...

Re: "refusal to permit the release of his birth certificate by the Hawaiian authorities."

Total baloney. He has released the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. Indeed, he is the first and only US president to have shown his birth certificate, and not only was it posted online, it was shown to FactCheck AND Polifact, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii.

Neither his Kenyan grandmother, nor anyone else, ever said that he was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3)

If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf).

Here is what the Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

SP Biloxi said...

Bunch of baloney. Lawyer and birther Orly Taitz is continuing her crucade with her clients filing numerous lawsuit alleging that President Obama is not an U.S. citizen. Take for instance this case of Ms. Taitz.

Ms. Taitz' client, Army Capt. Connie Rhodes was fighting deployment to Iraq and filed a suit questioning Obama's citizenship. Rhodes filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court. Well, Judge Clay Land toss the lawsuit and denounced Ms. Taitz warned her against further frivolous suits. The judge was not pleased. What did Ms. Taitz do? She filed an appeal scolding the judge. As a result of her actions?

1. Judge Land threatened Taitz with a fine to the tune of $10,000.

2. Subodh Chandra, attorney who practices in Ohio and an inactive member of the California bar filed a complaint against Taitz at the California Bar. Chandra's complaint charges Taitz for going after Judge Clay Land which violate section 6068(b) of the California Business & Professions Code. That section of the law requires attorneys to "maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers."

3. Taitz's own client, Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, threatened to file a complaint with the bar because she said that did not authorize Taitz to proceed with appeal and she did not wish to proceed. Ms. Rhodes withdrew herself as client of Taitz.

I look for Ms. Taitz to be either disbarred or license suspended. She is embarrasing the hard working and honest attorneys. Ms. Taitz does have another lawsuit that I believe is going to trial next year in California. Yes, it is about Obama's birth certificate and another new client.

Post a Comment

Play nice!