Oh, wait, right, that's a forged document. Part of a vast conspiracy. There's no signature or embossed seal.
Oh wait, I lied again.
That's not theoriginal.
From the fact check website: We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed theoriginalbirth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Perhaps you should actually read links people post instead of just making shit up.I looked and do not see images of the original birth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
I take it you have no problem with the government ignoring its own laws?
What part of this:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
makes him not eligible, as you claim?
So, if a person does not have the original birth certificate, their citizenship doesn't count?
Okay, think about what you just said. The harm you allege (but don't explain) would come if he was found to be ineligible to serve. How would such a finding arise? If the case doesn't go forward, there can be no such finding, and therefore no harm.
Also, you say that the harm would be shared by "the entire electorate". I don't remember opting in to any class action. The suit was brought by Berg. How was Berg harmed?
Wow... Just wow!
So you have no problem having a President serve who is not qualified under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution?
Once again, how would that harm Berg? Would it make him lose money? Would it cause physical injury?
Okay, think about what you just said. The harm you allege (but don't explain) would come if he was found to be ineligible to serve. How would such a finding arise? If the case doesn't go forward, there can be no such finding, and therefore no harm.
Also, you say that the harm would be shared by "the entire electorate". I don't remember opting in to any class action. The suit was brought by Berg. How was Berg harmed?
Wow... Just wow!
So you have no problem having a President serve who is not qualified under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution?
Once again, how would that harm Berg?
Once again, how can you not care if the US government chooses to ignore its own laws? If Berg lacks standing to bring the case then who does?
From a purely academic standpoint how can you not care about this?
I take it you have no problem with the government ignoring its own laws?
What part of this:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
makes him not eligible, as you claim?
So, if a person does not have the original birth certificate, their citizenship doesn't count?
It is clear to me he is a U.S. Citizen.
That's the whole point of the case! It's not just about the original birth certificate it is also about his time in Indonesia and his return. If he lost his citizenship upon become a citizen of Indonesia and then became a Us citizen once again upon his return what does that make him? Naturalized or natural born?
So you have no problem having a President serve who is not qualified under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution?
That's either a whole lot of straw, or you aren't listening. Everyone else here understands what Joe said.
I understand completely what Joe said which is why I asked him who does have standing to bring the case. That is what makes this case so fascinating.
We have a private citizen trying to bring suit to force the US government to follow its own rules. We have the government responding by telling the man he can't bring the suit!
I take it you have no problem with the government ignoring its own laws?
What evidence do you have that he is not a natural born citizen? We have proof of his original birth certificate. The only proof that he may have been an Indonesian citizen is an obscure catholic school registration that doesn't even list his name (he is allegedly listed under the name Barry Santero)! From the picture, it's hard to verify the document at all.
I take it you have no problem with the government ignoring its own laws?
What evidence do you have that he is not a natural born citizen? We have proof of his original birth certificate. The only proof that he may have been an Indonesian citizen is an obscure catholic school registration that doesn't even list his name (he is allegedly listed under the name Barry Santero)! From thepicture, it's hard to verify the document at all.
I don't have any proof, my name is not Berg.
I'm looking at this from an academic standpoint. A citizen is bringing suit to ensure the government adheres to the rules as set forth in the Constitution and a judge is telling him that he lacks standing to bring said suit. If a private citizen can not force the US government to follow the Constitution who can?
I looked and do not see images of theoriginalbirth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
You have been told numerous times to read the whole article. It specifically states that the Hawaiian government does not grant requests for the long-form birth certificates. It only gives out the short-form ones, which are print-outs. A re-issue of a birth certificate from the state is EQUALLY valid. If you can't accept that, then you should quit asking the same question over and over here: we have already provided you with a more than acceptable answer, but you refuse to believe it.
Are you seriously asserting that you know more about our laws than our lawyers and judges? It is our LAW that dictates the requirements for legal standing. It is our law that says the document the Obama campaign presented is valid. If you're going to complain about the government not following the law, FINE. But learn the damn law FIRST.
I looked and do not see images of theoriginalbirth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
You have been told numerous times to read the whole article. It specifically states that the Hawaiian government does not grant requests for the long-form birth certificates. It only gives out the short-form ones, which are print-outs. A re-issue of a birth certificate from the state is EQUALLY valid. If you can't accept that, then you should quit asking the same question over and over here: we have already provided you with a more than acceptable answer, but you refuse to believe it.
Are you seriously asserting that you know more about our laws than our lawyers and judges? It is our LAW that dictates the requirements for legal standing. It is our law that says the document the Obama campaign presented is valid. If you're going to complain about the government not following the law, FINE. But learn the damn law FIRST.
Stop calling that document original and I'll stop calling you out for claiming it to be such. Also the Hawaiian government will release the original if Obama allows them too.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe: If Berg lacks the legal standing who does?
I looked and do not see images of theoriginalbirth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
What does original even mean? Nobody handed me any certificate when my son was born. When we had need of it, we applied to the state of New Mexico and they printed off a certificate similar to that used by Hawaii. So far as I know, there may be no "original" certificate, whatever that means.
More importantly, why is the onus on Obama to disprove every whackjob idea out there? The certificate is there, the state of Hawaii confirms it, there are other independent, verifiable lines of evidence that a kid named Barack Hussien Obama II was born in Hawaii on 04 August 1961. There is no reason to believe that is not the case.
A lot of things might have happened: he might be an alien, he might be part of some Kenyan plot to take over the USA, he might be so overcome with ambition that he lied about something so easily checked. It would be either a monster conspiracy or he'd have to have more chutzpah than the rest of the world's people combined.
The burden of proof is on the guys making the claim. If there is a conspiracy, suggest a mechanism, and prove it.
Find the guys in the Hawaiian health department who agreed to fake the birth certificate.
Find the guys who killed or otherwise silenced the Hawaiians who could contradict the Obama campaign's claim of authenticity. There would have to be a lot of them in on it considering the work it would take to insert such a thing forty-seven years after the fact.
Find out why someone had the foresight to put a birth announcement in the Honolulu papers 13 August 1961 with a Hawaiian address for a child born in Kenya.
Find the guys who agreed to fake that announcement in 2007-08 and figured out how to get it in the newspaper archives.
Someone would have to talk: secrets leak.
The citizenship thing is descending into tin-foil hat land. Barack Hussein Obama is an natural born citizen over age 35 who has been at least 14 years a resident of the USA, or he has pulled off a fraud so incredibly audacious and successful that he should be made president based on his ability to make things happen.
I looked and do not see images of theoriginalbirth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
You have been told numerous times to read the whole article. It specifically states that the Hawaiian government does not grant requests for the long-form birth certificates. It only gives out the short-form ones, which are print-outs. A re-issue of a birth certificate from the state is EQUALLY valid. If you can't accept that, then you should quit asking the same question over and over here: we have already provided you with a more than acceptable answer, but you refuse to believe it.
Are you seriously asserting that you know more about our laws than our lawyers and judges? It is our LAW that dictates the requirements for legal standing. It is our law that says the document the Obama campaign presented is valid. If you're going to complain about the government not following the law, FINE. But learn the damn law FIRST.
Stop calling that documentoriginaland I'll stop calling you out for claiming it to be such.
I'm not sure who said it was the original, but OK, it's a copy of his official record of birth. Does that make it invalid? Why do you want the original? The copy is sufficient for any and all legal purposes.
"So you have no problem having a President serve who is not qualified under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution?"
Actually I totally think that if we redid the constitution we would get rid of this "natural born" nonsense. It was placed in the constitution originally because of the fear that the people who liked England would just vote in some lord of England as president and become part of the British empire again. So I doubt there is much fear of that plus we are preventing our future with the governator.
I looked and do not see images of theoriginalbirth certificate. I only see images of a document from 2007.
You have been told numerous times to read the whole article. It specifically states that the Hawaiian government does not grant requests for the long-form birth certificates. It only gives out the short-form ones, which are print-outs. A re-issue of a birth certificate from the state is EQUALLY valid. If you can't accept that, then you should quit asking the same question over and over here: we have already provided you with a more than acceptable answer, but you refuse to believe it.
Are you seriously asserting that you know more about our laws than our lawyers and judges? It is our LAW that dictates the requirements for legal standing. It is our law that says the document the Obama campaign presented is valid. If you're going to complain about the government not following the law, FINE. But learn the damn law FIRST.
Stop calling that documentoriginaland I'll stop calling you out for claiming it to be such. Also the Hawaiian government will release the original if Obama allows them too.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe: If Berg lacks the legal standing who does?
Dude. Nowhere in my statement did I say it was an original. I have never claimed that it was, and you can't "call me out" for something I didn't say.
And I am not a judge, so I don't actually have the ability to determine if someone has standing or not. If I recall correctly, there are 3 requirements for legal standing. One is that you have to prove "injury in fact." Do you even know what is required for legal standing? Maybe if you did some research and presented us with a good reason why his case DOES deserve standing, we'd respect your argument a little more. Right now you're pretty much saying, "I don't like the way the this works! You're all big poopyheads! Waah!"
Denying one person standing does not mean that there is another person WITH standing. Asking that question shows a fundamental lack of understand on how legal standing works. At best, you should be asking what you would need to have legal standing.
"(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id. "
I think the question Steve is trying to get at is this; (or if he isn’t this is the question I’m thinking of at least) if Berg can not bring this case to court is there anyone who could? Is there anyone with legal standing that could challenge a presidency based on the fact that the President is not a natural born citizen?
plus we are preventing our future with the governator.
Seriously. I want there to be an Arnold Schwarzenegger library, then I can claim that Demolition Man is actually based on facts!
Ro, Cremlian, I think we may be able to live the dream. Now I need to watch Demolition Man again. Get more hints on our future. Invest in rapid expansion foam air bags for cars. I’ll be rich!
I think the question Steve is trying to get at is this; (or if he isn’t this is the question I’m thinking of at least) if Berg can not bring this case to court is there anyone who could? Is there anyone with legal standing that could challenge a presidency based on the fact that the President is not a natural born citizen?
John McCain didn't get a job as a direct result of Obama being deemed eligible to run for president. I bet he could claim to have been harmed if he were bringing suit. I doubt that much of anyone else has much grounds, at this point. Once he starts actually DOING things in office, it will be much easier to claim that his being president has caused you harm.
Anyway, Steve should be able to answer the question for himself as easily as we can if he reads what is required for standing. He can come up with a hypothetical situation just as easily as we can once he knows what puzzle pieces are needed.
1. Whose responsibility is it to prove eligibility under the Constitution for elected office? 2. Is eligibility presumed unless proven false or does a person need to prove eligibility? 3. What would happen if a serving President is later found to have not been qualified when they were sworn in? 4. What if a President-elect is found to not be qualified under the constitution? 5. Who has standing to bring suit asking the government to check the Constitutional eligibility of an elected official to serve in office?
As to one of the charges in this particular case:
1. If a natural born citizen renounces their citizenship to become a citizen of a foreign country that does not recognize dual citizenship what do they become when they apply for citizenship years later? Do they return to natural born status or do they become a naturalized citizen.
Hypotheticals:
1. How would the country react if Obama is found not to be a natural born citizen? 2. Do you think the reaction would be different if the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4, 6-3, 8-2 or 9-0? 3. Who would become President? 4. If Berg released a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama would your opinion on this case change? 5. If Berg released an Indonesian document proving Obama renounced his citizenship would your opinion on this case change? 6. If Berg released a citizenship document from the time when Obama moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents that labels him as a naturalized citizen would your opinion on this case change?
From what I read in the files associated with this case Berg does not have standing because even though the Democratic nominee may (or may not) be eligible to serve he is still free to vote for someone else including a write-in candidate. Thus the nomination of Obama by the Democratic party does not harm nor disenfranchise Berg due to the simple fact that he is not bound to vote for the Democratic nominee even though he is a registered Democrat.
Joe raised a very good point in that the only one who is harmed by this case is Obama if it goes forward and he is found not to be eligible. If the case goes nowhere than no one is actually harmed because the will of the people will be realized and Obama will be President.
However, if someone is sworn into public office who is not qualified to serve under the law than the rule of law is undermined. If that person is later removed from office due to this what happens to all that that person did while in office? Is everything they did voided?
I feel it necessary to call out anyone stating that there is even a remote possibility of a Kenyan birth certificate, or a lack of an OMG ORIGINAL Hawaiian birth certificate (yes, even hypothetical trite). The site linked to earlier, (particularly the section about the newspaper announcement circa 1961) as well as the testimony provided by Hank about the handling of New Mexican birth certificates should be more than enough direct evidence to support the fact that Barack Obama was born on American soil. (Hawaii, of course, entered the union in 1959, two years prior to Barack Obama's birth.)
I feel it necessary to call out anyone stating that there is even a remote possibility of a Kenyan birth certificate, or a lack of anOMG ORIGINALHawaiian birth certificate (yes, even hypothetical trite).The site linked to earlier, (particularly the section about the newspaper announcement circa 1961) as well as the testimony provided by Hank about the handling of New Mexican birth certificates should be more than enough direct evidence to support the fact that Barack Obama was born on American soil. (Hawaii, of course,entered the union in 1959, two years prior to Barack Obama's birth.)
QFT
Barack was born on US soil. The only option remaining is that he renounced US citizenship while in Indonesia, when he was SIX YEARS OLD. Is there any evidence to support this idea at all? Is there an oath of renunciation filed away anywhere?
Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
So why not release it?
As for the newspaper clipping anyone can call that information into a newspaper and have it printed. It is not uncommon for service members to have a small blurb printed in their hometown newspapers when a child is born even when they are not in their home state. The blurb only says a son was born, nothing about where.
1. Why does it matter so much to you? 2. For the sake of argument, assume that you are completely right. Assume that Obama is not a natural born citizen. How does that harm Berg (or you)?
3. How sad are you going to be when the Supreme Court denies cert and doesn't even hear this case?
From the article linked to on factcheck: So why not release it?
Presumably, there is a process that would have to be followed, likely involving a court order, and not involving answering the paranoid ravings of every nut who comes along.
As for the newspaper clipping anyone can call that information into a newspaper and have it printed. It is not uncommon for service members to have a small blurb printed in their hometown newspapers when a child is born even when they are not in their home state. The blurb only says a son was born, nothing about where.
The clipping could have been a lot of things, a quick check shows it to be from the standard dump from the local government health bureau. Sch things appear in many papers. Again, what reason is there to think it is anything other than what it appears to be?
Is there a disgruntled government worker, telling a story of being forced to put in a fake certificate? Is there reason to think the entire Hawaii department of vital statistics is hiding the fact that no such certificate exists? Why would they all agree commit such fraud? Is Barack Obama so powerful that none dare cross him?
Nobody handed me any certificate when my son was born. When we had need of it, we applied to the state of New Mexico and they printed off a certificate similar to that used by Hawaii. So far as I know, there may be no "original" certificate, whatever that means.
Comments
So, if a person does not have the original birth certificate, their citizenship doesn't count?
It is clear to me he is a U.S. Citizen.
From a purely academic standpoint how can you not care about this?
We have a private citizen trying to bring suit to force the US government to follow its own rules. We have the government responding by telling the man he can't bring the suit!
I'm looking at this from an academic standpoint. A citizen is bringing suit to ensure the government adheres to the rules as set forth in the Constitution and a judge is telling him that he lacks standing to bring said suit. If a private citizen can not force the US government to follow the Constitution who can?
Are you seriously asserting that you know more about our laws than our lawyers and judges? It is our LAW that dictates the requirements for legal standing. It is our law that says the document the Obama campaign presented is valid. If you're going to complain about the government not following the law, FINE. But learn the damn law FIRST.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe: If Berg lacks the legal standing who does?
More importantly, why is the onus on Obama to disprove every whackjob idea out there? The certificate is there, the state of Hawaii confirms it, there are other independent, verifiable lines of evidence that a kid named Barack Hussien Obama II was born in Hawaii on 04 August 1961. There is no reason to believe that is not the case.
A lot of things might have happened: he might be an alien, he might be part of some Kenyan plot to take over the USA, he might be so overcome with ambition that he lied about something so easily checked. It would be either a monster conspiracy or he'd have to have more chutzpah than the rest of the world's people combined.
The burden of proof is on the guys making the claim. If there is a conspiracy, suggest a mechanism, and prove it.
- Find the guys in the Hawaiian health department who agreed to fake the birth certificate.
- Find the guys who killed or otherwise silenced the Hawaiians who could contradict the Obama campaign's claim of authenticity. There would have to be a lot of them in on it considering the work it would take to insert such a thing forty-seven years after the fact.
- Find out why someone had the foresight to put a birth announcement in the Honolulu papers 13 August 1961 with a Hawaiian address for a child born in Kenya.
- Find the guys who agreed to fake that announcement in 2007-08 and figured out how to get it in the newspaper archives.
Someone would have to talk: secrets leak.The citizenship thing is descending into tin-foil hat land. Barack Hussein Obama is an natural born citizen over age 35 who has been at least 14 years a resident of the USA, or he has pulled off a fraud so incredibly audacious and successful that he should be made president based on his ability to make things happen.
Actually I totally think that if we redid the constitution we would get rid of this "natural born" nonsense. It was placed in the constitution originally because of the fear that the people who liked England would just vote in some lord of England as president and become part of the British empire again. So I doubt there is much fear of that plus we are preventing our future with the governator.
And I am not a judge, so I don't actually have the ability to determine if someone has standing or not. If I recall correctly, there are 3 requirements for legal standing. One is that you have to prove "injury in fact." Do you even know what is required for legal standing? Maybe if you did some research and presented us with a good reason why his case DOES deserve standing, we'd respect your argument a little more. Right now you're pretty much saying, "I don't like the way the this works! You're all big poopyheads! Waah!"
Denying one person standing does not mean that there is another person WITH standing. Asking that question shows a fundamental lack of understand on how legal standing works. At best, you should be asking what you would need to have legal standing.
Oh HEY! Check it out...a legal definition of "Standing!"
Quoted from the link:
"(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id. "
As far as the sea shells are concerned,
some questions are better left unanswered.
Anyway, Steve should be able to answer the question for himself as easily as we can if he reads what is required for standing. He can come up with a hypothetical situation just as easily as we can once he knows what puzzle pieces are needed.
1. Whose responsibility is it to prove eligibility under the Constitution for elected office?
2. Is eligibility presumed unless proven false or does a person need to prove eligibility?
3. What would happen if a serving President is later found to have not been qualified when they were sworn in?
4. What if a President-elect is found to not be qualified under the constitution?
5. Who has standing to bring suit asking the government to check the Constitutional eligibility of an elected official to serve in office?
As to one of the charges in this particular case:
1. If a natural born citizen renounces their citizenship to become a citizen of a foreign country that does not recognize dual citizenship what do they become when they apply for citizenship years later? Do they return to natural born status or do they become a naturalized citizen.
Hypotheticals:
1. How would the country react if Obama is found not to be a natural born citizen?
2. Do you think the reaction would be different if the SCOTUS ruling was 5-4, 6-3, 8-2 or 9-0?
3. Who would become President?
4. If Berg released a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama would your opinion on this case change?
5. If Berg released an Indonesian document proving Obama renounced his citizenship would your opinion on this case change?
6. If Berg released a citizenship document from the time when Obama moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents that labels him as a naturalized citizen would your opinion on this case change?
From what I read in the files associated with this case Berg does not have standing because even though the Democratic nominee may (or may not) be eligible to serve he is still free to vote for someone else including a write-in candidate. Thus the nomination of Obama by the Democratic party does not harm nor disenfranchise Berg due to the simple fact that he is not bound to vote for the Democratic nominee even though he is a registered Democrat.
Joe raised a very good point in that the only one who is harmed by this case is Obama if it goes forward and he is found not to be eligible. If the case goes nowhere than no one is actually harmed because the will of the people will be realized and Obama will be President.
However, if someone is sworn into public office who is not qualified to serve under the law than the rule of law is undermined. If that person is later removed from office due to this what happens to all that that person did while in office? Is everything they did voided?
Barack was born on US soil. The only option remaining is that he renounced US citizenship while in Indonesia, when he was SIX YEARS OLD. Is there any evidence to support this idea at all? Is there an oath of renunciation filed away anywhere?
As for the newspaper clipping anyone can call that information into a newspaper and have it printed. It is not uncommon for service members to have a small blurb printed in their hometown newspapers when a child is born even when they are not in their home state. The blurb only says a son was born, nothing about where.
1. Why does it matter so much to you?
2. For the sake of argument, assume that you are completely right. Assume that Obama is not a natural born citizen. How does that harm Berg (or you)?
3. How sad are you going to be when the Supreme Court denies cert and doesn't even hear this case?
Is there a disgruntled government worker, telling a story of being forced to put in a fake certificate? Is there reason to think the entire Hawaii department of vital statistics is hiding the fact that no such certificate exists? Why would they all agree commit such fraud? Is Barack Obama so powerful that none dare cross him?
Super Obama World.