# Obama Citizenship Case



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

> PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
> U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
> Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.
> Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.
> *Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.*"


Without commenting on Obama's citizenship status, let's assume that one party did nominate a candidate who did not meet the constitutionally stipulated requirements for the presidency. What is the legal method for stopping that candidate from assuming the office?


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

maybe the rnc should have filed the case, or maybe mccain's campaign.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I'd wager an action like this has less to do with Obama's actual citizenship, and more just to stoke the fire that he's "not like us".

-spence


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I have NO interest in discussing Obama's citizenship. My question is this: based on this judge's decision, a citizen cannot bring suit against a candidate that does not meet the requirements stipulated in the Constitution. So, if a party did nominate someone who didn't meet the requirements for an office, what is the legal way of stopping them from taking up that office if they are elected?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> I have NO interest in discussing Obama's citizenship. My question is this: based on this judge's decision, a citizen cannot bring suit against a candidate that does not meet the requirements stipulated in the Constitution. So, if a party did nominate someone who didn't meet the requirements for an office, what is the legal way of stopping them from taking up that office if they are elected?


Oh, come on, let's discuss Obama's citizenship a little more...:icon_smile:

_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._

Obama was born in the United States to a mother who was a US citizen. That makes him a "natural born citizen" of the US regardless of whether his mother, acting as his guardian, renounced his citizenship for him at any point while she lived in Indonesia.

McCain, having been born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, is a "natural born citizen" because he was a US citizen the moment he was born. But there's been arguments about that, too.

My assumption would be that presenting someone as a candidate who is in fact ineligible to be president isn't in itself fraud. I don't think it's a constitutional matter until he actually wins. Rather like the ACORN scandal - registering fictitious names isn't "vote fraud" unless someone actually tries to vote under one of the fictitious registrations.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

So you are saying that in a case where someone running for an office but who can't take up the office, we should wait until they actually win the election before we do anything? Sorry to have to say this, but that is one of the stupider comments I've seen posted on this site. Surely in a case like what I've proposed it would be far better to deal with the problem BEFORE the election, so the party represented by the requirement non-meeter could replace them with someone who did meet the requirements. Or are you trying to create a Constitution crisis?


I also find it sort of troubling that the judge basically decided that the case couldn't proceed just because allowing it to would confer standing on all voters.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

*You mean like this....*

Lenina Huxley: I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwarzenegger Library, and the time that you took that car...
JohnSpartan: Hold it. The Schwarzenegger Library?
Lenina Huxley: Yes. The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...?
JohnSpartan: Stop! He was President?
Lenina Huxley: Yes! Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states...
JohnSpartan: I don't wanna know. President...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I'd wager an action like this has less to do with Obama's actual citizenship, and more just to stoke the fire that he's "not like us".
> 
> -spence


Well, it was a Democrat that filed this lawsuit. It's a shame that party holds so many racists.


----------



## JohnHarvard (Oct 7, 2008)

I never even heard about all of this until a friend emailed me this link


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

JohnHarvard said:


> I never even heard about all of this until a friend emailed me this link


That's ten plus minutes of my life I would like back. Even though the guy says he doesn't wear tin foil hats . . . you couldn't tell it from the "facts" presented in the video.

Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. You can view the birth certificate online and even a number of far right sites admit that a) the birth certificate is legit and b) he's a U.S. citizen.

I really wish more people would spend time on factcheck.org and sites like that than viewing the youtube video linked above.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)




----------



## JohnHarvard (Oct 7, 2008)

hurling frootmig said:


> That's ten plus minutes of my life I would like back. Even though the guy says he doesn't wear tin foil hats . . . you couldn't tell it from the "facts" presented in the video.
> 
> Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States. You can view the birth certificate online and even a number of far right sites admit that a) the birth certificate is legit and b) he's a U.S. citizen.
> 
> I really wish more people would spend time on factcheck.org and sites like that than viewing the youtube video linked above.


hahha, i hear ya...i didnt even watch the whole vid, just felt an urge to show what gets sent around these days in emails.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Terpoxon said:


> So you are saying that in a case where someone running for an office but who can't take up the office, we should wait until they actually win the election before we do anything? Sorry to have to say this, but that is one of the stupider comments I've seen posted on this site.


It's no stupider than assuming a party would nominate someone who was ineligible to hold the office. Clearly, they wouldn't nominate someone who was obviously not eligible and yes, it would generate a crisis just like we had following the 2000 election that had to be decided by the courts.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It makes you wonder if Berg is a classmate of the guy who brought action over his lost pants?

The true insult is to the people who are prevented from seeking legal redress from corporate protectionist laws.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

So far nobody has bothered to address the point, I guess it was my fault for even raising it. The issue is not whether Obama, or McCain (since the NYT tried to raise the issue of his citizenship and eligibility earlier in the campaign) meet the requirements. The issue is: who acts as the enforcer of the law?

Again I have no desire to debate Obama's citizenship. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Berg is right. Let's stipulate for this discussion that Obama went to Kenya and became a citizen and therefore surrendered his US citizenship and had to become naturalized later on. Then who would be responsible for enforcing the Constitution and saying no, you cannot run for President. Why can't a citizen bring a suit against a candidate if they are in violation of the Constitution? The judge didn't rule on Obama's citizenship, he merely said that Berg did not have legal standing to bring the case. Say what you want about Berg (he's a lifelong Democrat), but he is a lawyer in Pennsylvania and a former state Attorney General. If he doesn't have standing then who does?

I don't think it would be that far fetched for a party to put up a candidate that lacked the credentials. It has never been an issue, and so most people are probably not even aware of the rule. 

Again, I would think it would be better for the party, and certainly for the electoral process to stop a candidate who was ineligible before an election, rather than having to disqualify them after an election that the candidate won.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Someone sued McCain under the same theory, and the court dismissed it under the standing theory. It also opined that these qualifications are a "political question" that the courts shouldn't be involved in. Like abortion. Wait, no, not like abortion. Exactly the opposite of abortion. But you know what I mean.

I don't know how well the "political question" theory works. It's not like the voters can compel discovery (or, even, it seems, that Mr. Berg can either...).


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

A quick search on the case revealed the following quote from the Judge:

"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint."

So no one has standing until Congress gives them standing (which they haven't done yet)

That said, it may be fun for some to mentally masturbate themselves that Obama wasn't really born in HI, his Mom wasn't a citizen or that he secretly renounced his citizenship, but you can rest assured that the McCain campaign would file a legal manuver to counter the campaign if there was a shred of evidence.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

So, who does have standing?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Someone with the wealth, power, and influence to not really have to worry about who's president.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Also from the decision:



> &#8230;regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.


So the deciding judge would have us wait until an ineligible candidate is actually elected before injury is done to a voter/voters?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I guess. The flaw in his logic is that voters don't have the means to force Obama to answer questions or produce documents, like the plaintiff in a lawsuit can.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I know this much of american law. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The various machinations in this election have tried to burden Obama with guilt over everything from birth, religion and association with terrorists and socialist ( read Communist ) agenda.

Obama is ( finger jerk) 'that other guy' And like O.J. or kobe is one step away from reminding us black males are inheritantly beasts.

The dirty tricks of Scream Dean and Gephardt vs Nader turned me from ever voting for a Democrat again. The hysteria I've seen from the party of Lincoln ( remember?)
just closed my door to their party too.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Shh. Nobody tell Kav that this Berg character is a Hillary-supporting Democrat.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Shhh- nobody tell Pedantic the difference between our two headed corporate built golem duocracy is zip.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If you say so. 

By the way, I have to apologize-- someone set me straight that Obama is not technically a bastard, because his parents were married under the color of law (even if the marriage was invalid), which is apparently good enough to make children produced in such marriages legitimate.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Kav, to clarify, I don't care about guilt in innocence, Obama's or otherwise. My beef is that a concerned citizen is barred from bringing suit against a potentially unqualified candidate (again, I am not making any judgment's about Obama's citizenship, and neither has the court). I just find it amazing that a candidate could in theory run for office that he or she is unqualified to hold but until he or she wins that office, an average citizen cannot bring suit to stop it. What about those who made good faith campaign contributions to the campaign of the theoretical unqualified candidate, haven't they been harmed? If Mr. Berg contributed to Obama's campaign, would that give him standing? 

I agree, the two party system is a duopoly and is probably one of the greatest impediments to real political change in America.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

And somebody tell Hilary Rodham-Clinton that hyphenated names are an older english devise to designate aristocratic bastards.
And Slick Willy and Hil have done nothing for the past 8 years but ingratiate themselves to the social circles of the Bush camp. As Bill said ' I dig him.'
Hilary would have been just another George W. Bush in pants extending the status quo for a 12 year Bush term far more than Steve Canyon McCain and the Perils of Pauline Palin.
It's all the Washington two step and Allen Edmonds probably has a custom pair of park Avenues in the works for Obama.
I've got some great books on the inevitable Y2K crisis if anyone needs diversion from all this Gotterdammerung meets passion play meets Days of Our Lives.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Terpoxon, Nader's reason for entering politics was the very disenfranchisement of citizens seeking to bring grievances to Washington vs Corporations. 
We can't even feed our pets safe food, let alone 'VET' the candidates who sent our pet food industries to China, imported a new power base in cheap labour and think the 'military-industrial complex' is a new building contracted to Halliburton by Cheney.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I guess. The flaw in his logic is that voters don't have the means to force Obama to answer questions or produce documents, like the plaintiff in a lawsuit can.


Obama has answered questions and produced documents. Apparently they do not satisfy the Turkey's insatiable need for *PROOF*. One wonders just what would satisfy the Turkey that Obama meets the minimum Constitutional standards to serve as President. On the other hand, the Turkey still refuses to provide documentary evidence that he was never abducted by aliens from outer space and subjected to mind altering experiments in their flying saucer before being returned to his home. What about it Turkey? We're still waiting for the *PROOF*!

Buzz


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

M6Classic said:


> Obama has answered questions and produced documents. Apparently they do not satisfy the Turkey's insatiable need for *PROOF*. One wonders just what would satisfy the Turkey that Obama meets the minimum Constitutional standards to serve as President. On the other hand, the Turkey still refuses to provide documentary evidence that he was never abducted by aliens from outer space and subjected to mind altering experiments in their flying saucer before being returned to his home. What about it Turkey? We're still waiting for the *PROOF*!
> 
> Buzz


Nothing - Turkey doesn't want Obama to be President and nothing will satisfy.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Well, I don't know if he'd be eligible to run in Turkey.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Kav, to clarify, I don't care about guilt in innocence, Obama's or otherwise. My beef is that a concerned citizen is barred from bringing suit against a potentially unqualified candidate (again, I am not making any judgment's about Obama's citizenship, and neither has the court). I just find it amazing that a candidate could in theory run for office that he or she is unqualified to hold but until he or she wins that office, an average citizen cannot bring suit to stop it. What about those who made good faith campaign contributions to the campaign of the theoretical unqualified candidate, haven't they been harmed? If Mr. Berg contributed to Obama's campaign, would that give him standing?
> 
> I agree, the two party system is a duopoly and is probably one of the greatest impediments to real political change in America.


I don't think that a court would be barred from hearing a lawsuit with merit. It's my take that the lawsuit brought lacked merit much as a lawsuit about McCain did. It would also stand to reason that the court may decide to avoid getting into the affair since this matter has been decided by multiple states. Let me explain. To run for President you have to meet the requirements of each state that you put your name on the ballot. In Iowa, I believe, you have to not only meet the qualifications of the U.S. constitution but you also have to supply 2500 signatures and be recognized as a national candidate. That's what I recall about Iowa - someone will tell me if my memory is decent or not :icon_smile_big:.

It seems to be that this issue is moot. It has been decided for both of the candidates by every state and territory that has rules and regulations that govern the primary process.

The last interesting question on this issue revolved around Barry Goldwater and it was decided that he could run for President since he was born in the Arizona Territory which was controlled by the United States.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> I don't think that a court would be barred from hearing a lawsuit with merit. It's my take that the lawsuit brought lacked merit much as a lawsuit about McCain did. It would also stand to reason that the court may decide to avoid getting into the affair since this matter has been decided by multiple states. Let me explain. To run for President you have to meet the requirements of each state that you put your name on the ballot. In Iowa, I believe, you have to not only meet the qualifications of the U.S. constitution but you also have to supply 2500 signatures and be recognized as a national candidate. That's what I recall about Iowa - someone will tell me if my memory is decent or not :icon_smile_big:.
> 
> It seems to be that this issue is moot. It has been decided for both of the candidates by every state and territory that has rules and regulations that govern the primary process.
> 
> The last interesting question on this issue revolved around Barry Goldwater and it was decided that he could run for President since he was born in the Arizona Territory which was controlled by the United States.


You are probably right that the lawsuit was without merit, though honestly I have no earthly idea since I haven't followed this at all. But Judge Surrick's ruling was plainly grounded in standing, not the merits. Your notion that the court could hear such a case if it has merit is difficult to understand. A court's hearing of a case is not predicated on it having merit. Instead it hears a case to determine if it has merit. But first, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction and the parties have standing. In this case, Judge Surrick determined that the plaintiff lacked standing, and therefore the court was without power to determine whether the allegations have merit. Accordingly, Terpoxon's original question is a fair one, and one often asked when courts decline to hear controversial political matters brought by an interested (but not quite interested enough) party.

Finally, I also didn't follow any case challenging McCain's qualifications for office, and didn't even know there was one -- though I certainly was aware of the controversy In any case, the issue for McCain is a legitimate one, even if on balance it does appear the he satisfies the Constitution's requirements.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> I know this much of american law. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The various machinations in this election have tried to burden Obama with guilt over everything from birth, religion and association with terrorists and socialist ( read Communist ) agenda.
> 
> Obama is ( finger jerk) 'that other guy' And like O.J. or kobe is one step away from reminding us black males are inheritantly beasts.
> 
> ...


Oh, right. Like how the clerk has to prove that you're under 21 before he can refuse to sell you beer? Poor Obama!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Again, the court's ruling in this case, so far as I can tell, was based purely on Mr. Berg- a lawyer and former PA Attorney General- not having standing. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case. It made no ruling on Obama's qualifications for the office, and had nothing to do with any individual state qualifications. The court simply said that the harm done to Mr. Berg by an unqualified person running for office was not specific enough and that hearing the case would grant standing to all voters in such a case.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> Again, the court's ruling in this case, so far as I can tell, was based purely on Mr. Berg- a lawyer and former PA Attorney General- not having standing. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case. It made no ruling on Obama's qualifications for the office, and had nothing to do with any individual state qualifications. The court simply said that the harm done to Mr. Berg by an unqualified person running for office was not specific enough and that hearing the case would grant standing to all voters in such a case.


you are correct. i think that when the obama campaign based its argument on standing alone, it permits the judge to assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true. in this case the judge is saying that even assuming mr. berg's allegations are true, he doesnt have the power to bring the suit. who does? the judge says that congress has the power to decide who has standing.

it seems to me that this judge is more concerned with nipping at the bud lawsuits that are probably filed every 4 years, alleging that one candidate or another is somehow injuring or infringing upon his/her rights by virtue of running for office.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Isn't it problematic for this to be left to Congress? If Congress were controlled by the same party that the non-requirement meeting candidate belong to, then the majority of Congress would have a vested interest in not doing their duty. And again I'll ask the question, why doesn't someone who has contributed money to an ineligible candidates campaign have standing? Isn't raising campaign money for an office for which you are ineligible essentially the same thing as mail fraud?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Isn't it problematic for this to be left to Congress? If Congress were controlled by the same party that the non-requirement meeting candidate belong to, then the majority of Congress would have a vested interest in not doing their duty. And *again I'll ask the questio*n, why doesn't someone who has contributed money to an ineligible candidates campaign have standing? Isn't raising campaign money for an office for which you are ineligible essentially the same thing as mail fraud?


This endless inquiry and speculation will get us nowhere. Isn't there even one constitutional scholar amongst us?

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> This endless inquiry and speculation will get us nowhere. Isn't there even one constitutional scholar amongst us?
> 
> Buzz


Buzz, I suspect that this is pretty tricky terrain even for serious Constitutional scholars. The principles of ripeness, mootness, justiciability and standing have long been complex and murky, especially on political questions. Courts often use these doctrines to avoid questions that they believe are either best resolved by politics or at least perceived to not be resolvable in a helpful way by courts. It is quite possible that the court in this case chose to rely on a fairly flexible standing requirement in order to avoid a constitutional/political crisis. This is not to say the court considered the claim meritorious. Because the court did not hear the claim, presumably the court could only consider the possibility that it might have merit, and had no appetite for what would have ensued. You will recall that after the 1960 election, Nixon's advisors implored him to challenge the results in Illinois, Texas and elsewhere, but he chose not to in order to avoid what he perceived would be a constitutional crisis. Some might say the court acted out of cowardice and avoided its duty. It is probably fairer to say that the court relied on a relevant doctrine in order to exercise prudence. This is not to say that nobody has standing -- I have no idea. My bet is that a competing political party or opposing candidate probably would have sufficient standing such that a federal court could not avoid the question. But that wasn't the case here, thankfully.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Buzz, I suspect that this is pretty tricky terrain even for serious Constitutional scholars. The principles of ripeness, mootness, justiciability and standing have long been complex and murky, especially on political questions. Courts often use these doctrines to avoid questions that they believe are either best resolved by politics or at least perceived to not be resolvable in a helpful way by courts. It is quite possible that the court in this case chose to rely on a fairly flexible standing requirement in order to avoid a constitutional/political crisis. This is not to say the court considered the claim meritorious. Because the court did not hear the claim, presumably the court could only consider the possibility that it might have merit, and had no appetite for what would have ensued. You will recall that after the 1960 election, Nixon's advisors implored him to challenge the results in Illinois, Texas and elsewhere, but he chose not to in order to avoid what he perceived would be a constitutional crisis. Some might say the court acted out of cowardice and avoided its duty. It is probably fairer to say that the court relied on a relevant doctrine in order to exercise prudence. This is not to say that nobody has standing -- I have no idea. My bet is that a competing political party or opposing candidate probably would have sufficient standing such that a federal court could not avoid the question. But that wasn't the case here, thankfully.


I don't know anything about the law, Mike, I know too little to even ask intelligent questions on this matter. However, I have to believe that our legal system provides a remedy or at least a route to a remedy for seating an unqualified president and that if it was an actual possibility that questions of standing would be mooted. It seems to me more likely that because of a record-keeping error we might find ourselves with a thirty-four-year-old president-elect than one who was foreign born. We might also find ourselves with a dead president-elect. Do we seat the vice president-elect? A lot can happen and I don't think that Congress and the courts would argue about externalities. Perhaps it would be up to the seated Congress to elect a president as they would in an electoral college tie. Any experts out there? *HELP!*

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You have to be careful not to mix the standing issue with other justiciability questions. Whether the plaintiff has standing is not really relevant to whether the question is a "political" one that the courts will refuse to address, even if the plaintiff has standing.

Assume Obama could be proven to be only 34 years old and McCain himself was the plaintiff. Under the "political question" theory, which IIRC was an alternative ground that courts have used to dismiss these suits, the courts are going to refuse to enforce the constitutional text no matter what.

I guess they consider such "political" questions to be unenforcable by the courts, sort of a "strongly worded constitutional suggestion" that the people are free to disregard if they like.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> Obama has answered questions and *produced documents.* Apparently they do not satisfy the Turkey's insatiable need for *PROOF*. One wonders just what would satisfy the Turkey that Obama meets the minimum Constitutional standards to serve as President. On the other hand, the Turkey still refuses to provide documentary evidence that he was never abducted by aliens from outer space and subjected to mind altering experiments in their flying saucer before being returned to his home. What about it Turkey? We're still waiting for the *PROOF*!
> 
> Buzz


Hi M6,

I have seen photos of the state-issued, computer-printed document of Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Since it is issued by the State of Hawaii, I think this should be proof enough of his citizenship and presidential eligibility. However, I'm curious...Is this the "documents" to which you refer? Since you cite the documents as plural, are there others of which you are aware? Or do you know if Mr. Obama has produced his original birth certificate and to whom? My curiosity remains because I fail to see why Mr. Obama wouldn't just produce the original document and settle the matter once and for all. He may not _have_ to, in light of the certified duplicate, but why allow such continued rumor-mongering to fester when a simple "fix" is at hand? If he doesn't have it because he lost it, so what? Why wouldn't he just say so, as the state-issued duplicate would seem sufficient to qualify him for the presidency.

I'm curious as to your take on this and would like to see a photo of the original, if you happen to know of a source.

Thanks.
T3G


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You have to be careful not to mix the standing issue with other justiciability questions. Whether the plaintiff has standing is not really relevant to whether the question is a "political" one that the courts will refuse to address, even if the plaintiff has standing.
> 
> Assume Obama could be proven to be only 34 years old and McCain himself was the plaintiff. Under the "political question" theory, which IIRC was an alternative ground that courts have used to dismiss these suits, the courts are going to refuse to enforce the constitutional text no matter what.
> 
> I guess they consider such "political" questions to be unenforcable by the courts, sort of a "strongly worded constitutional suggestion" that the people are free to disregard if they like.


Again, I think the this issue would get kicked to the curb because of the process involved to get ones name on the ballot across the nation (and in U.S. territories). The remedy does not appear to be with the court unless the person bringing suit has exhausted their efforts with the various entities involved in overseeing the election process in each state. I should also note that I think this issue would be kicked from federal court to a state court or courts.

There are a number of hurdles to overcome just to bring such a lawsuit before any court even begins to decide on the actual merits of the case.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're not hearing me. Imagine that every hurdle has been overcome, every potential remedy exhausted, and here we are. Can a 34-year-old be president?

If the machine allows it and it's a "political question," the courts will not interfere.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I am not lawyer, but doesn't the fact that it is a Constitutional issue (and not a state requirement) more or less determine that it is a federal issue, that is an issue of the federal courts?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Hahah, no. The Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is, and nothing else.

Abortion? Not in the Constitution. A "fundamental right" that the courts must jealously protect.
Natural-born citizen clause for the president? Plain text of the Constitution. A "political question" the courts will not interfere with.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

You're not getting what I am saying. The argument has been made the issue would have to be taken up in each of the 50 state supreme courts, because each state has separate requirement for being on the ballot. I am arguing that since it deals with a constitutional matter it would have to bypass the state courts and go directly to the federal court system. What they do with it is another matter, but it is not under the purview of the state courts.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Title III Guy said:


> Hi M6,
> 
> I have seen photos of the state-issued, computer-printed document of Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Since it is issued by the State of Hawaii, I think this should be proof enough of his citizenship and presidential eligibility. However, I'm curious...Is this the "documents" to which you refer? Since you cite the documents as plural, are there others of which you are aware? Or do you know if Mr. Obama has produced his original birth certificate and to whom? My curiosity remains because I fail to see why Mr. Obama wouldn't just produce the original document and settle the matter once and for all. He may not _have_ to, in light of the certified duplicate, but why allow such continued rumor-mongering to fester when a simple "fix" is at hand? If he doesn't have it because he lost it, so what? Why wouldn't he just say so, as the state-issued duplicate would seem sufficient to qualify him for the presidency.
> 
> ...


I appreciate what you are saying and asking, Title III, but to me it is like the so-called debate over evolution. Only those people who deny evolution are engaged in a debate and they have no opponent. Therefore, the anti-evolutionists have declared a debate but have nobody with whom to argue. I consider the matter of Obama's citizenship to be of settled and no longer of consequence. Those people who consider it vital can continue to run around shouting for more evidence, it isn't going to get them anywhere.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I honestly have no idea whether there is anything to these allegations about Obama. I tend to think that they're meritless. So what?

The federal courts dutifully sort through thousands, no, hundreds of thousands--no, dare I say, millions or tens of millions of pages of frivolous crap from prisoners every year, because they have voluntarily (and in my opinion, unconstitutionally) assumed the authority to supervise the state criminal justice systems. But someone challenges the qualifications of a candidate for president based on the plain text of the Constitution, and suddenly it's a "political question"? That doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with you, either.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I honestly have no idea whether there is anything to these allegations about Obama. I tend to think that they're meritless. So what?
> 
> The federal courts dutifully sort through thousands, no, hundreds of thousands--no, dare I say, millions or tens of millions of pages of frivolous crap from prisoners every year, because they have voluntarily (and in my opinion, unconstitutionally) assumed the authority to supervise the state criminal justice systems. But someone challenges the qualifications of a candidate for president based on the plain text of the Constitution, and suddenly it's a "political question"? That doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with you, either.


Right. And if I remember correctly, Turkey, you stated that when you are appointed to the Supreme Court you are going to bring an end to all New Deal programs. I am sure that all of America must breathlessly await your tenure on the Court and I am sure that President Obama has you at the top of his short-list.

Buzz


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Let's stipulate for this discussion that Obama went to Kenya and became a citizen and therefore surrendered his US citizenship and had to become naturalized later on.


You do not automatically lose your U.S. citizenship just because you become the citizen of another country. Therefore, even if Obaama became the ctizen of another country, he probably would not need to be naturalized, unless he went through the formal process of renouncing his U.S. citizenship.

I do find the original question interesting. What happens, and who decides if a candidate or victor in the presidential race turns out to not meet the qualifactions for the office (age, residency, citizenship)?


----------



## MinnMD (May 6, 2008)

*Red herring*

Citizenship is a red herring. Here's real issue.






MinnMD


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

MinnMD said:


> Citizenship is a red herring. Here's real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not quite.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

MinnMD said:


> Citizenship is a red herring. Here's real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One hopes that one's physician is a bit less credulous in the practice of medicine. I do not want my doctors to learn about pharmaceuticals from drug representatives and I do not want my doctors to get their news from You Tube.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Right. And if I remember correctly, Turkey, you stated that when you are appointed to the Supreme Court you are going to bring an end to all New Deal programs. I am sure that all of America must breathlessly await your tenure on the Court and I am sure that President Obama has you at the top of his short-list.
> 
> Buzz


I think what I said is that I'd patiently cast a solitary vote against them, like Justice Thomas. Or, if he's still around, I guess I'll just concur with him most of the time. It's a lot less work that way.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

agnash said:


> You do not automatically lose your U.S. citizenship just because you become the citizen of another country. Therefore, even if Obaama became the ctizen of another country, he probably would not need to be naturalized, unless he went through the formal process of renouncing his U.S. citizenship.
> 
> I do find the original question interesting. What happens, and who decides if a candidate or victor in the presidential race turns out to not meet the qualifactions for the office (age, residency, citizenship)?


From what I've seen Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship, but if you are under 21, you are not required to choose between Kenya and another country. I never intended for this discussion to be about Obama's case in particular, just about the general topic of of who gets to review the credentials and who is able to challenge them.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think what I said is that I'd patiently cast a solitary vote against them, like Justice Thomas. Or, if he's still around, I guess I'll just concur with him most of the time. It's a lot less work that way.


I can't believe I am saying...or even thinking...this, Turkey, but that was well put, quite witty, and good humored! Don't get me wrong, I still find your ideas repugnant, mind you, but well stated in this case!

Buzz


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> From what I've seen Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship, but if you are under 21, you are not required to choose between Kenya and another country. I never intended for this discussion to be about Obama's case in particular, just about the general topic of of who gets to review the credentials and who is able to challenge them.


I believe there are, or were, several countries that do not allow dual citizenship, but that doesn't matter as far as the U.S. government is concerned. Until you formally renounce your U.S. citizenship, you will retain it, even if you become a citizien of a nation that does not allow dual citizenship.

Actually, our oath of citizenship also requires a renunciation of all former loyalties, but the oath is not enforced, and my understanding is that many people who become U.S. citizens retain their former citizenship.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Someone sued McCain under the same theory, and the court dismissed it under the standing theory. It also opined that these qualifications are a "political question" that the courts shouldn't be involved in. Like abortion. Wait, no, not like abortion. Exactly the opposite of abortion. But you know what I mean.


A political question that the courts should not be involved in. Like voting. Wait, no, not like voting. Exactly the opposite of voting. But you know what I mean.

Please see Bush v. Gore.

I bet if you were to read a dozen Con Law books not one would include abortion in the political question section and that every one would include voting. See _Baker v. Carr_, 369 U.S. 186 (1962),


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

First, I think you should try reading what I actually wrote. Second, the courts have hardly treated "voting" or equal protection as political questions. I have no idea where you got that idea from.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think the judge had enough legal infor. to toss the case without the lawyer imputting anything.

John McCain is more of a legal problem than Obama, it seems to me.

All parties should be required to make for sure their candidates are legit months before voting time.

Having one citizenship should mean somebody is voting for their countries interest. Who knows why people vote. Having several citizenships would be nice. If you become a US citizen it doesn't mean the country you came from disclaims your citizenship with them.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> First, I think you should try reading what I actually wrote. Second, the courts have hardly treated "voting" or equal protection as political questions. I have no idea where you got that idea from.


You must really go to a poor law school. Like I said, see Baker v. Carr. The first paragraph from Wikipedia (cut me some slack) reads:

_*Baker v. Carr*_, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that reapportionment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that reapportionment of legislative districts is a "political question," and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.

It's ok Turkey. Not everyone can go to a good school. It's like health care - not everyone can have the good stuff.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not in law school, you buffoon. 

I'd love to hear how that supports your thesis that Bush v. Gore was a wrongly decided abberation. And I really do not feel like citing the multitude of voting-related decisions.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm not in law school, you buffoon.
> 
> I'd love to hear how that supports your thesis that Bush v. Gore was a wrongly decided abberation. And I really do not feel like citing the multitude of voting-related decisions.


And yet you wrote, "Yes, well, I got an "A," so I guess that means I win."

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=84011&page=3

So you have never gone to law school and think you have an understanding of the political question doctrine? I have never taken you seriously and now I know why. You're not just a dope - you're an uneducated dope who tries to talk intelligently about things he can't possibly understand.

Had you gone to law school you would have read Baker v. Carr. A Supreme Court cases decided by the Warren Court. The court held that reapportionment (who we get to vote for) was not longer a political question and that the Court could rule on it via the Equal Protection Clause.

Conservatives (your boys on the court - the ones who decided Bush v. Gore) typically are for state's rights. States decide how to apportion their voting districts and how we vote. And conservatives typically are not big fans of Warren Court decisions. Therefore, had conservatives believed and followed what they preach, they would not have ruled on Bush v. Gore. Why? How we count votes is a political question left up to the states and the Florida Supreme Court had ruled on how Florida should count its votes (it ruled that there should be a recount).

Bush v. Gore was not an aberration. Why? Conservatives talk a big game but when it comes down to it they have no support for their decisions. See Gonzales v. Raich, Bush v. Gore, etc. Conservatives argue their "means" are legitimate and dictate their decisions. This is a lie. Conservatives only care about the "ends" and will do whatever it takes to achieve a result. No matter how pathetic.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you're in law school. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that you could get in--just about anybody can these days. What I can't imagine is that someone with your ignorance, arrogance, and let's be honest here, limited ability to read and comprehend, would not be a lot more timid after the abuse you would endure in law school.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm not _*in*_ law school, you buffoon.





Stringfellow said:


> So you have _*never*_ gone to law school ...


Most any lawyer who has practiced for more than a week will admit that the stupid mistakes are the ones that teach you a stern lesson in humility.


----------

