President Obama has already adopted or expanded many of the most controversial Bush policies on executive privilege, detainee treatment, termination of privacy lawsuit, and other matters. Now, he has adopted the identical position of Vice President Dick Cheney in seeking to withhold visitor logs to the White House.
While the Bush/Cheney fight to withhold the logs was denounced by liberals, there is relative quiet again over Obama’s position on the very same issue.
The Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present as well as a request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
There is again a sharp difference between President Obama’s rhetoric of transparency and civil liberties in government and his actual policies, here and here and here and here and here .
For the full story, click here.
Leo, I dealt with the constitutional requirements for the Presidency. The valid, legitimate COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Disclosure of the rest of the information listed is not required by the Constitution. Failure to disclose, however, could have been a reason to refuse to vote for him in 2008 and to refuse again if he runs in 2102, but it does not bar him from the Presidency.
James W. von Brunn asked many of the same questions on the list before it was reported that he killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum. He said the COLB was a proven countefeit.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/06/james-w-von-brunn-obama-is-missing.php?page=1
Anyone interested in these issues can find hundreds of threads and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/ It is a good balance to World News Daily.
Bdaman: Your entire discussion concerns natural born citizens like McCain who were born outside the U.S. It is irrelevant here because Obama was born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, and is therefore a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen.
I also find interesting that after a letter campaign directed at U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor to open a Quo Warranto into this debate that on June 1st he resigned his position. Maybe Obama gave him a choice. Quit or be fired.
I also find it interesting that although no court has ever determined what a Natural Born Citizen is that the State Department and Senate say two parents as U.S. Citizens.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
We then look at Senate Resolution 511 in reference to McCain
Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.
[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:
Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.
And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record. He stated:
My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.
The magic question is:
Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?
What was their logic? The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen. I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.
However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.
Why does it require two citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators. Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.
Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son. These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.
To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?
WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?
What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question? This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511. Get a quote on the record answering this question.
I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.
Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents. It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.
But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.
Again, that section states:
“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”
Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?
What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?
Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”. This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly. In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship. Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.
In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”. This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US. Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.
I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511, but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human rights law. She lectures throughout the world on human rights and US foreign policy.
Scott Horton interviews Marjorie Cohn on torture and US illegal wars at following link;
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/09_05_05_cohn.mp3
Mike Spindell wrote, in part:
“Jim Byrne is butting into an area he doesn’t have a right to comment on. Here is proof that he is a Scotsman and not an American:”
_________________________________
Mike, do you know for sure that the Mr. Jim Byrne who posted on this blawg is the one you referenced? There are likely more than several men in the world named “Jim Byrne.”
Of course, you may be correct and perhaps Jim Byrne (with his identifying avatar) will return to reply to you and others. Regardless, some of Jim’s comments are not lessened or invalidated simply because he is a Scot, if in fact he is.
Barack Obama – Mass Murderer
By Dan Spielberg
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” ~ Chinese Proverb
May 13, 2009 “Lew Rockwell” — If you are a poor, hapless Afghan civilian whose family’s bodies were ripped apart by U.S. bombs, does it really make a difference to you if the air “strikes” were ordered by the Moron from Texas, George W Bush, or the Agent of Change, Barack Obama? I would think not. If you were a Pakistani civilian whose village had been bombed by the U.S. would your heart be comforted by the fact that the mad bombers have a new, young, hip “Commander-in-Chief” who makes funny jokes to all the stenographers known as “The Washington Press Corps”? I sincerely doubt that as well.
Barack Obama sold himself to the country as someone who would bring massive “change” to the policies of the U.S. government, but of course when it comes to the favorite activity of that cancerous organism, warring against wholly innocent civilian populations in foreign countries, there will be no change. In fact, even the pleas of the President of the supposedly free and democratic country of Afghanistan are meaningless in the face of the U.S. government’s desire to enforce its will on as much of the Earth as possible. I wonder if Americans would feel like they lived in a “free democracy” if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign military power that regularly killed our people and refused to stop? A power that calls refraining from murder as fighting with “one hand tied behind our back” as White House “National Security” Advisor James Jones recently did? I am pretty sure they emphatically would NOT.
This morning’s news brings more information to us of “Barry’s” latest slaughter, with at least 8 people in Pakistan dead, none of whom ever hurt a single innocent American. If they had hurt any U.S. soldiers in the region, that, of course, is wholly a result of the imperialists in Washington invading the region in the first place. To kill someone for defending themselves against aggression is the definition of tyrannical is it not? Or is the U.S. Government so holy, so infallible and morally upright that any who defy it are to be disposed of, like so much human garbage? Is a country that claims to be Christian really ready to accept the blasphemous idea that the U.S. Government is above any laws, even those of the God that the majority of Americans claim to believe in?
The Chinese proverb that opens this piece is true in all times and places, so let’s call Mr. Obama by his real names: Wall Street Stooge, Zionist lickspittle, National Socialist, liar and above all, mass murderer.
I tried to put the link in, hope this works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8116046.stm
Here’s another way Obama has adopted Cheney’s position. The BBC has interviewed 27 detainees at Bagram who allege exactly the same type of torture as those at Gitmo and Abu Graib experienced. Obama has refused rights of attys. and the right to challenge detention at Bagram. Some people in Gitmo have been moved to the black hole called Bagram.
“Former detainee: ‘They put medicine in our drink to prevent us sleeping’
By Ian Pannell
BBC News, Kabul
Allegations of abuse and neglect at a US detention facility in Afghanistan have been uncovered by the BBC.
Former detainees have alleged they were beaten, deprived of sleep and threatened with dogs at the Bagram military base.
The BBC interviewed 27 former inmates of Bagram around the country over a period of two months.
The Pentagon has denied the charges and insisted that all inmates in the facility are treated humanely.
All the men were asked the same questions and they were all interviewed in isolation…
But unlike its detainees at the US naval facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the prisoners at Bagram have no access to lawyers and they cannot challenge their detention.
The inmates at Bagram are being kept in “a legal black-hole, without access to lawyers or courts”, according to Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network, a legal support group representing four detainees.
A former detainee held by the US at the Bagram air base
None of the detainees were charged or put on trial
She is pursuing legal action that, if successful, would grant detainees at Bagram the same rights as those still being held at Guantanamo Bay.
But the Obama administration is trying to block the move.”
Here we are six months later still having the discussion. Here’s an update for you for this week concerning the most transparent administration in history.
No. 08-9797
Title: James D. Schneller, Petitioner
v.
Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al.
Docketed: April 16, 2009
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (199 MM 2008)
Decision Date: January 8, 2009
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 6 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 18, 2009)
May 16 2009 Waiver of right of respondents Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al. to respond filed.
Jun 3 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2009.
Jun 10 2009 Supplemental brief of petitioner James D. Schneller filed. (Distributed)
Jun 22 2009 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
A judge in California has scheduled a July 13 hearing in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president in which the plaintiffs’ attorney, Orly Taitz, says the commander-in-chief is in default.
The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”
“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.
“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.
“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.
“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.
Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.
Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.
She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.
“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.
“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”
She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.
“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?
“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.
“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”
Mike S.
Jim’s birth certificate. ROFLMAO
Vince Treacy, Mespo72 et al.
Do you have comments regarding Mr. Obama not revealing his grades, college transcripts, and especially his LSAT results and other lawyerly pursuits as noted in the 12 items I listed above in this thread? I am especially interested in your comments as attorneys.
Most people who are in high public office are open and transparent regarding their curricula vitae, especially if they are proud, accomplished, and have little or nothing to hide.
All professionals seeking government employment must submit résumés composed of CVs containing college transcripts and other life experiences
Thanks.
bdaman: Thanks, maybe we have found a judge who is a real man. Judge Schneider appears to separate himself from all the cowards and other traitors. Let’s have us a Discovery!!
Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case – 2nd Extension of time granted to Defendants
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009. You can read the full order at the link below. When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. On page two the Judge writes, “In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.” Then on page four the Judge writes, “Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests.” The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, “The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously.” The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, “The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants’ motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25].” The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:
United States Courthouse
400 Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08102-1570
Mr. Mall is another of those fictitious entities. As I’ve previously noted, he operates a web site which is not identified, but which solicits donations from the public. Like Mr. Byrne, he doesn’t have a birth certificate.
Mike S:
“I’m incensed that a non-American is butting into American politics and doesn’t have the decency or the honesty to admit the truth. Let him prove otherwise. I want to see a copy of his birth certificate!.”
*********
Absolutely priceless.
The Mall says: “He can never qualify to be president as his father was not an American citizen. Obama can never be a natural born citizen.”
The birthers come in a variety-pak of many flavors, and Mall is a different flavor than Byrne. Byrne thinks Obama’s COLB was a forgery. The Mall video is using Donofrio’s argument, conceding for argument that Obama was born on U.S. soil, but saying that he cannot be President because his father was not a citizen. [BTW, the video is obsolete, since it was recorded before the Electoral College met last year.]
As Byrne was told above, the imaginary “requirement” that a natural born citizen have two American citizen parents is a fig-newton of the birthers’ imagination. There is no such requirement anywhere in the language of the Constitution. No such requirement has ever been applied, since it looks like President Chester Arthur’s Irish father was still a British citizen at the time of his birth.
The 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Mall and his video assume Obama was born in the U.S. If so, then the case is closed.
There are two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized. Obama was born in the U.S., not naturalized, so he is a natural born citizen. At the time of his birth, he was subject to U.S. jurisdiction. (It is only children of ambassadors and certain other children born on U.S. soil who are not subject to its jurisdiction).
The rest of the argument is baseless. The nationality or citizenship of his father is immaterial if the father does not have diplomatic status, and Obama senior was an exchange student. Obama may have been a nominal Kenyan “citizen” or “subject” under Kenyan law, but any such citizenship expired automatically under Kenyan law at age 21. The Constitution does not let foreign countries disqualify people from the Presidency by unilaterally passing laws granting so-called “citizenship” to any child (or grandchild, or great grandchild) born on U.S. soil to parents who were born abroad. But that is the necessary implication of the Donofrio Mall argument.
We know that the founders were not worried about infants when they wrote the natural born clause. They were worried about grown-up foreign generals or princes who might sweep into the Presidency after naturalization by Congress. The clause prevented factions from trying to install a minor German prince or some relative of Napoleon as a de-facto monarch in the Presidency.
Donofrio went to the U.S. Supreme Court with this argument, and it declined to hear his case. http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/09/supreme-court-turns-down-donofrio-appeal/
Jim Byrne is butting into an area he doesn’t have a right to comment on. Here is proof that he is a Scotsman and not an American:
http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk/about/
I’m incensed that a non-American is butting into American politics and doesn’t have the decency or the honesty to admit the truth. Let him prove otherwise. I want to see a copy of his birth certificate!.
Obama has betrayed America, the U.S. Military and all other U.S. citizens. He is guilty of selling, funding and waging illegal Wars, Mass Murder in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is guilty of the worst crime in the world, waging Wars of Aggression. Hitler and the Nazis were guilty of waging a War of Aggression.
Obama is a supreme War Criminal as Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hitler and Goering. Obama is in the White House by fraud and treason. He should be arrested immediately. Everything he has done is null and void.
Obama can never qualify to be president. He has been a War Criminal for many years and should not have been on the ballot. He should be in prison.
He can never qualify to be president as his father was not an American citizen. Obama can never be a natural born citizen.
Vince:
“This is more misinformation. Byrne needs to re-read the Constitution himself.”
*************
Jim Byrne doesn’t read, he merely repeats–sort of Myna birdish. He is after all the blog’s leading proponent of stupidity, perversion, and irrationality and justifying that that takes up quite a bit of time.