The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Mike S.,
Great work in tossing the stale birthers arguments in the garbage where they found them. I know I can’t get my original birth certificate here in Illinois. I can only get a certified copy of it. The State of Hawaii has already certified the authenticity of the document so Bdaman and BVM can return to planning their next Tea Party.
FFLEO,
I think this is exactly why JT said this case should be argued on its merits. Glad to hear from you again and hope you are well.
Mike Spindell wrote:
FFLEO,
“Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US?”
________________________________
Yes, until the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently.
The best treatise of this issue occurs in this primer:
________________________________
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
_________________________________
The previous Supreme Court cases (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1874) and a full discussion of the topics, including Pres. Chester Arthur (not a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen) is presented.
Mike, there is never any need to apologize for anything I posit or whatever you might misread or misinterpret. The Supreme Court needs to answer this question because it will continue to arise even after Pres. Obama leaves office in 1 or 2 terms.
This is important to me because legislators and the judiciary need to get the laws right to begin with and explain the terms and reasoning to prevent disingenuous bureaucrats the ability to randomly and independently determine what a law means or what the judges or legislators intended the law, rules, regulations and policies to mean. I mentioned this earlier and the deference given to bureaucrats needs to be reined in by the formation of good, sound, well-defined, logical laws, Acts, policy, directives, etc. that do not need the courts’ involvement to reinterpret the wrongful acts committed my governmental officials in long and costly lawsuits.
six months later
I bet he was good playing Hide and seek
Today we learn that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy, which contains essential facts. These facts could tell us alot. Just like the birth certificate he won’t release them. More openness and transparencey
Now I do have to apologize in any event because I read FFLEO wrongly. I re-read his statement and saw my mistake as being that he was only acknowledging President Obama’s
citizenship. Silly me for thinking therefore that there was some separation from the birther movement and FFLEO’s position.
Sorry, FFLEO, as much as I like and respect you, if you do not feel that Barack Obama is the legitimate and legal President of the US, then you become part of the birther movement and all its’ excesses. This movement has created this issue with their tissue of lies and innuendo and if you give credence to part of it, you support the whole. That the way it works because what the “Big Lie” depends on is people of good will giving credence to parts of their argument, thus sanctifying the whole. An example would be those Germans who believed: Well those Jews aren’t bad people, but why do they control our money and make us poor.
As I stated in different words above, this movement is a watershed issue, that will determine the future of this country and in my opinion credence to the birther movement will destroy the last vestiges of freedom we have. Think of the mindlessness of Buena Vista Mall. Imagine him armed and then consider the consequences of his thought processes.
“You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.”
Jim,
You’re the one focusing on the trivial BS and parsing words and facts to play word games and pretend you’re discussing serious matters. You brought up the Michelle/Barack meeting in a silly little way to bolster your unstated belief the man is a liar. Jim, as I’ve said before you are good rhetorically, but I’m just as good, as are most of the other regulars here. The difference with me though is I’m a fan of how Alexander dealt with the Gordian Knot. Jim, the Vattel gambit was frankly as silly as it gets and yet I’m sure you think you were making a serious point. That was dealt with by Mike A and Slartibartfast, for instance, but you just ignored and/or disparaged their points, with poor refutations.
You are so good though, that even a wise old fox like FFLEO gets fooled about where you’re coming from. Am I wrong well then just make the clear statement, as he has, that the legal President of the US, with no qualifications, is Barack Obama.
If I’m wrong and you do acknowledge this, I will of course be truly humbled in my error and offer you my sincere, unvarnished apology for ever doubting your sincerity.
“What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.”
FFLEO,
Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US? I can see that you do, but I don’t think Jim has acknowledged that at all. While the topic of discussion in an abstract sense of the law might be an interesting one, this is clearly not the same sense that Orly Taitz, the General, Colonel and Major take it in. They clearly believe that the President is illegitimate. The entire birther movement believes that and the outcome they seek is the removal of the President. Given that, also not doubting your sincerity for one second, I really think that the topic of this thread is not a legal discussion in the abstract and I’m unwilling to go there because what I see is the repetitive propaganda of the “illegitimacy machine” that is financed by the likes of Scaife and run to perfection by the Atwaters, the Roves and the Norqvists via their tools like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck.
Let me be very clear on this. To me this is the basest of treason in that the will of the American People is being thwarted by a plutocracy of privileged heirs and abetted by their bought off minions. GW Bush did not win the Presidency due to voter fraud in the State of Florida and backed up by a SCOTUS led by Scalia who presented a decision that went against all his supposed legal principles. The 2004 vote was also tainted in Ohio, by their dishonest Attorney General and the fact that GW Bush already held the reins of power and SCOTUS had already showed how they would roll (over).
Now in 2008 a Democratic President wins so handily that the election couldn’t be rigged, so we go back to the days of Bill Clinton and the massively endowed attempt to make him illegitimate. In an instructive side note poll results have shown that about 75% of American males define “having sex” as engaging in intercourse. “I didn’t have sex with that woman” was in fact a true statement in the minds of most American males. Nevertheless the blood lust of this plutocracy was not fed by just disgracing the man and his family, no they had to try to impeach him.
If this sounds like an angry diatribe FFLEO, it is, but my anger is not directed at you. It is directed at the hypocrites who claim to love this country and pretend to follow its’ constitution, some are in, or have worn uniforms, When the truth is they only want to kiss the behinds of those they consider their betters and reap the rewards forthcoming from such a debasement. The man is legally the President of the US and no torturous logic, or parsing of verbiage will make that change.
However, the more this continues, the more the flames of the ignorant’s hatred is fed, the more likely that the guns will come out. This is the possible legacy and purpose of the birther movement and to me that is the path of treason and chaos, leading to the end of whatever Republic we have left.
Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election. They are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
I have a novel idea and I’ve said it before. Supposedly his original BC is in a vault or where ever the spokesman from Hawaii says they have personally seen and verified that they hold it. If Obama doesn’t want to release it, why not let some independent forensic examiners go and look at it. Then they can say we have seen and verified that Hawaii holds President Obama’s original according to state policies and procedures. Oh and maybe they could add and it shows Obama’s original birth place of Hawaii. Which by the way was NEVER said in the original statement from Mrs. Okubo (I think thats right) all she said was we have seen and verified that they hold his BC according to state policy and procedure. You would have thought they would of added, and he was born in Hawaii.
Jim B,
Apparently, in the opinions of at least 5 of the justices, that argument is persuasive since the SCOTUS decided not to hear Donofrio’s case.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio
I must compliment the governement posters here. High points for coreography and to one in particular, timing!
FFLEO,
I was commenting on the natural born citizen issue and for what it’s worth, I agree with the interpretation that the 14th amendment overrides the natural born citizen clause of article II (and I think that this is what President Obama means when he says he is a citizen via the 14th amendment).
granted that case involved a child born OUS. but to a Male USC. just an example of how things aren’t as the Law of Nations says.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
now is this one of those situations that if the framers or those at the time didn’t give the mother the same “equal rights” as the father then in modern times they should not be afforded those rights unless a specific amendment is passed? that kind of originalist?
The framers intended the notable “citizen of the family” bestows natural born citizenry? again, not a lawyer, but i would imagine that those rights a father has/may have had at the times of the framers are equally possessed by the mother in modern times in conjunction with equal rights of women. in fact, as in my example in some situations the pendulum has swung the other way…
the father allegiance thing is kind of far-fetched don’t you think? do you think you can stand up and argue that in a courtin the US today? especially when the father didn’t raise the child?
again. I would argue that “natural born” means not naturalized (i.e. your citizenship was passed by a qualified parent without the need to naturalize or adjust status in any way). His mother can do that.
the definition of “father favorite” issued from the Law of Nations is out of date given the current recognition of women as equal citizens. are you suggesting there are legal qualities that a man/father can bestow that a woman can’t? i think you are on the wrong end of that one. literally. certain cases would unfortunately prove the oppisite. see above TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS
Mike A., S. et al.
What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.
The discussion I am interested in is a constitutional clarification regarding Natural Born. This is a blawg sponsored by a Constitutional scholar and I am a bit perplexed that Prof. Turley will comment on doggie stories but will not weigh in on this issue of the U.S. Constitution, at least give us some hint in his original essay. Perhaps he did with this statement, “The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter.” That way he left us to grapple with the issue, thereby providing him with “fodder” for his class lectures on the subject.
I see this question arising in the future when the ever-increasing Hispanic populace–or other ethnicities–might support a presidential candidate whose parent(s) were in the country illegally when he/she was born.
Mike Appleton, I requested earlier above, does the subsequent 14th Amendment make the Natural Born requirement in Article II moot or null and void?
Bob Esq. I understand the State issue you raised and that might be the answer to this all. That is, the Framers perhaps left the definition of Natural Born up to the States’ discretion. Regarding Santy Clause, the Easter Bunny, Gawd et al. I will leave that to others’ discretion, as I do with the Birthers’ rights, but then I do consider them all within the same realm of fantasy.
Reiteratively, this for me is about Natural Born as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and not the Birther issues. Therefore, please do not denigrate my position with aligning me—or perhaps others such as Jim Byrne—with the Birthers’ lost cause. Everyone here espouses the importance of the U.S. Constitution and that is what I am interested in; not suspicions.
Mike A.,
The word “subject” in French, is “sujet”. The word “citizen” in French, is “citoyen”. -I don’t think they had any trouble translating.
If the Framers would have intended to use the word “subject”, I think they would have done so. A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men if free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. (See Black’s First Edition (1891))