Yet another "Birther" lawsuit tossed

[Unidyne]

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-tos ... 56867.html

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.

[fortinbras]

I'd have thought this all would have been resolved by the Strunk lawsuit earlier this year. This was a Freedom of Information suit against the US State Dept about the passport records of Mama Obama - who, being deceased, no longer had a privacy interest in those records.

The State Dept files show that she did not get a passport until 1964, some three years after the future Prez was born, meaning she was in the US when baby Barack was born.

Although biology is not my strong suit, I have a theory - and maybe someone on this forum with obstetric qualifications will verify it - that if the pregnant woman is in the US, the baby does not come out in Africa.

[grixit]

Did any of the would be litigants make their own "long form" birth certificates available?

[fortinbras]

A few of the birthers provided "long forms" - either their own or somebody else's. EXCEPT the long form had been kept pretty much since the baby was born; it would be very difficult, in any State, to get a long form as a replacement. This is because of all the privacy laws that have been enacted in the past 30 or 40 years. As a result, the replacement b/cs are usually the short forms. The short form is plenty good legal evidence and sufficient to get a US passport. (The old long forms had a LOT of very personal data about the parents, some of which was nobody's business, such as was the mother tested for VD, when was the last day the mother worked, how long the parents were married, their jobs, etc.)

Obama himself said that the original received by his parents shortly after he was born was lost in a house fire years ago; the copy he made public in 2008 was the typical short form. The simple fact is that the Health Dept (of any State) can't/won't issue a short form if there wasn't a long form in its archives. Hawaiian law (like the laws of many other States) explicitly makes the short form acceptable legal evidence, and won't reproduce the long form except on a court order. In Obama's case, earlier this year, he had his lawyer write to the Hawaiian Health Dept and make a specific request -- odds are they'd refuse to bend the rules to everyone but a sitting President, but it had reached a point where the State Legislature had passed a law saying that the Health Dept was relieved of spending any time or money responding to birthers poking around the Prez's b/c.

[ReadsAlot]

Why are old cases being posted now?
Secondly, with all the "lawyers" in here you guys should know what it is.

The Birth certificate issue is irrelevant. It is the normal deception just like all the "experts" who post here. If you went to law school, you do not Know law. It is pretty simple.
Here the Court in the Venus refers to Vattel. Surely all you lawyers studied Vattel right? A primary source for the Founders?
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Both Parents, and expressly the Father. Does Obama's "birth certificate" show his "father" as a "citizen"? No? Then he is at best a "naturalized citizen" that is a"US citizen" and NOT an Natural Born, I.E, "American Citizen". For the lawyers see 22.U.S.C. 1731 for clarification. Make sure to read the source, R.S. 2000, http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt

Minor V. Happersett(1875):
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=162

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Author of the 13th and 14th amendments:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &recNum=14

Not subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" like lawyers are taught. How sad they spend so much for such a poor education.

All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
John Bingham 1862 Author of the 14th amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639)

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &recNum=16

Through the sad indoctrination of law school where lawyers are taught to pledge allegiance to the Supreme Court who have no authority to hear the cases put before them, more often than not and then taught that whatever the court says is law, in direct contradiction to the Constitution which says "Laws made in pursuance" which of course means in compliance with it. Any that are not, are nothing but usurpation's by the court and void

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 17:387

Oh and if that is not enough here is Congress in 2005 stating that they KNOW they are misapplying the 14th amendment in regards to citizenship. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hh ... g23690.pdf

It is a sad day when people actually believe lawyers, in general, have a clue. Peace.

[Prof]

Why are old cases being posted now?
Secondly, with all the "lawyers" in here you guys should know what it is.

The Birth certificate issue is irrelevant. It is the normal deception just like all the "experts" who post here. If you went to law school, you do not Know law. It is pretty simple.
Here the Court in the Venus refers to Vattel. Surely all you lawyers studied Vattel right? A primary source for the Founders?
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Both Parents, and expressly the Father. Does Obama's "birth certificate" show his "father" as a "citizen"? No? Then he is at best a "naturalized citizen" that is a"US citizen" and NOT an Natural Born, I.E, "American Citizen". For the lawyers see 22.U.S.C. 1731 for clarification. Make sure to read the source, R.S. 2000, http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt

Minor V. Happersett(1875):
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=162

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Author of the 13th and 14th amendments:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &recNum=14

Not subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" like lawyers are taught. How sad they spend so much for such a poor education.

All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.?
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
John Bingham 1862 Author of the 14th amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639)

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &recNum=16

Through the sad indoctrination of law school where lawyers are taught to pledge allegiance to the Supreme Court who have no authority to hear the cases put before them, more often than not and then taught that whatever the court says is law, in direct contradiction to the Constitution which says "Laws made in pursuance" which of course means in compliance with it. Any that are not, are nothing but usurpation's by the court and void

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 17:387

Oh and if that is not enough here is Congress in 2005 stating that they KNOW they are misapplying the 14th amendment in regards to citizenship. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hh ... g23690.pdf

It is a sad day when people actually believe lawyers, in general, have a clue. Peace.

If you were a lawyer, you would know that most of what you posted is unadulterated legalistic crap.

First, the 14th Amendment says what it says, so Obama was born in the US and is therefore a citizen.

Second, his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, so he is not an "anchor baby."

Third, other presidents have had dual citizenship or been qualified to claim dual citizenship. I have made the argument (legal argument) that Ronald R. qualified for Irish citizenship. Any Jew born in America of Jewish parents is entitled to claim -- under the law of return -- citizenship in Israel. In Ronald R.'s case, I think, under Irish law, because one of his grandparents was an Irish citizen, he was entitled to claim Irish citizenship. Since neither President chose to claim such citizenship after reaching his majority, and has not done so until this date, that argument goes out the door.

Finally, any lawyer would tell you that the dispute as of this date is a "political dispute," which American Courts have traditionally dodged.

Take this "birther" crap to another forum. Oh, and if you're still into the birther "no official birth certificate crap, I posted on Quatloos years ago an analysis of the admissibility and prima facie nature of the evidence -- newspaper reports, the official state birth certificate, etc.-- which I concluded, quite correctly I think, that no court could possibly ever hold that that evidence was not sufficient to establish Obama's place of birth, subject to rebuttal by someone with overwhelming evidence of birth in Kenya, which just does not exist.

Get a life.