"Brithers" lose again in court. Judge: this is not "Alice in Wonderland"

[lucy]

I question whether it was proper for Obama to receive Fulbright funds,etc to study as a foreign national with an Indonesian passport. Did he regain a US passport afterwards? Not much mention of this....I noticed some kid got seven years in prison for falsifying his grades recently. I am not saying Obama did something felonious, but certainly used the system for his own advancement.....

He wants it both ways.

At least, he could tell the truth about his records, etc. They've been scrubbed in various ways, from what I have read.

This simply is not the way to conduct oneself as president of the United States. It leaves too many people with a lack of trust, frankly.

[Observer]

Oh, you are under the illusion that these lawsuits have anything to do with actual constitutional claims.  Sorry.

What do YOU think they are about?

[Michael]

Micheal.....

The provision as to whom may be eligable to be President of the US is in the US Constitution. It was put there by our Founding Fathers for a specific reason.

These "founding fathers" were NOT natural born citizens themselves (born on Brittish colonies).  My question is the validity...how hypocritical is THAT?

It states in Article II:

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.

This is where it gets tricky:

In situations where only one parent is a United States citizen, he or she must have lived in the United States for at least five years at some point before the child's birth as a full American citizen, and at least two of these five years must have occurred after the parent's 14th birthday.

It is not clear whether Obama's Mother fullfilled this requirement either.

Even IF Obama was actually born in Hawaii, this requirement  could be a factor as to his actual, "Natural Born" status.

As to why this requirement was to be so strickly followed.....Would you really want someone who was born and loyal to another country for part of his/her life to be totally in charge of the United States of America. Aparently, our Founding Father's did not!

My questions are not in regard to whether the "rules" exist.  My questions are regarding WHY they exist.  The only logical conclusion that I can find is that it promotes the genocidal theft of the Apache Nation...the entire continent...by foreigners...europeans.  Someone born elsewhere and not "established" into the general hypocritical society cannot be trusted.  If you are not properly initiated in the gang, you are not in the gang.

[Observer]

My questions are not in regard to whether the "rules" exist.  My questions are regarding WHY they exist.  The only logical conclusion that I can find is that it promotes the genocidal theft of the Apache Nation...the entire continent...by foreigners...europeans.   Someone born elsewhere and not "established" into the general hypocritical society cannot be trusted.  If you are not properly initiated in the gang, you are not in the gang.

 

[johnhp]

Are you another one of those people that only abide by Constitutional Law when it fits your need?

i am sorry this has nothing to do with the question.  How many court cases filed by these kooks have made it past summary judgement?  Simple question.  You see in our legal system, when someone files a legal case it is their obligation to make their case.  We refer to the processes that guarantee our rights and obligations within the legal system due process.  You may have heard of this.

You want to violate due process to make these legal cases.  This is basically what the last judge wrote when he dismissed the most recent case.  He stated that the plaintiff wants to shift its burden of proof to the defendant and that plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits.

Our Founding Father's were very specific and were very careful to provide these laws for a reason. And the job of the Congress, Judges, and any other US Official, according to the oath they took when they were sworn into their office, is to "protect and defend The United States Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and domestic".

What about the due process clause?  You interested in following that?

This is not something to be brushed aside or ignored. Any Judge, when put to the task, is obligated to require proof to put this to rest.

That is exactly what Judge Land required.  Thus far you birther kooks have been less than forthcoming.

If he/she does not, then they should be removed from their office and tried for treason.

Why is it you guys who are filing these suits always want to shift the burden of proof to others?

Pitiful reasoning on your part, John. I suppose you are a lawyer?

i just asked you a question your refused to answer.  How many cases filed by the birthers have been tossed on summary judgement?


No, i am not a lawyer.  i am a theologian.

[johnhp]

What do YOU think they are about?

i think they are the ravings of disgruntled lunatics.  They are filed with "no factual basis" (Judge Land) and have demonstrated no "likelihood of success based on the merits" (id).

Quite frankly, if these people were concerned with the constitution, they would follow due process as they file these claims and meet the burden of proof rather than try to shift that burden to the defendant (Hand, id.).