But the Birth Certificate Obsessed (BCO) people go on and on.
Let me note that the six hurdles still stand — six reasons why the objections to Obama’s eligibility will fail:
- Obama has a U.S. passport (claims that he doesn’t have a passport were put to rest when it was revealed, in March 2008, that State Department workers had illegally accessed his passport records).
- Because we know Obama has a U.S. passport, we can be quite sure his draft status was verified before it was issued — which puts to bed any issue about his registering for the draft (which he wouldn’t have been required to do in any case until 1980 — draft registration had been suspended in 1973 until the Afghanistan/Soviet crisis).
- Obama’s a lawyer; the National Conference of Bar Examiners, or the Illinois Bar, would have checked on any problems that surfaced when verifying his fitness to practice law.
- Obama was a U.S. senator; as a matter of course, the FBI does a background check on every U.S. senator to verify they may view top secret material. Security clearances are absolutely necessary for members of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. Obama was a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, chairing the subcommittee that deals with U.S. relations with NATO — a post that requires top secret clearances.
- Obama has been getting the full national security briefing every day that the president gets; CIA and Homeland Security would have to verify his top secret clearances, and then some. There is absolutely no indication that this top, top check was not carried out.
- Perhaps most important, Obama posted an image of his birth certificate on-line in June; experts who checked the actual document verify it is real, and therefore authoritative.
Each of these six circumstances creates a rebuttable presumption that Obama is a citizen, and a natural born citizen under the somewhat ambiguous requirements of Article II of the Constitution. In order to make a case that Obama is ineligible, contestants would need to make a strong showing, with clear evidence, to rebut the presumptions created by by these official actions.
Professional poker player Leo Donofrio has made no such evidentiary showing, anywhere, at any time. Nor has any other Obama critic presented any evidence to overcome any of these six presumptions.
Recently a poster named Carlyle complained that my previous post had been unknown to him. While I posted trackbacks to his post at Texas Darlin’, that blog censors my posts and trackbacks, and thereby deprived this BCO from knowing about the facts (indeed, trackbacks are automatic, since Texas Darlin’ is also a WordPress blog; the only way the trackbacks and comments don’t show up at TD’s blog is because she censors them). With some fury, Carlyle and others found that post from November 27 and complained I was unfair to them. However, none has presented any serious challenge to the six hurdles.
How can I be unfair when they won’t make a case?
Here, below the fold, is an example of the heated and off-target responses I’ve gotten. Of course, I offer comments as we go.
A poster who goes by the handle SonOf1776 said:
You are dead wrong about the BC.https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/6-ways-challenges-to-obamas-citizenship-fail/ Even the Hawaiin government does not accept “Certification”, only “Certificate”.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
But don’t take my word, go read it for yourself. I have seen this on several Hawaii gov sites, this one happens to be the one I found just now first:
The problem here is that Hawaii DOES allow the Certificate of Live Birth for almost all official purposes (otherwise, why would they bother to issue them, with a stamp of certification that the State of Hawaii swears it’s correct?). The section of the law So1776 refers to, deals with people who are applying for a special status in Hawaii, to be considered part of the native Hawaiian people. Enrollment as a Native American also occurs in many other states, and that enrollment frequently requires more than the proof that one is a natural born citizen of the U.S., since not all natural born citizens of the U.S. are also Native Americans.
Check around the State of Hawaii websites, you’ll quickly see that a “certificate of live birth” is sufficient, for example, to get a Hawaiian identification card. It’s incorrect to say Hawaii won’t honor the certified COLBs it issues — Hawaii does honor them for almost all purposes, except for establishing Native American status. Obama isn’t trying to get himself enrolled as a Native Hawaiian, to get a Hawaiian Homelands homestead.
It’s highly ironic that Obama critics would miscite Hawaiian law to this section. Much of the case law they claim would deny Obama’s eligibility grew out of attempts to deprive Native Americans of citizenship, or voting rights, or other rights. Either it’s very sloppy citing by them, or it’s racist beyond all belief.
What is more, I never saw an ammended “Certification”. I know I saw someone else saying that they put that somewhere but nothing official. So we don’t even know what it looks like or even if there is such a thing. Got a link to that information?
I don’t know to what he (she?) refers here. Birth certificates in most states can be amended for adoptions, restating the facts but listing the adoptive parents as parents. To my knowledge, the place of birth must still be listed accurately even on these amended certificates.
However, there is no allegation that Obama was adopted at birth, in 1961. This birth certificate would be unaffected by that procedure. Under U.S. law, the document makes the case that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen parent.
Most states actually allow foriegn residents to obtain BCs. You couldn’t very well go to DMV for a DL with a green card and your chinese BC. All states do ity differently. Some are more lax than others. Hawaii was very lax at that time, only barely having become a state.
This is clearly not the case with Obama. Moreover, there is no indication that Hawaii was ever lax in granting birth certificates; Hawaiian native parentage has been important for various legal reasons since the U.S. annexed Hawaii in 1898. Both whites and native Hawaiians have had great reasons to keep birth records very accurate. I can find no authority which concurs with this bizarre claim that birth records were “lax” in 1961, due to statehood or any other reason.
Now here is the kicker, and the reason the BC is such an issue.
We have friends (not in Hawaii) who adopted a foriegn born child many years ago, They were able to get the child naturilized citizen status, but I don’t remember when. I saw this childs BC from the state they live in (not Hawaii). It is a computer generated short form like 0Bams “certification”. It says the child was “born in the state they live in” and not in the actual country of birth. If they went to the courthouse, I’m sure they could order a certified copy of the long form, and that would show the real country of birth. They told me they had to have the original foriegn BC translated and that notarized to get it.
That is why we want to see the real deal and that is why 0Bama has spent upwards of $2.1M to fight it. What is he hiding. Nobody except Nobama knows.
There is no allegation that Obama was adopted from a foreign set of parents in 1961. All evidence shows he is the natural-born son of a U.S. citizen, born on U.S. soil in Honolulu, in the Great State of Hawaii. These last three paragraph do not apply to this case.
I can find no indication that Obama has spent anything at all defending his birth records. In the cases in the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General has been defending the Federal Election Commission and state officials, who are the usual respondents in these cases.
BCOs like So1776 don’t appear to be very good at providing solid documentation of anything, especially these wilder claims.
Have some kool-aid Eddie. We will sooner or later find out what it says and then maybe we will have something to really argue about.
And if you really are dumb enough to believe that without all the black voters, many of whom voted multiple times that 0bumba had any chance to win then I feel real sorry for you. THe kool-aids on me.
I see. It’s an issue of race with this fellow. Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, considerations of race are inappropriate in this case.
I also see that the poster has no facts, so he tries to infantalize my name, and he starts turning President-elect Obama’s name into a joking appellation, in order to make laughter to cover the absence of fact. These childish pranks have absolutely no bearing on the issues.
One more thing, did you know that 53% of Americans think the BC issue has merit and only 41% think it diesn’t? The poll has a statistic of over 100,000 people. You can see this poll here:
So, at 41%, you are in the minority here Ediie.
I didn’t say it’s not an important issue. I said there are more important issues. Also, I challenged SonOf1776 to produce evidence to back the claims he makes.
Though he claims it as an important issue, on Obama’s eligibility to hold office, he makes no case at all against it. He fails to answer even one of the six hurdles the challenges must overcome (he claims he’s not running, so he doesn’t need to evidence his claims . . . bizarre, and again, childish).
The war in Iraq is an important issue, too. But that doesn’t mean every poker player in Las Vegas can go to court and sue the president to stop the war.
Most of these cases will fail on standing, as most already have at the trial court level (the Supreme Court has rejected two challenges, without comment). There is no injury shown, which is always a barrier to standing. If the alleged plaintiffs could demonstrate real, serious evidence that there is a question of eligibility, and that evidence made a clear case against the six hurdles I’ve listed, I suspect a judge might ignore the standing issue in order to let the case proceed.
But as we’ve seen in responses at this blog, and others, there is very thin evidence that Obama’s not fully qualified. And when we bother to check out the best the critics can offer — like the reference to Hawaiian law above — we most often find they have misapplied the law, or they simply got the facts wrong.
One of these cases is scheduled for conference at the Supreme Court in early January. [See the post from SSFC below for a discussion on the Supreme Court’s separate Rule 11.] There is an interesting note in the docket that says simply “Rule 11.”
Rule 11b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the rule that requires attorneys to affirm, by their signature, that claims in any filing are truthful and accurate, and that the suit is not a nuisance suit.
11. b. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
This is the rule that the courts would use to slap down these suits as frivolous, or as nuisances, or simply to straighten out lawyers who think they can make any wild claim without evidence against another party.
I’m not sure why the Court adds the note “Rule 11” to the docket listing (nothing I personally litigated ever got close to the Supreme Court and I’m not wise to the ways of their docket), but I wonder whether they are getting ready to slap down these nuisance suits and deliver sanctions to the lawyers who attempt to fog up the courts and history with them.
The Birth-Certificate-Obsessed may get a nasty surprise for their long-continued frippery.