FRANTIC ANTI-OBAMA FANATICS STILL FILING FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS

Yikes!  And this time it is two Hoosiers who have jumped on the proverbial “you ain’t no natural born citizen” bandwagon.   A number of the lawsuits have failed to gain traction and have been dismissed by judges across the country who have seen them for what they are – pathetic attempts to discredit president-elect Obama.

Steve Ankeny of New Castle, Indiana, and Bill Kruse of Roselawn, Indiana, are two of the latest wingnut plaintiffs to tackle the issue of whether or not president-elect Obama is really a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.  Their lawsuit was filed in Marion County Superior Court in Indianapolis and names Governor Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees as defendants in the Indiana suit.

The plaintiffs, however, have decided to try a different tack and are alleging that Governor Daniels and the national committees have failed to uphold the Constitution which states:

“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.”

The problem is that the writers of the Constitution did not explain what they meant by “natural born citizen.”   No one has a problem with a person born on U.S. soil to parents who are both citizens and living in the U.S. when the child is born.  Makes sense.  But situations exist this seemingly simple example does not apply.  For instance, parents who are living abroad when their child is born.  Or one parent who is a natural born citizen and a parent who is not.

A nonpartisan group – factcheck.org –  has investigated the issue and reports that its staffers have seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.  The group concluded that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship with its conclusion that Obama was born in the U.S.  After all, he was born in Hawaii in 1961 – two years after Hawaii became a state.

The plaintiffs piously argue that they don’t care who the candidate is, their goal is to make sure the Constitution is followed.  Please cut the crap.  I wonder if they have followed other Constitutional issues with such dedication and fervor?

The United States Supreme Court earlier this month declined to accept another junk lawsuit filed by a Leo Donofrio, who also argued that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

As so many Republicans said after the 2000 and 2004 elections – GET OVER IT!  Obama will be inaugurated as president, and the country will move forward.  The crackpots filing the lawsuits will have had their 15 minutes of fame and will fade into oblivion.   Just too bad Hoosiers had to become part of the circus act.

Photo Credit: Google Images

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Democrat Party, Democrats, Mitch Daniels, U.S. Presidency and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to FRANTIC ANTI-OBAMA FANATICS STILL FILING FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS

  1. virgomonkey says:

    Oh, the truth hurts them so.

  2. Jasper James says:

    I think even if the SC heard the cases – they would simply rule that a citizen at birth (as defined in the 14th amendment and subsequent statutes) IS a Natural-Born Citizen. I am assuming he was born in Hawaii according to his COLB. However if his BC tells something different there is uncertainty. So The courts should review his BC to verify that it is the same as his COLB. I think Obama should release his BC just to clear this mess up. I do wonder about Obama though – he really does not look like his father or mother. He is too tall 6′ 2″ compared to his father 5’11” and his mother was even shorter. His facial features don’t look like his mother at all. I wonder if he was adopted or something and his mother covered this fact up.

  3. Dear Beckwithout brains:

    Your racism and hatred are blinding you to a proper analysis of the Constitution and the out-dated cases you have cited.

    Why would you rely on court cases that were decided before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union? Obviously these states are not “in the mainland” to which your chart refers. Even if you argued that Alaska somehow falls “in the mainland” because it is on the North American Continent, what is your argument for Hawaii – where Obama was born? Hmm, not “in the mainland” is it?

    The Constitution mentions nothing about being born on the mainland, thus it is up to the courts to determine what is “natural born.” U.S. v. Wong was brought pursuant to the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Acts aimed at denying entrance to Chinese and, in particular, Chinese laborers. These Acts were later repealed. The court noted that Mr. Wong was born here, thus he was a natural born citizen. His parents were never naturalized. The court ruled in Mr. Wong’s favor – he had been born here and was a citizen.

    Your second case, Perkins v. Elg, cites to the lower court case as correctly deciding that Ms. Elg was a “natural born” citizen even though both of her parents were Swedish and had become naturalized citizens at the time of her birth. She was born in the United States.

    It seems pretty simple to me – Obama was born in Hawaii which was a state in the Union at the time of his birth. He is a natural born citizen. This is different than trying to claim citizenship through parents. You are fighting a losing battle, and you know it.

    You might want to clean up your research before you climb onto your high horse again. You might also want to take off your hate-filled blinders. Your blog is nothing but a bunch of hate-filled trash.

  4. Jasper James;

    Looks and traits can be deceiving in children. I have four sons – one had blond-white hair for years. Both his father and I are dark-haired although I now color my hair. The other three have dark brown hair.

    Recessive genes, when combined from both sides, become dominant genes. Two of my sons are stocky like their father and two are thin and tall like other members of both our families. In fact, their father is only 5’9″ tall yet two of our sons are about 6′ tall.

    In determining paternity actions, generally pictures are not allowed to establish that the child either looks like an alleged father or doesn’t look like an alleged father. Genetic traits can skip generations or they can hit each generation.

  5. Jasper James says:

    First impressions are important – when I first saw a picture of Obama with his mom – my first impressions was that he did not look like her at all (not just color). I have read that he is 6’1″ or 6’2″ and his father was 5’8″ (not 5’11”). His picture standing next to all his half-brothers show him at least a “head” taller than everyone. It seems strange that literally one-month after Obama’s birth she fly’s back to Washington State to attend School there. Why did she not continue at UH with her purportedly new husband? I suspect the real truth is she found out he was already married with multiple kids back in Kenya she freaked and left town so as not to be around Obama Sr. If she really did not marry Obama Sr. then perhaps the BC reflects this fact or some other embarrassing fact.

    By law Obama at birth was a citizen of the U.S. And a citizen of the United Kingdom. The statutes defining him as a Citizen of the U.S. at birth were not intended to define the eligibility for President and do not include the term “natural born citizen” . At this time no court has ruled that the 14th Amendment and subsequent statutes were intended to clarify the meaning of “natural-born citizen”. Article X of the constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It seems to me the authority(power) to determine the eligibility of the presidential candidate’s has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the states, therefore it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This seems to me to be sufficient authority for people of the United States to investigate and to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency. So how can the Courts say that people don’t have standing?

  6. Jasper James:

    I understand first impressions are important; however, like I said looks are not allowed as evidence of paternity. I worked in a prosecutor’s office as an attorney enforcing child support and establishing paternity. One of the first things I learned as I began prosecuting paternity actions was that whether or not a child looks like either parent is not admissible as evidence to help establish paternity. I will stick by that; therefore, I am not concerned that Obama may not look like his father or be of similar height either to his father or his brothers.

    The 14th amendment states “that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. By law, if Obama were born in a state, wouldn’t that make him natural born despite the fact that his one parent was not a citizen? Aren’t children born to aliens in this country considered “natural born” citizens? They would appear to be based on the 14th amendment.

    If so, I really don’t see the issue: Obama was born in a state and that makes him a natural born citizen based on the 14th amendment. Natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship are two different issues. Many of the laws that address citizenship deal with those born outside the United States – this clearly does not apply to Obama since he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii was admitted as a state two years before Obama’s birth.

    I disagree with allowing the states to determine what is natural born. The presidency is a national office and the criteria should be established at the national level. If the states were allowed to jump in and use their reserved powers through the 10th amendment, then we could very well have 50 different versions of what it means to be natural born for purposes of the presidency.

    The cases would then end up at the Supreme Court level, and, since the Supremacy clause provides that the high court’s decision would control, we would have a decision at the national level anyways. But as we have seen this month, the Supreme Court has declined to look at one of the cases challenging Obama’s status.

    Another lawsuit filed by Philip Berg was dismissed at the federal district court level by Judge Surrick who stated:

    “If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff.”

    An article in “First Impressions”, which is the online companion to the Michigan Law Review has a fairly thorough analysis of the issues:

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm

    I have tried a Google search and can find no other presidential election cycles where the issue of natural born has been raised. Perhaps there are some, but the fact that a search shows nothing leads me to believe that these lawsuits are fairly unique and triggered by something other than the litigants grandiose claims of concern for our political process.

  7. wickle says:

    Maybe I’m just one of those ignorant fools, but I’m thinking that if Obama was a US citizen at birth (regardless of whether he was also a foreign citizen), then he meets any reasonable definition of a natural-born citizen.

    The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case several times now … and for only one reason — they looked at it and knew immediately that it has no merits.

    There are important cases worth hearing, and they have no interest in wasting their time on the self-indulgence of fanatics. The court become wrapped up in the 2000 election, and they surely don’t want to get caught up in every Presidential turnover. If there was a good enough reason, the (conservative, please remember) Chief Justice Roberts would make sure that the court heard the case.

    Or are they all in on the conspiracy, too?

Comments are closed.