Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
John McCain also was sued, and the case thrown out.
He claims to be born in a military hospital and base that wasn't even built until after he was born. In order to qualify for the military rule, you have to be born in a us facility, or us controlled territory. Which he wasnt.
He knows he wasnt or he wouldn't be lying about. Since there are so many threads up about this, just thought lets do fair play. The birth certifcate he shows people is not the original. The town he says he was born in, is a lie, the hospital he says he was born in, another lie
the original is here:
In the United States, the rights of citizenship are defined by federal law; which legislative authority, under the Constitution, resides in Congress. In the 1950's, the Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq. defining nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. These provisions, some of which apply retroactively, govern a person’s rights as a natural born citizen; which federal statutes supercede prior case law (including decisions of the Supreme Court) on the subject of citizenship to the extent inconsistent with the Congressional legislation. Under this law, both President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are eligible to be President of the United States. (NB: Prior to the enactment of § 1403(a) of title 8 of the United State Code in 1952, Senator McCain would not have been deemed a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President.)
However, as I have explained before, the spurious claims challenging the eligibility of the candidates will not be heard because the plaintiffs lack standing to sue. In this regard, what standing means is that the plaintiff must be the owner (or holder) of a claim for an '"injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."' Goode v. City of Philadelphia, 539 F.3d 311, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17153, 9-10 (3d Cir. 2008), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Without proper standing, the court does not have "subject matter" jurisdiction. For example, a recent case filed by a voter who sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee alleging that Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States was dismissed for lack of standing. See Hollander v. McCain, LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008). The reason why an individual voter does not have standing to challenge the candidate’s eligibility is because, under the Constitution, a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
One might wonder who does have standing to sue on this issue, and how the matter could come up. Here is a hypothetical example:
During the primaries, the Republican National Committee ("RNC") denies Senator John McCain attendance at a party sponsored and nationally televised debate to be held between the candidates for nomination because he was born in Panama and not a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President. Senator McCain sues the RNC in District Court for declaratory relief asserting his rights as a citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a), and seeking an injunction against the RNC from barring his participation in the debate. The RNC files an answer to the complaint and moves for summary judgment on the issue of Senator McCain’s eligibility. In this example, Senator McCain would have standing to sue because he is the holder of a claim based upon a legally protected right based upon his citizenship as provided by federal law.
I trust that this explanation will shed some light on the subject.
The Supreme Court made no such decision; has refused to hear several of these "cases".
They have refused based on standing alone, nothing else. The SCOTUS is saying to this point that no citizen has been harmed--I think because Obama was not yet POTUS-- therefore no cause could be brought. Now that--or at least after Tuesday--Obama will officially be POTUS, some think they have standing.
They have refused based on standing alone, nothing else. The SCOTUS is saying to this point that no citizen has been harmed--I think because Obama was not yet POTUS-- therefore no cause could be brought. Now that--or at least after Tuesday--Obama will officially be POTUS, some think they have standing.
"Academic and housing records". So we will know what dorm he lived in; how he did in the usual freshman crap like Freshman writing, etc. You will not find out anything else.
I have read that he lived in Pakistan with college friends for a few years.
Please point out where anybody demanded to see George Bush's birth certificate. If it's as important as you say, you would have demanded it in 2000, right? Is it somehow OK to take the Bush family's word for it, but not Obama's? Especially since Obama's birth certificate has been produced, and there is a birth announcement from Hawaii.
Give it up already. This is totally pathetic.
Didn't the governor of Hawaii (or appropriate authority) state the birth certificate was authentic? Also, both Occidental College and Columbia have made statements that he attended both institutions. People are just drinking too much sour grapes juice.
People should leave him alone to run the country and not throwing frivolous lawsuits. Then they'd still find some new conspiracy theory.
I have read that he lived in Pakistan with college friends for a few years.
He VISITED a college friend in Pakistan. That is not equivalent to moving there. Google "Obama visited Pakistan" and you will get a plethora information of whom he visited.
I listed earlier in this thread, two Supreme Court cases that have dealt with "Natural Born," and he is not a NBC. Here is the pertinent language in one of them:
It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Please note that it states PARENTS, plural, not parent.
OK, I posted this before, but some of you may not have seen and/or read it:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
In the United States, the rights of citizenship are defined by federal law; which legislative authority, under the Constitution, resides in Congress. In the 1950's, the Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq. defining nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. These provisions, some of which apply retroactively, govern a person’s rights as a natural born citizen; which federal statutes supercede prior case law (including decisions of the Supreme Court) on the subject of citizenship to the extent inconsistent with the Congressional legislation. Under this law, both President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are eligible to be President of the United States. (NB: Prior to the enactment of § 1403(a) of title 8 of the United State Code in 1952, Senator McCain would not have been deemed a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT
They have refused based on standing alone, nothing else. The SCOTUS is saying to this point that no citizen has been harmed--I think because Obama was not yet POTUS-- therefore no cause could be brought. Now that--or at least after Tuesday--Obama will officially be POTUS, some think they have standing.
Good night, I will be back on this tomorrow.
I am not an attorney, either, but I have read many of these threads, and most feel that since the Supreme Court dismissed them without comment, they don't have a snowball's chance. They guy is going to be inaugurated TOMORROW! If the SCOTUS felt there was any question, they would have acted by now. They've had lots of chances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamama Mia
I have read that he lived in Pakistan with college friends for a few years.
So what? Is it illegal for people to live abroad a few years? I "heard" he only visited Pakistan, though that word can mean many things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
