SCOTUS Hearing on Obama Eligibility: 14 Congressman served subpoenas

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Despite the fact that the title of the article references a Scotus hearing, there isn't one scheduled (see post #2.) The article itself does not even mention any hearing and all of her lawsuits have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
admin allisolm



I thought everyone had given up on persuing Obama's ineligibility, guess not;

http://www.conservativedailynews.co...-eligibility-14-congressman-served-subpoenas/

Press Release: 14 U.S. Congressman and House Judiciary committee were served with subpoenas with attached Urgent Demand for Verification to be provided within 2 weeks by March 19th. If they do not comply, they are in contempt of court.

A motion for a TRO (temporary restraining order ) was filed by the plaintiffs to enjoin the certification of the electoral votes for Obama and enjoin taking of the oath of office by Obama pending adjudication on the merits of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of the fact that he is using a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never signed to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS, due to the fact that in his mother’s passport he is listed under a different last name, Soebarkah, due to the fact that multiple experts and members of law enforcement found his Selective Service application and long form and short form birth certificates to be computer generated forgeries and a number of other reasons.

If nothing else perhaps this might force Obama to open his records he executive ordered sealed with his first act in office and we may learn more about who our president really is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 25, 2011
16,818
9,167
146
I thought everyone had given up on persuing Obama's ineligibility, guess not;

http://www.conservativedailynews.co...-eligibility-14-congressman-served-subpoenas/





If nothing else perhaps this might force Obama to open his records he executive ordered sealed with his first act in office and we may learn more about who our president really is.

You mean the one that doesn't seal his records like the uneducated claim? That one?

The order:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered...

Presidential Records Act:

The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.... (B) does not include any documentary materials that are ... (ii) personal records...

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.... (C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency.

Oh and the social nonsense? Debunked yet again. Also, there's no hearing scheduled.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

This issue is also not scheduled to be discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Birther attorney Orly Taitz has proffered claims of forged IDs and stolen Social Security numbers as "evidence" in a number of lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, and like all of her previous suits, Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
So the question is whether he was a natural born citizen correct? If that be the case I'm sure the president can provide proof. He is a public official after all and should comply to his oath just like any other.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Although I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish in the Supreme Court. Maybe just get the information by court order? If the goal is to impeach only the House of Representatives has that authority.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
Any attorney can subpoena anyone for anything. Those that refuse can most certainly be held in contempt of court, but our good friend Orly has to go to court and try to enforce them. When she does the judge will toss her subpoenas in the trash can in about ten seconds, then probably sanction her again.

It is amazing to me that conservatives are so irrational about this. You lost to a black guy with a funny name. Twice. Deal with it.

Edit: to be clear there is no supreme court case here.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,818
9,167
146
So the question is whether he was a natural born citizen correct? If that be the case I'm sure the president can provide proof. He is a public official after all and should comply to his oath just like any other.

Like any other? Is that a joke? What other has endured this bullshit to this extent? There is nothing birthers will accept. Nothing. Everything that doesn't confirm their belief is fake. Everything. Four years of this shit has proven this beyond any doubt.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Like any other? Is that a joke? What other has endured this bullshit to this extent? There is nothing birthers will accept. Nothing. Everything that doesn't confirm their belief is fake. Everything. Four years of this shit has proven this beyond any doubt.

So we have proof that both of his parents were citizens in the US? I honestly don't know. If so where do I find this information?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
So we have proof that both of his parents were citizens in the US? I honestly don't know. If so where do I find this information?

It makes absolutely no difference if even either of his parents were citizens. He was born in the US and thus is a natural born citizen. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS FULL OF SHIT (and probably a racist too since there's no logic behind that belief)
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
It makes absolutely no difference if even either of his parents were citizens. He was born in the US and thus is a natural born citizen. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS FULL OF SHIT (and probably a racist too since there's no logic behind that belief)

Theres the race card folks. :biggrin:

Do you know what the term "natural born citizen" means? Being born on US soil is not the only requirement.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
21,457
5,931
136
Pretty interesting that a post quoting a published article has moderator comment but no action. Is this a new standard in P&N? Can we expect the mods to explain the content of all future posts?

When someone posts a thread title that is false or misleading, people whine that it needs to be changed.
When we ask someone to change such a title or change it ourselves, people whine that they were quoting the title of the article verbatim.

The mod comment in a thread such as this is to let you know the information in the title is not correct but is quoted exactly as linked. That quiets most of the whiners...

most of them.

admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Really?

Lynch v. Clarke, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg just to name a few.

The first two are claiming citizenship, not "natural born citizen". There is a difference. The last one you stated (according to wikipedia):

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parentS on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

Parent(s) as in plural. Not one. So was his father a US citizen? I have no problem with it as long as there is evidence to support it. As yet no one has provided that. I am still waiting on eskapethequestion to answer as well.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
Can you provide proof of that claim?

From the Congressional Research Service:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

The money quote:
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
No I don't question that. As its a fools errand. The question is of whether both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.

So you bring up your strawman just to jerk our chain? Nice deflection to post the code about two foreign born parents when this is about a citizen with a foreign born spouse.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
This again? Sigh. Do the birthers fail to realize if Obama gets impeached, we get Biden?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I thought the purpose of this forum was to keep the nutters out.

Edit: Help let me out! I wandered into here by mistake!
 
Last edited:

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
The first two are claiming citizenship, not "natural born citizen". There is a difference. The last one you stated (according to wikipedia):



Parent(s) as in plural. Not one. So was his father a US citizen? I have no problem with it as long as there is evidence to support it. As yet no one has provided that. I am still waiting on eskapethequestion to answer as well.


Lynch v. Clarke
"It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States."


And many other cases as well. Anybody that does not already knows this is either ignoring common sense that the courts have answered this question a long time ago or a idiot birther.
That is why some in congress want to amend the constitution as even they are aware of the rulings.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
From the Congressional Research Service:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

The money quote:

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

I'll see your claim and match it.

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.

As the Constitution was derived primarily from the English Common Law, it would be safe to assume this to be correct.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
So you bring up your strawman just to jerk our chain? Nice deflection to post the code about two foreign born parents when this is about a citizen with a foreign born spouse.

sad just sad......nothing better to do...

Lynch v. Clarke
"It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States."


And many other cases as well. Anybody that does not already knows this is either ignoring common sense that the courts have answered this question a long time ago or a idiot birther.
That is why some in congress want to amend the constitution as even they are aware of the rulings.

I won't ever call someone stupid who is in search of evidence or knowledge. I would hope we would all applaud it, however, just as in this case where I agree it has been proven, there are those who will throw out personal attacks as if that emboldens their claim. All that does is demonize those you disagree with and ruin any sense of civility. Thanks for your contributions.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
No I don't question that. As its a fools errand. The question is of whether both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.

Whats it matter if his dad was Hitler who fucked an American prostitute in Germany who came back to the states 8 months pregnant?