Voters Have No Constitutional Right

[ConnieB]

http://www.dailyjot.com/news_391.html

WASH—Oct 24—DJNS--Attorneys for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Barack Hussein Obama have filed documents in Pennsylvania Eastern District Federal Court claiming that citizens do not have the legal standing to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Furthermore, they claim that voters would not be disenfranchised if an ineligible candidate were elected president because the “actual injury is not to the voter but to the candidate.” This tells me that when his birth certificate comes out "the real one", that it will show us all, that he is not eligible for the position of President.

They also claim that us the voters would not be disenfrancised if an ineligible candidate were elected ....that is such a joke. Having an ineligible candidate for president would be injury to our entire democracy. This is addressed in our constitution for a reason. To maintain the integrity of this nation and prevent foreign instrusion.

With Obama filing these papers, it just shows he does have something to hide and does not deserve the Presidency.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

They (the DNC) cited a similar court case against Republican John McCain ruled on July 24th (2008). .... The judge said that political parties have the standing to challenge ineligibility, but not voters.

Shows me they are citing legal precedence.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Oh, and just so we know who we're dealing with here, this is the stated mission of Daily Jot:

A Message From Bill Wilson, author and publisher of "The Daily Jot":

Our mission is to equip and encourage believers to take a stand for Jesus by reporting and analyzing current events from a Biblical perspective.


http://www.dailyjot.com/mission.php

[lions1mew]

I'd kinda like proof that there is a lawsuit at all ...

[Sinister]

Smell the desperation..

[lions1mew]

*plugs nose* No thank you.

:throwup:

[Richard Tafoya]

Here's a story on the lawsuit. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_rem oved_from_ballot.html

Nuisance suit claiming that Obama is ineligible to run for president because, after being born in Hawaii, his mother married an Indonesian man. The argument--thrown out by the court--suggests that his mother's later marriage somehow converted Obama's citizenship to Indonesian.

The PA lawyer that filed the suit included in his charges that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November.

He was a Clinton supporter in the primaries. And he apparently can't let it go.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

What does Jesus have to do with Clinton?

[LesterX]

http://www.dailyjot.com/news_391.html

This tells me that when his birth certificate comes out "the real one", that it will show us all, that he is not eligible for the position of President.

They also claim that us the voters would not be disenfrancised if an ineligible candidate were elected ....that is such a joke. Having an ineligible candidate for president would be injury to our entire democracy. This is addressed in our constitution for a reason. To maintain the integrity of this nation and prevent foreign instrusion.

With Obama filing these papers, it just shows he does have something to hide and does not deserve the Presidency.

You and your fellow wingnuts sure are desperate these days, huh? I suppose they faked the announcement of his birth that appeared in the Honolulu advertiser also?

Yep, it's all a giant conspiracy to get a Scary Foreign Black Man elected to the presidency so he and his fellow terrorists can destroy the nation. Thanks for clearing it up, Connie. I feel so bamboozled. Or should I say, I feel so bamboozled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pinky]

Connie, what you need to understand about citizenship is that ANYONE born to an American citizen, no matter where he or she is born, is AUTOMATICALLY considered a natural-born citizen, and is therefore eligible to become President.

Obama's mother was from Kansas, and was a citizen. It makes absolutely NO difference where Obama was born.

Perhaps your link ought to "equip" you with facts, and "encourage" you to think. Obviously, it isn't doing that.

[ConnieB]

Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child. This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances. (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.) -

There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.






http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212181742.shtml

[LesterX]

Any idiot can file a lawsuit. It doesn't give any validity to this ridiculousness.

Desperate much, Connie?

[db44]

Nor does the fact that with dual citizenship, he's still a full American citizen.

I'm just thinking of how disgraced Connie must feel towards all the children of our military families, whose children are born to Americans and a spouse of someone where they are stationed. All those second-class, un American citizens our troops are producing. For shame! :rolleyes:

[SparkleHugs]

didnt we go through this same argument with John McCain since he was born in Panama?

[lions1mew]

Oh Connie *shakes head* Just a little internet checking ... you know ... "doing the Google" like Dubya and Johnny Mac might help ya:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Actual photographs of a genuine, raised seal, stamped and notarized copy of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.

Next dumbarse rumor you want me to "do the Google" for ya?

[db44]

How about Barack Obama: Muslim?

[lions1mew]

Doesn't bother me but if it worries Connie soooooo much that he's a different religion than she is (no matter what the CONSTITUTION says!!!!!!!!!!), he didn't attend any Muslim churches/temples/etc.

I'm non-religious so I don't give a crap LOL Connie and her neocon, right-wing nutjob base is panicking and grasping ... *hands Connie a straw* there ... better now?

[pinky]

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. Unless he specifically renounced his American citizenship, he never lost it, and therefore would have had no need to "regain it."

[LesterX]

Unless he specifically renounced his American citizenship, he never lost it, and therefore would have had no need to "regain it."

Exactly. It's incredibly offensive that this is even a topic of discussion.


When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
...
Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
...
Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.



www.factcheck.org

[lions1mew]

Okay you realize you are just going to confuse Connie with all these facts.

[LesterX]

I know, she'll just ignore them as usual and keep repeating lies. It's incredibly unethical behavior.

[lions1mew]

Ethics and Republicans just ... don't mesh. Well I exclude Barry Goldwater from that, may he RIP ... although I think he's spinning right about now with the way his beloved GOP has become ...

[tiger_rascal]

The elections, in a sense, is a way to think we Americans actually have some form of control. While we do pick A or B, thats about it. Very little control. And it will always be like that. The Man is in control. Dont forget that.

[lions1mew]

"The Man" ... LOL sounds like my older sister and brother from back in the 60s ...

"The Man is bringing us down!"

And 10 year old me keeps looking for a man ...

[db44]

I think Chad's talking about another man...

[tiger_rascal]

No, Im talking about The Man, man.

[Incident]

http://www.dailyjot.com/news_391.html

This tells me that when his birth certificate comes out "the real one", that it will show us all, that he is not eligible for the position of President.

They also claim that us the voters would not be disenfrancised if an ineligible candidate were elected ....that is such a joke. Having an ineligible candidate for president would be injury to our entire democracy. This is addressed in our constitution for a reason. To maintain the integrity of this nation and prevent foreign instrusion.

With Obama filing these papers, it just shows he does have something to hide and does not deserve the Presidency.


Jeez you mean the Democrats needn't have bothered to nominate an American Socialist, when they could have just gone for the real thing like Castro or Chavez.

[Murrican]

Simple, but complicated

Brief overview on dual citizenship

In general, countries define citizenship based on one's descent, place of birth, marriage, and/or naturalization. That is, you might be a citizen of a given country for one or more of the following reasons:


You were born on territory belonging to, or claimed by, that country (often called ius soli, or sometimes jus soli -- Latin for "right of the soil").

One or both of your parents were citizens of that country (often called ius sanguinis or jus sanguinis -- Latin for "right of the blood").

You married a citizen of that country (though please note that the practice of granting immediate, automatic citizenship to a foreign spouse is far less prevalent today than it was decades ago).

You (or one or both of your parents) obtained that country's citizenship by going through a legal process of naturalization.


In some (but, please note, not all) cases, a country may seek to restrict dual citizenship by requiring one of its citizens born with some other citizenship to renounce (give up) the other citizenship upon reaching adulthood. Similarly, newly naturalized citizens in some (but not all) countries are required to renounce their previous citizenship(s); the US has such a requirement, for example, but Canada does not. And in some (but, again, not all) cases, a country will automatically revoke the citizenship of one of its citizens who acquires another country's citizenship by naturalization, even if no explicit renunciation was involved.

Where one country requires a citizen to renounce the citizenship of another country, this renunciation may or may not be acknowledged or accepted by the other country. This can sometimes lead to sticky legal situations. Also, countries which require such renunciations differ in how seriously they treat this requirement. In some cases (such as Singapore), an applicant for naturalization may be required by his new country to go to an embassy or consulate of his old country and renounce his old citizenship in a manner prescribed by his old country's laws. Other countries (such as the US in recent years) may treat their own naturalization oaths' renunciatory language as essentially meaningless and take no steps to enforce it at all.

As a general rule, dual citizens are not entitled to any sort of special treatment by their two countries of citizenship. Each country will usually consider the person as if he were a citizen of that country alone. Some people describe this sort of situation by saying that a given country "does not recognize dual citizenship" -- but this usage can be confusing, because it might mean either that a country passively ignores other countries' claims on its citizens, or that it actively prohibits its citizens from also being citizens of other countries.

Citizenship claims by a country over a given individual could happen even if the person in question never sought recognition as a citizen of that country -- or even if the person was totally unaware that he/she was a citizen of that country according to its laws. Accordingly, anyone who is planning to travel to an ancestral homeland -- even for a brief vacation trip -- would be strongly advised to check that country's citizenship laws carefully beforehand. Otherwise, the trip could run into unpleasant snags if you discover, say, that Country X considers you to be one of its citizens because your father (or even your grandfather!) came from Country X -- and that, as a result, you need a passport issued by Country X in order to leave -- and in any event you can't leave until you have put in a year's worth of military service in Country X's army -- and when consular officials of the only country where you thought you were a citizen try to intervene in your behalf, they are told to get lost ...


rest at: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

[lions1mew]

This is all moot anyway since he was born in Hawaii. Period.