Spokane7
62°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
Reader John W. Snyder Jr. wrote recently to find out whatever happened to the documents Chief Justice John Roberts got down in Moscow, Idaho, on President Obama’s birth certificates. (If that made you say “Huh?” Catch up at this link.)
Here’s the update:
Copies of Dr. Orly Taitz’s documents were forwarded to the Supreme Court clerk’s office, but were sent back because they weren’t in a form the court could accept, a spokeswoman for the court said. The court suggested they be resubmitted in a form that could be accepted.
Dr. Taitz confirmed Wednesday she got the documents, and the letter from the clerk. She takes some issue with what the court is suggesting. . .
… It’s a bit of a complicated legal argument, but to boiled down, it goes like this:
She wants to file the case Quo Warranto, which would mean that Obama would have the burden of proof to show that he was born in the United States. The court is suggesting she file either for a writ of mandamus or for a writ of certiorari, which would put the burden of proof on her and her clients to prove that he wasn’t. She said quo warranto cases are usually filed by government entities, so she’s trying to get the U.S. attorney general’s office or various state attorney general’s offices to file that type of case. In the mean time, she expect to file for “cert” this week.
One of the state’s where she’s seeking the assistance of the state attorney general is Washington. Doesn’t sound like she’s going to get it, however.
Jim Camden is a veteran political reporter for The Spokesman-Review.
Jonathan Brunt covers Spokane City Hall for The Spokesman-Review.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
MatthewRoot on April 22 at 3:17 p.m.
U.S. Constitution Article II [5]
“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 the 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.”
Where does it say a citizen has to be born in the U.S.?
John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but is a “natural born” citizen because his mother is a citizen. Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he were not, his mother was a U.S. citizen so he is a natural born U.S. citizen; it’s a moot point.
terrymr on April 22 at 3:56 p.m.
It doesn’t … it’s understood to mean somebody who is a citizen from birth.
Oddly the law on naturalization says that a naturalized citizen shall have all the rights and responsibilities of a person born in the united states.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 22 at 9:59 p.m.
Jim as you well know… if your mother is a U.S. Citizen ie has not renounced her own citizenship prior to YOUR birth… then no matter if you are born in Tasmania or the Greek Islands ( i’d prefer the latter)… then YOU are a U.S. citizen… in the same vein, if a mother of non U.S. citizenship ( from Canada, or Mexico, or Panama etc) illegally enters the U.S. and you are born here….. then YOU are a citizen in spite of the mother persons illegal citizen status…. Simple… so unless someone can come up with the fact that President Obama’s mama renounced her country of birth… then these harping folks need to give it up… good grief.. john
Gary D Rhodes on April 23 at 8:37 a.m.
Why has President Obama spent more than $1,000,000 dollars from his campaign funds to fight these accusations that he is not eligible?
It seems someone so intelligent would just release his legal birth certificate. Why is he wasting the time of judges, attorneys and civil servants with this when he could end it so easily.
I keep telling Chef the same thing. His mother was not old enough to confer “natural born” status if he was born outside US. And he will not prove he was born here. There are plenty of reasons to suspect he was born elsewhere.
McCain was born of two citizens, in the Canal Zone, On a military base, all of which make him NB.
Obama took Indonesian citizenship. This is documented. What is not documented is him regaining US citizenship. There is no record of his applying with selective service. Recently a document surfaced purportedly his official drat registration, but luckily not many are interested in finding out the truth as it is an obvious forgery.
That more people aren’t interested in finding out who our President really is, is dumbfounding. The simple release of his birth certificate should be the least demanded by the American press and citizens.
mountainjack on April 23 at 9:11 a.m.
Orly Taitz has an unaccredited law degree from a correspondence school. She is not a registered voter in California and there are no records to indicate that she ever became an American citizen after immigrating from Russia.
Her dentist license supposedly came from Israel. She has about a dozen malpractice suits against her and is not licensed to practice law in any state but California.
Her legal papers are copied from other attorneys and it is no wonder they keep getting returned. She donated to the Bush campaign in 2004.
This lady is a fraud and will do much to further Obama’s reputation as being unfairly attacked by desperate so-called attorneys.
Gary D Rhodes on April 23 at 11:55 a.m.
Destroy the messenger. Very Clintonian.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 23 at 1:57 p.m.
R, “?Pregunta? his mother was not “old enough”?? what is THAT about?? did not know you had to be “old enough” to birth a child… Hmm gus
Gary D Rhodes on April 23 at 4:04 p.m.
” His mother was not old enough to confer “natural born” status if he was born outside US. And he will not prove he was born here. There are plenty of reasons to suspect he was born elsewhere.”
The law stated his mother had to be at 19, which she was not.
That’s all you got Chef?
I am still offering dinner for two at the Davenport for anyone who will show the evidence Obama has produced to prove his eligibility.
Jim, maybe you and Gary Crooks would like to go as my guest. This should be a slam dunk!
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 23 at 4:52 p.m.
Mr Rhodes…??”that’s all you got??”’ i’m not in a contest here.. i was asking a question… good grief… where is the “law” or a link to it??
Gary D Rhodes on April 24 at 7:28 a.m.
I’m no lawyer Chef, but I do think. When something doesn’t make sense, I try to figure out why.
According to FindLaw.com, which is cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
Geraghty said the Obama campaign could “debunk” the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.
jimc on April 24 at 2:24 p.m.
Mr. Rhodes,
Thank you for the invitation to dinner…at least I think that’s what you were suggesting a couple of posts above.
If so, however, I’m afraid I’d have to decline, because the newspaper’s code of ethics doesn’t allow me to take gifts of any significant value, and I think dinner at the Davenport is pretty pricey.
I’d also have to say that I doubt I could prove anything to anyone’s satisfaction from my current (and likely for the foreseeable future) location in Spokane.
I’m not a lawyer, but I believe the citation you quote immediately above about “at least five of which had to be after the age of 16” applies to someone born outside the United States. (See post here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp ) So it would only apply if Dr. Taitz or someone else is successful in their efforts to prove that President Obama was not born in Hawaii or some other piece of U.S. soil.
I believe ultimately she’ll have to prove that he wasn’t, rather than he would have to prove that he was, considering the routes described in my post above.
Again, let me emphasize: I’m not a lawyer. Don’t even play one on TV. Could be wrong. Ain’t gonna argue it. Feel free to debate it among yourselves on the blog.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time on the particular question of whether the proof is sufficient to say he was born in Hawaii.. .as you probably know. I can’t do any more to satisfy either side, absent a plane ticket to Hawaii. And although I ask on a regular basis, my boss still is unwilling to spring for that.
Perhaps a news organization with a bigger budget would be interested in the story. I doubt that Olberman and Maddow would bite, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh or Scarborough haven’t managed a trip to Hawaii out of this if they think there’s something there.
Jim Camden/Spin Control
Gary D Rhodes on April 24 at 2:55 p.m.
Others have tried, notably Worldnet Daily. All the records are sealed at the hospitals in Honolulu.
They even went to the address listed in that Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement. Nobody remembers them. Nobody from a hospital can remember Stanley Obama , a white woman, giving birth to a mixed race baby. All this is anecdotal, but given circumstantial evidence, there is a large amount. Grandmother saying he was born in Kenya. Enrolled in school in Indonesia as a citizen.
The point you make, that it is up to others to prove he is ineligible, rather than the burden being on him to prove he IS eligible seems tortured to me. When the SR asked for your SSI to prove you are eligible, did you say prove I am not. If stopped for a traffic ticket, do you tell cop “I have ID, but you need to prove I don’t”.
Same at the border, or boarding a plane. The burden is on the person to supply ID.
You don’t need to leave your chair to get your dinner. Just show the proof Obama has supplied about his eligibility.
Use your AP connections.
jimc on April 24 at 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Rhodes
My point on burden of proof has to do with rules for various legal proceedings (see top post above.) If you are seeking a writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari, you have the burden of proof. Dr. Taitz would like to file for a writ Quo Warranto, which shifts the burden of proof to the named party/defendant, but is usually reserved for government. It may seem “tortured” but that’s what was explained to me by Dr. Taitz, who is a lawyer. (I’m not, but I’ve covered a few trials and hearings over the years.)
I’m afraid I don’t have “AP connections.” This is an AP member newspaper, and they are entitled to pick up my stories and send them elsewhere, but I’m not entitled to assign their reporters to stories in another locale.
At the risk of reiterating what I’ve previously stated, the AP did report that Hawaii officials say they have a birth certificate for Obama on file. I’ve reported that the Hawaii state officials say the ceritifcation of live birth (which can be found on line at Web sites some people choose not to believe, partly because of various connections to organizations they distrust ) reflects what they have in their records. It’s not a photostatic copy, it’s a standard form they fill out whenever they get a request to certify that someone was born in Hawaii, they got such a request, approved by Obama, last fall, from factcheck.org and politifact.com and produced the document that can be found online.
I realize that’s not sufficient for you, and I can’t do anything about it, nor am I attempting to try.
And seriously, even if I could convince you of something which I seem ill-equipped to do, I couldn’t take you up on dinner. But thanks for the offer.
And please continue the discussion as long as you want…but I’m pretty much off for the weekend.
Jim Camden/Spin Control
Gary D Rhodes on April 25 at 2:49 p.m.
Here you go, even better than dinner for two at the Davenport.
The owners of “Reward for Obama’s Birth Certificate” website are offering to pay $25,000,000 to Barack Hussein Obama if he will produce his “real” long-form birth certificate.
They are asking for help. They are NOT asking for donations or contributions. They ask that you spread the word about their $25 million reward to President Obama for him to produce his “real” long-form birth certificate. They say they will continue to increase the amount of the reward until it is so huge that the American people will begin to question why he has sealed all his background info to hide something — his nationality, his religion, his commie background —what is he trying to hide?
They want to know.
Payment will be made after document experts prove the validity of the document.
The website owners ask, how much do you think it will take to get him to produce the “real” birth certificate — $5 million, $10 million, $25 million, $50 million, $100 million, $1 billion?
Ron_the_Cop on April 25 at 9:11 p.m.
OK I’m with those that believe this matter would be put to rest if Obama would just release the long form. I’m basically content with that he was born in Hawaii to much conspiracy stuff to really forge all those records.
On the other hand I’m open to the possibility that Frank Davis was his father that would have far reaching political consequences.
For more on Davis read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/why_obamas_red_mentor_is_news.html
Cymraeg on April 26 at 6:37 a.m.
To Chefgus:
In answer to your question: There are two categories, and only two.of citizens: natural born and naturalized. The anti-Obama people are trying to create multiple class of citizenship, but this is not so. If you are born on US soil you are a natural-born citizen, your parents citizenship os irrelevant. This can be found in the Supreme Court opinion for US v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898). Here is a quote from the opinion:
“The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” 124 U.S. 478
“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 as of England.”
“The (14th) amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject-”
To Gary D Rhodes:
As to you comment about the $25,000,000 reward; Ya Right. I will believe that one when I see that $25,000,000 has been deposited in escrow with the Bank of England or Credit Suizze of Geneva.
Gary D Rhodes on April 26 at 8:01 a.m.
California has checked eligibility documentation in the past to exclude two potential candidates for POTUS.
I wonder why they were so disinterested in checking on Obama?
Gary D Rhodes on May 01 at 8:18 a.m.
Here is possible reason the Selective Service could not find Obama’s registration.
A transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.