Hey D.B.; I have absolutely no problem with, and I would like to see the Court address the substantive issues brought forth by former Pennsylvania Attorney General Peter Berg in his intital Complaint. Personally, at this juncture, I don't see that happening, which I surmise causes a problem for the President elect, but I could be mistaken, that is a "what if" game.
If the facts are established as you believe them to be, (taking the four corners of the initial Complaint as truthful, accurate and at face value) and proved to be inaccurate or contradicting, then yes, the Court should toss the Petition for Writ and Berg out on his ear. Having said that, (and I don't have the statutes in front of me that Berg references in his initial Complaint) but I don't know how Senator Obama or the Court gets around the birth registry in Kenya, its recordation in Canada, but more importantly the status of the Mother (again, without having the 1950 or 1952 statute in front of me) by statute, the time restrictions placed upon the Mother, and the requirement that Obama was required to declare his citizenship when he reached the age of majority, coupled with his Indonesian citizenship. . Again, this is all moot, because the Supremes have to grant the Writ of Certiorari before we even get to the substantive issues of the case. The Supreme Court could opt to get to that point after addressing the procedural issues raised, but I doubt it. On Nov 12, 12:33 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the risk of contradicting myself, which I'm about to do - the whole > question of Obama's citizenship seems less a matter of law than of > public scrutiny, that is, if the question itself became common > knowledge, if the electorate becomes aware of the situation, therein > lies the real damage - if any. > > Otherwise, I seriously doubt the law itself will unseat the president- > elect. Mainly because the question of dual citizenship has been > challenged and defeated many times; dual citizenship is recognized by > the US, particularly because a number of foreign countries do not > allow renunciation of citizenship, such as in the cases of naturalized > US citizens. > > Meanwhile, I'm assuming Obama can prove he's a natural born citizen, > which would essentially render Berg's questions moot. > > The only potential violation I see is in the "use" of an Indonesian > passport, specifically to enter a country (Pakistan) that had been > declared off limits to US citizens (dual or not) by the US Department > of State. Nonetheless, even if Obama were found to be in simple > violation of the directive, it would not adversely effect his US > Citizenship. > > Which brings us (me) back to square one: production of a valid birth > certificate. > > Let's assume, as Berg asserts, that Barack was born in Kenya, the home > of his natural father. Several days later his mother, a US citizen, > registers his birth in Hawaii by affidavit or signature. A court is > likely to recognize Obama's status as a citizen based on the time > (year) and intent - rather than question the certificate itself, > assuming it meets Hawaii's standard. Which it apparently does, as > verified by Hawaii's current governor. > > In fact, the more I think about this case, the more I believe it > should fail on legal grounds - with or without "standing." Berg > asserts, for example, that Obama failed to swear an oath upon his > return from Indonesia, when he reached the age of majority. But Obama > left and returned as a minor and was not a willing or knowledgeable > participant regarding Indonesian law. In order to make such a charge > stick, the court would be required to call in the State Department - > and the State Department would need to produce proof of Barack's "un- > American" activities - as a 5-yer-old. Barring that, the court would > have to rely on Indonesian law, in effect, strip Obama's US > citizenship based on association rather than outright collusion - > again, as a minor. > > We may not want Obama as president, but that's political... and we're > in the minority. > > Berg’s suit should be thrown out. > > Beyond the “law,” which is ambiguous at best in these matters, I would > rely more on intent. Certainly Barack’s intent was and is to be a US > citizen, and to afford him anything less would be… un-American. Not to > mention making a mockery of this country. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
