Like when you said I couldn't read, when I was directly responding to what you had as a header to your post.

No, you don't understand. I have a very good reading comprehension. :) Let me explain. I responded to the implication of your statement.

Keyes is ACCUSING him, it is not proven. The previous court threw it out because the Hawaiian Health department says that it's valid. You are implying that a health official is commiting purgery and that a federal judge was obscructing justice.

Now, I'm not in law school, so I'll need a lawyer or law student to back this up. But I am fairly sure I am right, from personal experience in the courts.

I understand you are questioning the pretenses, but courts don't work that way. Their job is to decide legality not facts. If the Health Department says that he was born in Hawaii and there is no admissable or significant evidence to the contrary, then as far as the court is concerned he was born in Hawaii.

Now, if there were facts in question (which the federal judge says they are not) then they would need a jury to decide which set of facts is the truth. If your theory were true it would be a criminal case, they would have to convene the grand jury in a situation like this. The grand jury would weigh both sets of facts and decide whether it should go to trial. Keyes is approaching this a civil case. The problem is, even if there were a Kenyan birth certificate dated before the Hawaiian one, then he would still side with Hawaii; since domestic state records trump third world country records. There has been no Kenyan BC presented yet, anyway.

On the issue of his status as Natural Born Citizen, at the time his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on Obama if he had been born abroad. However the law has since changed. She did bring him back with in the law to confer it. Which is why the Hawaiian HD would have made a birth certificate, because it wouldn't have mattered. Of course since then the law has changed and the mother's age doesn't matter. So if it went to court the judge would have to take into a account the retroactive nature of that law.

It doesn't matter to the court what the facts in reality are, only what the provable facts are; official documents show and previous court decisions.

That is the reason why I laugh at this case, because it's not going to go anywhere.

Keyes is ACCUSING him, it is not proven. The previous court threw it out because the Hawaiian Health department says that it's valid. You are implying that a health official is commiting purgery and that a federal judge was obscructing justice.

No, the Supreme Court threw it out because Bergman, as an "ordinary" citizen lacked "standing" to file the suit. Alan Keyes as a Presedential candadite HAS legal standing to file the suit. It might be worth your time to look up "standing" in a legal dictionary.

Their job is to decide legality not facts. If the Health Department says that he was born in Hawaii and there is no admissable or significant evidence to the contrary, then as far as the court is concerned he was born in Hawaii.

Which is why Keyes is suing to gain access to his deceased mother's travel/immigration records and Obama's original Long from birth certificate. In legal speak, it's called "discovery"

On the issue of his status as Natural Born Citizen, at the time his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on Obama if he had been born abroad. However the law has since changed.

Yes, and the law specificaly did NOT make it retroactive unless the parent was in the millitary or a few other things like the peace corp (which did not exist in 1961 so don't even bother).

 

McCain since he was born in Panama canal zone, actualy had the senate vote on a resolution stating that he was eligable to run for president to bypass the "natural born citizen" question.

This thread is so boring Ia m not interested in USA onlu my own country UK, just posting as I am bored also

stovo said: This thread is so boring Ia m not interested in USA onlu my own country UK, just posting as I am bored also

Hey, as a fellow Brit, I'm fascinated by the whole stupidity of it. Like it matters where he was born, that doesn't change his ability to lead a country.

Talking of the word 'Brit', I had a weird conversation last night with a housemate who found it weird and didn't believe me that I'd be happily to call myself 'British'.

Yeah, bored too.

 

It wasn't the supreme court it was a fed. district court, but I won't harrass you because I said appeals court in one of my earlier posts.

I'm not talking about releasing the BC, they don't need to order that if they don't want to. They could, probably should. It will probably say, printed on Nov. 12 and it won't make anybody happy and complicate the matter to ignorant racist Americans further.

"Travel/immigration records?" Really, why would an American citizen who is travelling into the country have immigration or travel records in 1961?

In a case like Obama's where if it turned out that he wasn't born here but had been documented as such and he wasn't President-elect, they wouldn't take away his status as a natural born citizen.Why would they treat Obama any different? That wouldn't be in the spirit of the law.

You seem to be missing my argument. I am not saying you are wrong, maybe Obama wasn't born here. I am saying it doesn't matter no judge will touch this, for legal and (unstated) political reasons, just like they won't touch Executive authorization of military action. There are times when the judicial branch will and times when they will not "check" because it is not necessary. Keyes is welcome to push this as much as he likes, maybe a court will hear it (probably not), but it will find in favor of Obama.

The Keyes case in CA has another issue, it's not the state courts job to balance the US constitutionality of the law. If they want to take it up, they will have to base their decision on state law or will have to make a lot of unorthodox decisions, which will make it very easy to overturn in a higher court.

Bottom line: The CA and Fed courts will not question the document and will not challenge the authority of another state. They will not make the document public, and probably won't let Keyes see it. They probably won't ask to see it themselves.

Keyes is ACCUSING him, it is not proven. The previous court threw it out because the Hawaiian Health department says that it's valid. You are implying that a health official is commiting purgery and that a federal judge was obscructing justice.

Now, I'm not in law school, so I'll need a lawyer or law student to back this up. But I am fairly sure I am right, from personal experience in the courts.

I understand you are questioning the pretenses, but courts don't work that way. Their job is to decide legality not facts. If the Health Department says that he was born in Hawaii and there is no admissable or significant evidence to the contrary, then as far as the court is concerned he was born in Hawaii.

Now, if there were facts in question (which the federal judge says they are not) then they would need a jury to decide which set of facts is the truth. If your theory were true it would be a criminal case, they would have to convene the grand jury in a situation like this. The grand jury would weigh both sets of facts and decide whether it should go to trial. Keyes is approaching this a civil case. The problem is, even if there were a Kenyan birth certificate dated before the Hawaiian one, then he would still side with Hawaii; since domestic state records trump third world country records. There has been no Kenyan BC presented yet, anyway.

On the issue of his status as Natural Born Citizen, at the time his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on Obama if he had been born abroad. However the law has since changed. She did bring him back with in the law to confer it. Which is why the Hawaiian HD would have made a birth certificate, because it wouldn't have mattered. Of course since then the law has changed and the mother's age doesn't matter. So if it went to court the judge would have to take into a account the retroactive nature of that law.

Retroactive law cannot be applied to Art. II SI of the Const.--

 

 

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 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.

It doesn't matter to the court what the facts in reality are, only what the provable facts are; official documents show and previous court decisions.

The official documents were fraudulent by 1961 Hawai'i b.c. standards and were proven as a template doc.  It listed the races wrong with today's p.c. terminology.

That is the reason why I laugh at this case, because it's not going to go anywhere.

 

In addition, Philip J. Berg has legal standing because he is a Constitutional lawyer and not "just a citizen" as his Penns. District SC stated.  It should not matter who brought it up.  Would we sit down for armed British troops in the New England harbors for calling us "just plain and rebellous citizens?"

 

edit: My sister is a Law/Education double major @ JMU so I know what I'm talking about.

Ex post facto generally only applies to the legality of an act before a law is passed to make that act illegal. It is meant to protect citizens from the government changing its mind. In general, it does not apply the other way.

As far as proving the document false, how are they going to do that? There are no travel records. There are no Kenyan records.

This is a list of available majors at JMU:
Accounting
Anthropology
Art/Studio Art
Art History
Athletic Training
Biology
Biotechnology
Chemistry
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Communication Studies
Computer Information Systems
Computer Science
Dietetics
Earth Science
Economics
Education (Teacher Education Programs)
Engineering (available Fall '08)
English
Finance
Geographic Science
Geology
Health Sciences
Health Services Administration
History
Hospitality and Tourism Management
Individualized Study
Information Analysis (available Fall '08)
Integrated Science and Technology
Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies
International Affairs
International Business
Justice Studies
Kinesiology
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Media Arts and Design
Modern Foreign Languages
Music
Nursing
Philosophy and Religion
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Public Policy and Administration
Quantitative Finance
Social Work
Sociology
Statistics
Technical and Scientific Communication
Theater and Dance

There is no such thing in the US as a B.A. or B.S. in law.  There are Undergraduate degrees that have a optional "track", like Business Law, Finance Law or Criminal Justice: Law.  They are not law degrees, they are Bachelor's Degrees.  A law degree is called a Juris Doctor and is generally studied for independent of other degrees and sometime in conjunction with Business Master's Degrees; rarely anything else.

She went into JMU for undergrad law with a Sophomore level education out of HS/Governor's School. She has red hair and is one mean sister if you "question her authoritah" steve if u catch my drift ;)

This is me.  I have a problem.