Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What possible embarrassment would there be on a birth certificate?

The plaintiffs are asking for many other documents, that are normally released upon request. Maybe Obama thinks they have to put a wall up here.

Other embarrassment possibilities are literally countless if all documents are released. Keep in mind he won't release his school records (they are asking because it might list his citizenship status) or his medical records (not sure how that is pertinant to this case but is usually released by presidents). If you can't think of anything embarrassing that could be in those two documents I don't think you have a good imagination. I can think of many, they would all be speculation but I can think of many.

Other things that won't be released include his mother's passport which would show if she was in the US at the time of his birth or not. Release of that I understand is up to the government and not Obama. Plus there is a statement from his grandmother that she witnessed his birth in Kenya. And there is the Indonesian school thing that supposedly you can only be an Indonesian citizen to attend.

I think TCO's point (50% nothing 40% embarrassing 10% Constitutional problems) is pretty accurate. I would even put the it more like 30-60-10. Otherwise why not just come out and say "Here you go - now can we focus on the nation's business!" It would be a real win for him and a big loss for everyone pushing this.

Whether or not the President-Elect is eligible for office is certainly a more noteworthy story for the media to look into than just about anything else they look into.

Just release the info and be done with it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Just release the info and be done with it.

The people making these demands won't be mollified by any release of info. Why give in to unreasonable demands? (Because they are unreasonable). As for the whole Grandmother thing, the Slate article linked to explains why that is a crock of ****.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
The people making these demands won't be mollified by any release of info.

How's that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


How's that?

Because it is unreasonable as is to think that a campaign that has been running for two years against well funded and motivated competitors, run by a guy who has written two best selling books and has been in the spotlight for many years, has been able to hide something so basic and yet necessary to the post he was running for.

One would also have to assume that he had faked documents from a while ago, since you do need proof of citizenship to recieve a wide host of things, like a passport, or student loans (and I can only assume he needed loans to pay for his rather expensive education).

And given that I view the belief as essentially unreasonable, it would also be unreasonable to think that any documents released would be accepted by those making these unreasonable requests. After all, unless you were actually present at the creation of any one document, how can you ever attest to the veracity of the information, specially for documents made decades ago?

Edit: In addition, the people responsible for keeping these documents have testified as to their veracity and existance. To continue to demand these documents is to make the claim that those people are lying. What is the basis or evidence for such a claim? and if the keepers of the records are allegedly in the bank for Obama and have lied, what is to stop them from producing false examples? Are the claimanits going to go with experts to the offices, be given complete access to the storage site, and then have scientists verify that everything, paper, ink, whatever, was original?

If you assume a conspiracy from the start (as you must, if you are unwilling to accept the verification from the authorities in Hawaii) then what concrete proof could EVER be provided? Its like the people who claim the moon landing was staged - no amount of evidence has ever put that conspiracy to bed.

[Darius871]

Uh, I thought we were all assuming from the outset that these individuals' incredulity is unreasonable. That doesn't change the fact that if a certified copy of the original "long-form" birth certificate would be released, there would be nothing more to demand. What more could they demand in a court of law? Carbon testing? An injunction ordering construction of a time machine? What?

Sure there will always be some nuts in corrugated steel shacks that would immediately assume the Hawaii DoH certifier must have been "in on it," but at least there would be no fathomable grounds for licensed attorneys to file any more suits, and even if there were a few pro se matchbooks filed here and there, they would actually be foreclosed by res judicata on the merits. Being able to promptly dismiss for res judicata with a form template in every case, rather than litigating each and every claim individually on standing grounds, would save countless thousands of otherwise better-used DNC dollars, to say nothing of already overwhelmed judicial resources. It mainly offends me a Dem-leaning independent that they would throw truckloads of DNC donor's dollars into a black hole unnecessarily, when they could be better spent on ground game for future Congressional, state, and local candidates, among other things. There's nothing to lose in disclosure and a lot to gain. What is there to lose? Nothing.

[GePap]

It sets a precedent. If you start meeting unreasonable demands, when do you stop?

Besides, given the nature of Obama's background, none of this **** is ever going to stop.

Also, an interested take on this, and a new wrinkle in the standing issue, form of all places the John Birch society:

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/us-constitution-blog/4196

Mr. Berg has no standing to challenge the citizenship of Barack Obama because electors in the electoral college choose our country's presidents - not general election voters. In fact, there is no constitutional requirement that any popular vote be held to influence the selection of our nation's president.

and

As a backup to relying on the electors to resolve Obama's "natural-born" citizenship issue, you should be working to line up a Senator and U.S. House member (preferably ones who represent you in your own state) who would be willing to challenge the qualifications of Senator Obama during the counting of electoral votes in the Senate on January 8th. Once a challenge is filled in writing during the counting process (per U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15), the challenge must be resolved prior to the counting process being allowed to continue.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
It sets a precedent. If you start meeting unreasonable demands, when do you stop?

A precedent for what? That from now on presidential candidates with one non-citizen parent and a history of living abroad would be expected to turn over a certified copy of an original long-form birth certificate? How often would that precedent repeat itself, once a century? Even if the precedent were to be invoked frequently for candidates without such unique characteristics, would it not be cheaper to pay the $5-20 fee every four years than to pay $3000 every four weeks to shoot down frivolous lawsuits? From a standpoint of sheer efficiency I don't see the logic.

Or are you suggesting a danger that the precedent would be applied far more broadly in the future than now? Please explain why. Would the precedent of "presidential candidates with one non-citizen parent and a history of living abroad would be expected to turn over a certified copy of an original long-form birth certificate" somehow also force future candidates to submit to multiple blood tests to confirm they're not reptilians, androids, or Cylons?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871

Or are you suggesting a danger that the precedent would be applied far more broadly in the future than now? Please explain why. Would the precedent of "presidential candidates with one non-citizen parent and a history of living abroad would be expected to turn over a certified copy of an original long-form birth certificate" somehow also force future candidates to submit to multiple blood tests to confirm they're not reptilians, androids, or Cylons?

Actually, yes. There are privacy laws and protections, and there should be good reason for these to be challenged for any individual.

As the article I quoted above states, there is already a legal mechanism for checking validity of candidates if it is questioned. That most people are ignorant of it (as I was before reading that) does not mean that it doesn't exist, and that people's private documents must be plastered for public consumption to mollify critics.

[Darius871]

Please also define for me in objective terms what is a "reasonable" demand. Plenty of people might argue that it's an "unreasonable" demand that presidential candidates should make certain financial records public so as to prevent a conflict of interest, or make their health records public to illuminate the odds of their surviving a term or any psychological issues the voters might want to know about. Using some of the reasoning on this thread I could argue that these are "unreasonable" demands for an invasion of "privacy" and "confidential record," and acceding to them would "set a bad precedent," but I won't, because I have no problem with the notion that being 100% open and honest must be an accepted reality of voluntarily throwing oneself into the public sphere's most watched stage.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, yes. There are privacy laws and protections, and there should be good reason for these to be challenged for any individual.

Then why not just tell those psychos to go piss up a rope because reptilians, androids, and Cylons are not known to exist? A precedent only extends as far as you allow it to extend. There is no slippery slope unless you let it happen. We both agree that the line should be drawn at some point, just not where.

[GePap]

There is no objective definition of "reasonable" or unreasonable, and you should know that. There is also no objective definition of "100% open and honest" either.

What there are are privacy laws, and pre-existing legal methods by which to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President. I see no reason why these should be ignored to mollify any tom, dick, or harry with doubts.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
There is no objective definition of "reasonable" or unreasonable, and you should know that.

Of course not, and since it's subjective, I fail to see why politicians routinely accede to demands of financial/medical disclosure as reasonable routine, but paint demands for formal proof of citizenship (formal =/= a JPEG image and news article) as too "unreasonable."

I subjectively find it "reasonable" to assume the flying spaghetti monster kept me from getting in a car accident today.

Originally posted by GePap
There is also no objective definition of "100% open and honest" either.

Sure there is: "not withholding any fact in one's knowledge." Extreme, and certain to never happen in politics, but objective nonetheless. Providing an exception for disclosing classified material - which involves obvious criminal sanctions - is not necessarily subjective. Adding a categorical exception for anything that happens to implicate one's always-waivable "privacy rights" would be subjective.

Originally posted by GePap
What there are are privacy laws

Privacy laws very emphatically protect medical records and many financial records, but apparently that doesn't paint demands for them "unreasonable." I'm just curious why that is. In fact, medical records are more tightly protected than even birth certificates are, as the latter can be obtained by even the most perfunctory subpoena, while the latter raise complex issues of privilege requiring a very compelling state interest. There's no "DoH clerk-patient privilege" that I'm aware of...

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama never released his medical records. Only a 276-word summary from his doctor.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Obama never released his medical records. Only a 276-word summary from his doctor.

Surely this can't be so! Other politicians had already set a precedent irrevocably compelling any and all subsequent candidates to release theirs no questions asked, so he must have also.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama didn't release a lot of the records that previous campaigns have. It was the least transparent campaign in a long time.