Saturday, November 1, 2008

Berg V Obama: Appeal Denied

Lots of news on Barack Obama's citizenship status.

First, the third circuit court of appeals has rejected Philip J. Berg's appeal. The judge in the case upheld the lower court ruling on Berg's lack of standing.
DENIED. For the reasons ably expressed by the District Court —and not addressed in Plaintiff-Appellant’s Emergency Motion— it appears that Plaintiff-Appellant lacks standing to challenge Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff-Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal.

A similar case in Ohio has been tossed out. The judge ruled the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to prove Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not on Obama to prove he is.
“The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence – not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation,” Hasselbach wrote in his decision .

David M. Neal, the plaintiff, wrote on his website that when he enrolled his child in public school he had to produce a birth certificate for his son to prove eligibility... "[Barack Obama] is running for president of the United States." the implication being the applicant bore the onus to prove citizenship and not the school to prove non-legal status.

Finally, the Associated Press is reporting that Hawaii officials declared Barack Obama's birth certificate as genuine. But that's not exactly what the Hawaii officials said.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

A statement of fact of which we already knew. The question is not whether they have his original certificate, but whether that certificate indicates he was actually born in the U.S. and not born the child of a Hawaiian citizen abroad. The latter of which is what has been alleged by Philip J. Berg based on an eyewitness account of Obama's birth in Kenya from his paternal grandmother.

We know Dr. Fukino did not actually see Obama's birth certificate, because "she says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest." Emphasis added.

If Barack Obama ultimately wins on Tuesday, this issue is not going to go away without the official "vault" birth certificate being produced. Arguments that the people do not have standing to enforce the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent and requiring challengers to bear the burden of proof when the Constitution specifically requires natural-born status of presidential candidates creates a constitutional crisis that patriots simply can not allow.

Of course this entire issue would go away if Barack Obama would simply authorize the release of the document. Why does he continue to fight this issue and not just put it to rest?

3 comments:

Warm Apple Pie said...

I once again extend the quid pro quo - original birth certificate for Sarah Palin's medical records. Probably won't see those until November 5 (well, since she's going to lose - we'll never see them).

Hal, how much O2 is left in the Rovian Republican atmosphere?

Only 10%, Dave.

At the rate, we won't be able to breath in three days.

smrstrauss said...

This sounds like the nut who was convinced that the government had implanted a radio in his head to control him, and so a friend took him to have an MRI, which naturally showed that there was no radio.

But the nut was not convinced. He said “Ah! But can you prove that that is really an MrI of me?” So they called in the MRI operator, who certified that that MRI was the MRI of the nut. But the nut was still not convinced. He said: “He certifies that that MRI is an MRI of me. But how do we know that he is not working for the government?"

In your case you are saying that even though the officials in Hawaii, who have no reason to lie, have given the impression that they have evidence that Obama is a naturally-born USA citizen, they are misleading us in some way. They are deliberately misleading us.

You are saying that the officials in Hawaii, having seen Obama’s file and from its contents knowing that Obama was either (1) not born in the USA, or (2) has legally become a citizen of another country at a later date (which is a more complicated issue. It is probably legally impossible for a natural born child to lose his citzenship, no matter what his parents may have done) have issued a statement implying that there is nothing wrong with his claim to be a natural born US citizen.

The obvious question is why?

To be sure, their statement was carefully written. (So what. Why should it have been sloppy?)

But why was it carefully written in Obama’s favor? Are these two officials Democrats? (Probably not. They were appointed by a Republican governor.)

Moreover, if it subsequently turns out that Obama was not born in Hawaii or had something in his file along the lines of losing his citizenship, then they, who had said that there was nothing wrong, would be subject to criticism at the very least. They could be accused of being part of a conspiracy, or of a fraud, and at the least they would not get a job in a Republican administration again. So why would they do it?

Thus the officials had absolutely no reason to lie about what they saw in Obama’s file. And they had absolutely no reason to MISLEAD by issuing a statement that implies they saw something more in Obamas file, when all that they saw was the “certificate of live birth.” Their statement implies that they saw something that confirms the certificate of live birth. In fact, they said that they saw his birth certificate.

All of which indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, all the allegations that he was born in Kenya now look pretty empty, since the guys who claimed to have evidence proving that Obama was born in Kenya have never released the evidence.

So, why won’t Obama release his birth certificate?

Possibly because it shows that his mother and father were not married.

That is embarassing, but it is not a constitutional grounds for barring someone for being president. Maybe some people would vote against a bastard. Others would vote for him anyway. In any case, that is Obama’s decision to make. You are welcome to vote against him because you feel that he is not a citizen, or because he is a bastard, or because you don’t agree with his policies, or because he was associated with terrorists.

But you could do that anyway. The content of the files and the fact that Obama did not release them does not change the situation.

What has changed? The constitutional issue over whether Obama was born in the USA. That is required in the Constitution. The Hawaii officials have confirmed that he was born in the USA. He is therefore eligible to be president.

tex said...

nice precanned statement.

1. I believe obama probably does qualify. that is why it is insane that he just wont auhorize the release.

2. no conspiracy has been alleged here.

3. The headline to the article is completely misleading as to what was stated by the Hawai'i officials. The officials only verified hawai'i holds the birth certificate, not that it confirms he was born in hawai'i.

State law in Hawai'i allows an Hawai'i citizen to have a birth certificate printed in Hawai'i for a child born of that citizen in another country. This would be indicated on the vault certificate.

The officials admit they have not actually seen the details of his birth certificate because hawai'i law prevents even them from doing so.

Just ask yourself one question. He wants to be president of the U.S., he knows the Constitutional problems this creates. For the good of the country, why not just release it? why let this go on?