Obama has never been required by any court to produce anything because no court has asked him to do so. The ones who have been asked to provide evidence are the Birthers who have brought the lawsuits. So far they have all gone down in flames because they have not provided any evidence that Obama is anything but a natural born citizen and because their cases are not grounded in law.

If Obama were required by a court to produce evidence he will provide the same certified copy of his birth certificate that his campaign allowed Factcheck.org and other organizations to examine. It will have the same embossed seal and stamped signature. It will be accepted as valid proof of Hawaiian birth.

The Birthers are lying when they say that he could have gotten this certificate of birth if he were born in Kenya. He could not have gotten one that says he was born in Honolulu.

President Obama will never have to produce the certificate again, however, because no court is going to require him to do anything. The courts are not interested in giving more than minimum consideration to idiots like Berg, Donofrio, Taitz, et. al. They will eventually face sanctions for filing repeated frivolous lawsuits and go away to write books about their great adventures that will be purchased by a few hundred Birther idiots.

We don’t have crowns and the President shares power with the other branches of Government. I submit to you that the Office of President is not the modern equivalent of a medieval monarch. The President is addressed as Mr. President and not Your Highness. We do not bow or curtsy when presented to the President. We are not subjects of the President. Like a monarch, the President retains the power of enforcement of laws and is commander in chief of the military. He does not write the laws or determine if the laws to be enforced our just.

The idea that a subject of the crown would ever apply the writ against a reigning monarch (especially in medieval times) is laughable.

Do you know of a reigning monarch who could have possibly been ineligible to serve so that the writ could be tested? The only disqualification I can think of for a monarch would be an illegitimate birth or gaining the crown through violence in war.

Ah, but the monarch could be questioned and his power limited. Remember the Magna Carta?

Since you claim have a legal background, why don’t you offer your full analysis of Donofrio’s brief at Donofrio’s website: naturalborncitizen.com

Seems much more appropriate than sound bite commenting to the non legal types here, telling them how little they know about law.

Donofrio will publish what you write as long as you are civil.

See you there.

Nice. Hit another one out of the park, bearing a repeat:

A letter from his mother saying “Jr. is a natural born citizen” is more legally binding in the court of law than the ridiculous “verifications” from these two www sites. And that, my friends, it actual fact.

-Phil

Excellent commentary and precisely the point that many of us would like to make, but — shocker! — haven’t had the right words to use:

As there is no “privity” with the public, their (factcheck.org and snopes.com) information can not be considered legally binding either. Since neither organization can be sued for damages based on false or misleading legal paperwork, their information can not be utilized as legal documentation for eligibility.

This obvious fact should be noted to the courts in every eligibility case. Arguments should be made stating the obvious:

“Factcheck.org and snopes.com are not legal or government-regulated for accuracy and provide no ‘privity’ to the American people regarding any documentation verified. Therefore any ‘verifications’ of Obama’s place of birth are not legal or binding in any court within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Factcheck.org nor snopes.com carry any private investigation licenses, nor follow any state and federal regulations for evidence collection, nor are sanctioned by any federal, state, or local agency to provide any artifact legally allowed as evidence in any court of law in the United States of America. That being said, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama has yet to provide legal evidence or proof of eligibility to the American public to become President of the United States as mandated by the qualification requirement stated in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution.”

-Phil

Please show us in the Constitution or elsewhere in any lawbook or court case stating that only the mother has to be a U.S. citizen for the child to be a natural born citizen. And it better say “natural born”, not “native born”, while citing valid reasoning based on Constitutional law. It better not say “U.S Citizen” either as that’s not what Article II says.

When you bump into de Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of “Natural-born Citizen”, let us know.

Good luck.

It’s nothing more. Nothing less.

A letter from his mother saying “Jr. is a natural born citizen” is more legally binding in the court of law than the ridiculous “verifications” from these two www sites. And that, my friends, it actual fact.

You are absolutely correct. However, this “evidence” is invalid not due to forgery or any other illegal action. It’s due to the fact the published sources cannot be used as evidence in any court of law

I will repeat what I posted in other blogs regarding this so-called “evidence” of eligilibility provided by Mr. Soetoro and his merry band of lawyers…

As there is no “privity” with the public, their (factcheck.org and snopes.com) information can not be considered legally binding either. Since neither organization can be sued for damages based on false or misleading legal paperwork, their information can not be utilized as legal documentation for eligibility.

This obvious fact should be noted to the courts in every eligibility case. Arguments should be made stating the obvious:

“Factcheck.org and snopes.com are not legal or government-regulated for accuracy and provide no ‘privity’ to the American people regarding any documentation verified. Therefore any ‘verifications’ of Obama’s place of birth are not legal or binding in any court within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Factcheck.org nor snopes.com carry any private investigation licenses, nor follow any state and federal regulations for evidence collection, nor are sanctioned by any federal, state, or local agency to provide any artifact legally allowed as evidence in any court of law in the United States of America. That being said, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama has yet to provide legal evidence or proof of eligibility to the American public to become President of the United States as mandated by the qualification requirement stated in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution.”

Using this argument means that whenever Soetoro’s attorneys play this factcheck.org “eligibility card”, it can not be admissible as evidence or proof of eligibility. This would have been most helpful for Berg in his recent case, but alas, Mr. Berg simply isn’t at that level of quarterbacking. Let’s hope the rest of the attorneys get it.

The reason behind the traditional of having the Chief Justice administer the oath is to preclude any doubts about legality.

Please cite that claim.

Why would John Roberts swear in a ‘usurper’? Does the Chief Justice need Donofrio’s instruction on how to interpret the Constitution? Does anyone believe Roberts would ignore the law in his zeal to elevate one of the senators that voted *against* his confirmation?

Great questions, but until you substantiate your original claim, they are leading and cannot be properly answered (though I won’t claim to be able to answer all the questions myself, as I am a mere common man from within the population of the “unwashed masses”).

-Phil

A system is only as good as the stewards responsible for maintaining it.

And who, exactly, do you think those “stewards” are? The People!

Yet, you want to comment about how the People have no power, the People don’t have their votes counted, and the People really aren’t citizens of this country.

Sounds like a complete contradiction to me — on the one hand you want to say the system is corrupt (when, in fact, it’s the leaders, not the system, that are corrupt) and the citizens (if there are any, according to you) have no power to change this, yet it is the People, by definition, who are responsible for holding their leaders accountable.

-Phil

Well, the problem is there are some serious mistakes and holes in Donofrio’s reasoning that probably fly right over the heads of his “nonlegal” readers. This is not meant as an insult — just pointing out that if you don’t have a legal background, its a lot harder to spot the flaws.

OK, then, what are you waiting for? Quit making claims that there are “serious mistakes and holes” in someone’s reasoning and come out with it already! Back up your claim — preferably with linkable citations — and go on.

Most folks who comment on my site who claim to have background in the law don’t just claim — they back it up with evidence.

-Phil

Why ask for a BC and other proof of life long undivided allegiance from Mr. O? Name another president with a known foreign father (other than Chester Arthur who hid the fact). Name another president who had might have obtained and used a foreign passport after the age of majority. Name another president who could have claimed foreign student status in college. Name another President that has associated with known terrorists. Name another President who, as a US Senator, stood on the native soil of his father’s country and effectively endorsed a possible blood relative foreign candidate for political office in the eyes of the foreign citizens.

Mr. O’s background is extraordinary for a US President. The questions about his allegiance have remained questions because he has been unwilling to provide the answers. He seems willing to say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants, the truth be damned. He has stated that the US Constitution is obsolete. He is asking for ungodly sums of taxpayer and newly printed money that may bankrupt the United States or cause hyperinflation. And he might not even be eligible to hold the Office?

We the People need to know the eligibility status of our President based on his full citizenship history.

If you bother to reply to this post, reply to all the points and not pick out a single idea to pick apart. One point may be moot, but the whole is significant.

Here’s a question for birthers: Why would John Roberts swear in a ‘usurper’? Does the Chief Justice need Donofrio’s instruction on how to interpret the Constitution? Does anyone believe Roberts would ignore the law in his zeal to elevate one of the senators that voted *against* his confirmation?