(CORRECTED on 01.11.16, in orange, seven years after I started this blog, and now that I know better.)

(CORRECTION:  In this article, I write Electors must only vote for a President who is Constitutionally qualified for office.  However, the Constitution does not require this; only laws enacted in the states can require their state Electors to vote only for the President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job.)

(UPDATE 07.01.10: In this article, I mention that John McCain was born on a military base in Panama.  However, I am not certain this is true.  this is untrue. I also said that Larry Tribe concluded, Mr. McCain is a NBC, and provided a link to the NYT article which explained his reasoning.  However, I wish to emphasize, as I have done in several subsequent articles and comments; Mr. Tribe did not say, McCain was born on a military base; or that, being born on the base would be dispositive as to whether he is a NBC.  In fact, he only said, McCain’s parents worked on the base.)

To: Concerned Americans
From: Team jbjd
Subject: Find Out Whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as Required under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Stop the Electoral College from Voting for Him, if He Is Not
Date: December 1, 2008


By now, almost everyone paying attention to the election seems to know that under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President has to be a natural born citizen. But hardly anyone seems to know there is no provision in either federal or state law that says anyone, anywhere, has to check. That’s right. Nothing. Even so, voters in general have the right to express preference for a Presidential candidate without respect to qualifications for office. Of course, Electoral College voters must ensure he is at least Constitutionally eligible for the job.

Issue: Given that Article II of the U.S. Constitution says the President must be a natural born citizen, could Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention have certified that Barack Obama was “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party’s candidate for POTUS; and could the Party chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia then have submitted his name to state officials, along with Ms. Pelosi’s certification, to be placed onto the general election ballots; and could state officials have placed his name on the ballot and then certified the final number of votes cast for him; and can he receive the requisite votes for POTUS from the Electoral College (“EC”) when it meets on December 15 and then on January 20, be sworn into office, all without being a natural born citizen?
Answer: Yes, absolutely; if the EC fails to stop him.

While the U.S. Constitution spells out in Article II that the President must be a natural born citizen – “natural born” and “citizen” are distinct qualifications – neither federal nor state law requires that any government actor must determine whether the candidate for POTUS satisfies these conditions. True, Ms. Pelosi’s signed a Certification of Nomination after the Democratic National Convention; but in this document, she only promised he is the Party’s nominee and not that he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (UPDATE 10.11.10: As I pointed out in several articles subsequent to this publication, since the DNC Rules require the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job, this turns out to be a distinction without a difference.)

In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.

For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)

Documentary evidence establishes that Presidential candidate John McCain is a citizen. At the time of his birth, both of his biological parents were U.S. citizens and had lived in the U.S. for the requisite years past the age of majority to pass on their citizenship to their newborn son. (Plus, there is no indication he was subsequently adopted by a foreign national of a country that disallowed dual citizenship, which condition could have ended his American citizenship.) As to the issue of whether he is “natural born”…, there is speculation both ways. He was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father, a member of the armed services, was stationed at that time. While then officially a part of the Country of Panama, the Zone was administered by the U.S. (NOTE: I have been unable to ascertain whether he was born in the Zone; or in the country. But this represents a distinction without a difference. Because at the time of his birth in 1936; the U.S. Code did not automatically confer U.S. citizenship at birth to those children born in either Panama or the Canal Zone, whether on a military base, to U.S. citizen parents. Instead, he was naturalized in 1937, less than a year after his birth, by Act of Congress. ) Whether this set of circumstances satisfies the requirement of “natural born” which the drafters had in mind when they wrote the Constitution has never undergone judicial scrutiny. (Constitutional scholar Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, an advisor to Senator Obama who appeared in the candidate’s first TV spot of the 2008 Presidential campaign, in IA, has concluded McCain is natural born.)

Some have charged that even if being born on the base would otherwise have made him a natural born citizen, he wasn’t actually born on the base but in another hospital outside of the U.S. Zone and so, while he is a citizen, he cannot be considered natural born. (As I just explained above; whether he was born in the Zone or the country has no bearing on the analysis of his status as NBC.) Confronted with these accusations, McCain voluntarily handed over his original long form birth certificate to Washington Post reporters whose investigation confirmed he had been born in the hospital on the base where his mother, still alive, said she gave birth.

On the other hand, nothing has been confirmed about the natural born status of Barack Obama.

As with John McCain, questions have also been raised as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. As previously stated, McCain responded to these questions by producing his long form birth certificate for the press, which investigators used to confirm his legal status. Here’s what Obama did last June to respond to questions as to his own eligibility: he posted on his web site, “Fight the Smears,” a copy of what his campaign called his “Birth Certificate,” which seemed to indicate he was born in HI. Further, they insisted this document put to rest once and for all questions as to whether he is a natural born citizen. In fact, it did no such thing.

Even assuming the document Obama posted is real; it is still not a “Birth Certificate,” anyway. Its title is “Certification of Live Birth.” (Yes; Annenberg Political says it’s a real “Birth Certificate.” But keep in mind, Annenberg FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who employed Obama as the Chair of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”), selected by Bill Ayers for that position, where he doled out to community organizations the millions of dollars donated by the Foundation in a failed campaign to increase the test scores of Chicago public school students.) FYI, according to the government web site of the State of HI, officials there will accept a “Certificate of Live Birth” as primary evidence of, say, Hawaiian birth; but they will not accept a “Certification of Live Birth” without additional documentation.

Besides, even if it turns out Obama was born in HI, this does not resolve his natural born citizen status. What if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian national who married his mother; would that have made him a citizen of Indonesia? And, if he was a citizen of Indonesia, would this have terminated his status as a U.S. citizen? (Circumstantial evidence indicates at some point, Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. The AP printed a copy of his Indonesian grade school registration form, which listed his name as Barry Soetoro and his nationality as Indonesian. (His religion was listed as Islam). At that time, only Indonesian citizens could enroll in school. According to U.S. law, when it comes to dual citizenship, deference is given to the law of the foreign sovereign. This means that, if Indonesia did not recognize dual Indonesian/American citizenship at that time then, neither did the U.S. And Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship. Also, regardless of the type of document his mother was able to obtain in HI to verify that, in fact, sometime within the past year, somewhere, this baby was born, alive; that original document would have been sealed when he was adopted by Mr. Soetoro, and a new document issued naming Lolo Soetoro as the birth father.)

Obama’s personal narrative includes the story that his mother left Indonesia and brought him back to HI at age 10 to live with her parents. Assuming at that time he passed through U.S. Immigration and Nationalization, he then became a naturalized citizen. Of course, naturalized citizens do not qualify for the job of POTUS. If he never passed through Customs, he could be an undocumented alien. (His personal narrative also includes the story that he traveled to Pakistan for 3 weeks while in college. Seeing the passport he used to re-enter the country might clear up the mystery of his citizenship once and for all.)

Of course, if he was born in Kenya – a paternal grandmother in Kenya claims to have been present at his birth there – then at no time would he have been a natural born citizen, since his mother had not satisfied the U.S. residency requirements after attaining the age of majority, to automatically pass on her citizenship status to her son.

Then there is this entry from on Obama’s web site, “Fight the Smears.”

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Several researchers have concluded that regardless of any other considerations, the clear language and intention of the founders/drafters of the Constitution means, this ‘dual sovereign allegiance at birth’ kills any eligibility for POTUS under Article II. (Notwithstanding his pronouncement that McCain is eligible for POTUS; Professor Tribe has remained silent as to the eligibility status of his candidate, Obama.)

Bottom line, just because the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama as their candidate for President; and just because the state chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted his name to be placed on the general election ballot; and despite the fact that state officials in all 50 states and the District allowed his name onto the ballot and millions of voters cast their votes for him, this does not mean he is eligible to be President.

Of course, he is not the President; indeed, he is not even the President-elect.

Once the results of the state elections are certified by the appropriate state authorities in each state, the next step in the process of choosing a President is the vote by the Electoral College (“EC”) on December 15. And like every other deliberative body involved with this election, the EC is not legally obligated to determine the candidate’s eligibility, either. Under the United States Constitution and federal law, the electors may cast their votes for anyone they want. However, under the laws of a number of states, the electors in those states must pledge to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state’s Presidential election. And some states have enacted laws that require electors to honor their pledges or their parties. Yet, in the history of the EC, no “faithless elector” has ever been punished for voting for someone other than the Party candidate. But since electors are generally chosen by their respective Party based on criteria like Party loyalty and years of service, they rarely go against the will of the Party. On the other hand, the Presidential electors in each state are presumed to honor the conditions laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

So, what would happen if the EC voted for him and then his ineligibility is confirmed? Under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the worst that would happen is that Vice President Elect Joe Biden would be sworn in as President on January 20. Then, he would choose a VP of his own, subject to Congressional approval. (Note 01.08.11:  this scenario presumes, Congress makes clear, it will not Certify the vote of the Electors based on the fact, they elected an ineligible President.  Please see expanded analysis in QUALIFIED ≠ ELIGIBLE.) Of course, if EC voters receive information before December 15 that Obama is ineligible for the job, pledged or not, it is unimaginable they would still cast their votes for him. Only, how are they ever going to get this information?

Several citizens have already filed lawsuits in both federal and state court to address the issue of whether Barack Obama satisfies the Article II requirement that the President must be a natural born citizen. The stated goal in several of these suits is to get the court to compel state officials – usually, the S of S – to vet the candidate as to eligibility, by arguing such vetting is a requirement of the job. That is, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution these state officials must verify the candidate’s eligibility. However, while some state laws explicitly require the political party to submit only the names of eligible candidates for inclusion on the state’s general election ballot; as previously stated in this memo, no state law requires a state official to confirm the eligibility of the candidate the major political party submits. As such, most judges have already dismissed these suits, ruling that the nexus between swearing to uphold the Constitution and having to investigate a candidate’s eligibility for POTUS is too attenuated for the court to compel the specific performance sought in the suit.

Some of the lawsuits filed in state courts have also been dismissed for lack of standing. That is, the Plaintiff lacked the particularized interest in the case of, say, another candidate on the general election ballot. Able to circumvent this barrier to standing, Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan and candidate for POTUS under the American Independent Party filed a suit in CA attempting to prevent the Secretary of State from submitting California’s 55 electoral votes until Obama provides proof of his US citizenship.

The petition filed in August by Plaintiff Phil Berg, Attorney, in federal district court in PA is different. He asked the court merely to Declare whether Obama is a natural born citizen based on several documents he asked the court to order Obama to produce. He named as Defendants Obama, the DNC, and the FEC.

In Opposition to Berg’s Motion, Defendant Obama, joined by the DNC, insisted he does not have to produce evidence he is a natural born citizen. He pointed out that Mr. Berg is just one of millions of voters with no special interest in whether he is eligible. That is, as an individual citizen, he lacked standing to bring this action in the first place. Thus, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, he had failed to present a “case or controversy” for consideration by the federal court. Justice Surrick agreed, granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. It is this ruling against Plaintiff’s Motion for Declarative Judgment on the basis he lacks standing that Berg has appealed up to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking for Certiorari, meaning, an agreement to review the case. The SCOTUS has given Obama until December 1, 2008 to submit his arguments against Berg’s request for cert. But even if the court grants cert. AND rules in Berg’s favor on the issue of standing; the case will then be thrown back to the trial court for a new hearing, which could stall on deliberations over other procedural issues, without reaching the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS. In the meantime, the EC vote will already have taken place. Since they – like you – have no conclusive evidence Obama is not a natural born citizen, without demanding such proof, their vote for him is a fait accompli.

So, other than the EC, can anyone else prevent this from happening? Yes. You. You can bring the court case that will survive the challenge from Obama, the Plaintiff lacks standing.

Issue: Given that the President functions as Commander in Chief (“CIC”) of the armed services under the U.S. Constitution; that the CIC is authorized to order members of the armed services, including the national guard, into combat duty; that while serving combat duty such combatants may logically be required to inflict casualties on the enemy; and that causing the death of another under the color of law but not the rule of law could subject that combatant to criminal charges of murder and, on conviction, to execution for his crime; does a member of the military or national guard, currently deployed in or scheduled for deployment to a combat situation, have the particularized standing required by the federal court so as to create a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully petition the federal court to examine whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and rule on his eligibility to be POTUS?
Answer: Yes.

The elements that would establish standing in federal court, and which Judge Surrick found missing in the Berg case; would be present in a case where the nexus between the injury that would likely result if Obama is not a natural born citizen is more direct. For example, if Obama is not a natural born citizen then he is legally ineligible to be POTUS. And that means any orders he issues under the color of law of POTUS lack the real authority of law. Commanding troops to go into combat where they will likely inflict casualties on the enemy, if illegal, thus exposes soldiers to the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, merely for doing what they believed was their job. (Conversely, under the Code, questioning the legitimacy of the President to hold this position once he is in office subjects soldiers to discipline under “Contempt for Officials.”) This nexus between Obama’s ineligibility and the likely harm that would result establishes standing, in the eyes of the law.

Mr. Obama also pointed out to the court that alleging a violation of Article II “fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because it fails to establish a cause of action.” Mr. Berg justified his presence before the court by citing the Declaratory Judgment Act. But as Obama successfully argued, this Act only affords a procedural remedy to an underlying cause of action. Thus, “a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction.” And there is no federal cause of action under Article II. But he was wrong.

There certainly is a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for soldiers who would be compelled to engage in conduct that could result in execution, deprived of due process of law because their Commander in Chief is ineligible for office.

42 U.S.C. §1983 states

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law …. “In order to bring action under §1983, one must allege that defendant violated plaintiff‘s constitutional rights and the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1994). Under the definition of acting under state law, the defendant in a §1983 action must have exercised power ”possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.“ West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 ( 1988 ) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).

And there’s a cause of action under that same law for all of the families of all of those members of the armed forces, including National Guard members who would be deprived of their loved ones under such a scheme.

The most obvious “person” subjecting Plaintiff(s) to this unlawful “deprivation” in a §1983 suit is the S of S in Plaintiff’s state. But Defendants could also include Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi; the DNC; and the state Party chair, since all of these people were inextricably bound up in the governmental function of carrying out the election to be deemed state actors in this enterprise.

In conclusion, no one has verified candidate for POTUS Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the EC is poised to cast their votes for him on December 15. Unless someone produces documentary evidence establishing he was born in Kenya, the only forum to conclusively decide his legal status lies in federal court. This means filing a suit that would survive a challenge to standing. Given the recent pronouncements by the court in the several cases pending, among the Plaintiffs who could establish standing necessary to force this inquiry are members of the military or National Guard scheduled for deployment or about to be scheduled for deployment to a combat zone; and members of their families.


  1. Lanor says:

    Just a thought…..If Obama is found not to be a citizen will Biden really be the POTUS? (that’s scary)

  2. Virginia is for McCain says:

    Well that would automatically disqualify BO wouldn’t it and put McCain in his place?

  3. mcr says:

    What Happens if Obama is Declared Ineligible to be President….

  4. whipporwil says:


  5. kathy ebert says:

    with all the controversy about his Birth Certificate, he should be made to show it.  If John McCain did then he ought to also.

  6. JamesE says:

    The Director of the Hawaii State Health Department and the Registrar of Vital Records for the State of Hawaii have publically stated that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and on file. The information on the Certification of Live Birth that has been posted on the web since June is taken directly from the vault copy birth certificate.

    JamesE: Become a more discerning reader when it comes to anything related to Obama. The opening salvo of your linked article reads, “The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.” This merely gives us the opinion of the writer. Now, let’s examine the quote on which, presumably, he based his conclusion.

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.

    Note that Ms. Fukino refers to whatever document she holds as a ‘birth certificate,’ while official HI documents related to birth would be either a “Certificate of Live Birth,” issued by the hospital in which a child is born; or a “Certification of Live Birth,” issued to confirm a baby was born, alive, somewhere in HI, within the past year. And, notice that while she states the document is the original on record, this only means, it is the only original she has on record, whatever it is. Also, while attributing the document is related to Senator Obama, she fails to identify the name that appears on his original document. Or confirm the name that appears on this original document is Barack Obama. Or whether Barack Obama, Sr., is listed as his birth father, making the son a subject of the British crown and ineligible for POTUS as having dual nationality at birth. Or whether a subsequent ‘original’ document was issued, showing the name of the birth father as Lolo Soetoro, indicating his Indonesian adoption, thus making him ineligible for POTUS as having Indonesian nationality upon adoption, thus severing his U.S. citizenship. (At best, this makes him a naturalized citizen. At worst, he is an undocumented alien.)

    As you can see, despite writing this article, this reporter fails to provide us with any conclusive information that would aid our analysis as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution and thus eligible for POTUS. And, as a lay person, you have (presumably unintentionally) compounded his mistake.

    • chupacerveza says:

      When I was a child, I was told that Hawaii became a state in 1959. I’m curious why you believe it belonged to the British Empire in 1961….

      • jbjd says:

        chupacerveza: With all of the thoughtful informed commentary appearing throughout this blog; I am curious as to why you introduce yourself by playing a juvenile game of straw dogs. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Poppet says:

    The “Real ID Act” signed by Congress in 2005, requires that
    every “Citizen” must provide a copy of Birth Certificate, S.S.#,
    and citizenship status. It was supposed to take effect in all 50 States by May 2008, by all DMV.
    If Obama has, or, renews his drivers license he must comply.
    What about FOIA on Obama’s Children? Their BC would have to show the “Parent’s” info!
    Real ID Act………. I think it keep’s getting pushed out..Dan,2933,249900,00.html

    Click to access real_id_act.pdf

  8. Poppet says:

    “Searching for a Exact Date”

    I have been “Searching” for the EXACT DATE when Stanley Ann Dunham, or her Parent’s, became Resident’s of Hawaii. So far, I have only been able to find that she Graduated High School from Mercer Island, WA in 1960. I’ve read that she was not to Happy to go Hawaii. If Ann was registered to go to the University of Hawaii she most likely would have started classes in September 1960.

    Hawaii State Law’s require that a Resident has to have lived there for at least “one” year.

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    If Obama was born on August 04, 1961 and (mother)filed for a Birth

    Certificate on August 08, 1961, that would mean that

    Ann Dunham (a minor) and. or, her Parent’s would have to have taken residence prior to August 04, or, 08 in 1960.

    If they took residence in Hawaii “AFTER” August 04, 1960 she would not meet the one year residence that is required.

    I have searched numerous website’s to no avail.

    Many websites, including wiki-pedia (which can be alltered)

    only include the year, not a factual date which could be

    questioned. I would wonder if “state or Federal Tax Record’s can be searched for the “True” dates that the

    Dunham Family became Legal Resident’s of Hawaii. The

    BC of Obama might not have been Legal.

    If “anyone” can find this information, it might be very usefull. Also, there are conflicting date’s regarding the

    “Marriage” of Ann Dunham & Obama Sr., and if ever

    took place, or was even Legal. Please “comment” if you

    find any “exact” info. In my Opinion, there are “Huge” cover up’s for Obama, who if “actually” becomes President, He will most likely be submitted to Blackmail and Extortion. (Already starting) Maybe (FOIA) can be used. Thank’s, Dan Report Post reply » 1 day ago
    This comment has 0 hidden replies. Show them! 0Vote upVote down Phil Poppet,

    If I recall correctly I think Andy Martin has done some research along the lines you’re speaking. is one site to start.

    -Phil Report Post reply » 1 day ago
    This comment has 0 hidden replies. Show them! 0Vote upVote down Poppet Phil: I had e-mailed Andy on 10/16 suggesting if his Team could find out
    anything on the “residence” issue under Hawaii Law 338-17.8
    I noticed that he used 338-18 in his “case”.
    Maybe 338-17.8 should be added, and, or investigated.

    Another Issue I just thought of is, Investigating Obama’s 2 children’s
    Birth Certificate’s with the “Parent’s” , Full Names, Address, “RACE”, etc..
    Maybe there are less restriction’s on getting the info in Illinois than Hawaii?
    Anyone who might know may “comment”. Dan

  9. At 18 did Barack Obama register , as other American fellows who are citizens have to do?
    Another possibility ” natural born ” in genealogy records, at least , has a mother delivering the child . .. If there is no marriage wouldn’t records be kept confidential or if the man is not named . there are no ‘illigitimate’ babies
    I am not a fan of our president elect, I am much too pro- life , but are not his comments worthy of quote , in this instance , when he was asked about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy? Look it up , sensible sounding to me!
    Whatever ! A Republic -Democracy may take a while but it is self- correcting ..
    that will happen should the Lord think the nation is deserving .. and even if undeserving , should He be in a forgiving mode .
    I can’t be happy about Obama’s obvious positions on abortion. Not a very natural action all the slaughter by abortion of white , black and other helpless babies. Wasted future citizens with the potential to contribute , having eyes ears hands and feet and other essential human qualifications for citizenship.
    It is not all up to the heavens ..there is work to be done need to freeze in fear or dismiss the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  10. Jacquie Berben says:

    Racist garbage! This is an undignified attack by yet another pseudo scholar of the American Constitution! May God save us from such perverted claims to knowledge of the law!

    Jacquie: Just to be clear, are you saying the issues raised in this memo as to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS are “[r]acist garbage; or that anyone raising these questions of his eligibility is racist? For reference sake, please, analyze the pleadings submitted to the court by Alan Keyes, candidate for President under the American Independent Party, 2008, and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan, who also seeks a ruling from the court on whether Obama is eligible under the U.S. Constitution to be President. Then, come back here; I will post your response. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. kentucky boy says:

    There are several issues to address here. First, some insist Obama must be hiding something since if he would just produce his “long form” birth certificate it would answer all the questions. As the article noted, no official had the legal duty to verify Obama’s citizenship, thus he had no legal duty to provide it to anyone. Even if he did, it would not resolve the issue-first, because Obama’s enemies would insist the “long form” birth certificate was a forgery, and second, because they are now promoting the theory that even if he was born in Hawaii he is ineligible because he father was an alien. He also didn’t need to produce anything to get the cases against him dismissed because the paintiffs lacked standing-as an attorney, I never produce evidence if I can get a case dismissed as a matter of law.

    Second, this is primarily a political issue which, Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, the SCOTUS is loathe to get involved in. Contrary to the article, it is not a slam-dunk that Obama Sr.’s alien status makes Obama ineligible for the presidency. No court has ever ruled that a person born on US soil to an American parent is ineligible to be president because another parent is an alien. Thus Obama is not ineligible as a matter of law-his enemies only have an argument that he is ineligible, an argument the courts will not hear. There has been, however, an extensive political process during which the issue could have been brought to the attention of the voters. Obama and Clinton were locked in an extended battle for the Democratic nomination during which she could have made the argument that he was ineligible, but she did not. McCain had months to campaign against Obama for the presidency but he also did not argue that Obama was ineligible. You can’t blame the MSM for not making an issue out of Obama’s father when his opponents didn’t even think it was worth mentioning. Now 67 million Americans have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified for the presidency, and soon 365 electors will cast their ballots for his election-so why would the SCOTUS risk a constitutional crisis when, through the many months of this presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and 67 million American voters all agree that Obama is eligible to be president?

    The theory that members of the Armed Forces would have standing to challenge the election results because if Obama is ineligible for the presidency then any military action ordered by him as CinC would be illegal exposing them to criminal prosecution is also bogus. In order to be convicted of a crime, one must have the requisite intent, thus a soldier cannot be convicted of following the otherwise legal orders of a CinC who was voted president by the electoral college and sworn in as POTUS, thus they would not have standing.

    This finally leaves the conspiracy theories: first, that Obama was really born in Kenya and forged his birth certificate, and second, that he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and thereby lost his US citizenship. The Kenyan birth theory is so far-fetched that even on the Texas Darlin blog (and nobody hates Obama more than they do), they have concluded that Obama almost certainly was born in Hawaii. A contemporaneous birth announcement was provided Hawaiian newspapers by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics which in turn received it from a Hawaiian hospital-it was not planted by Obama’s grandparents as part of conspiracy which started at his birth (don’t take my word, its on the Texas Darlin Blog).

    The Indonesian adoption theory is based on a school record allegedly filled out by his stepfather stating Obama’s nationality is Indonesian. Obama’s enemies have failed to produce a single document showing Obama was actually adopted, despite the fact that both the Clintons and the GOP had months to conduct opposition research on Obama. Without such documents there is no reason to believe that a formal adoption of Obama by his stepfather occurred, or that even if he was adopted, they took whatever additional steps would have been necessary to make Obama a citizen of Indonesia (as the father of adopted children from China, I know that adopting children does not automatically grant them US citizenship).

    You can’t hang your hat on a school record alone-I would hazard a guess that a school in a third-world country would not have demanded extensive documentary evidence that a child was actually a citizen. Heck, at about the same time Obama was being enrolled in school there, my mother lied about my brother’s age to get him enrolled in school in England.

    In the extremely unlikely event that one of these conspiracy theories proves out, there is a political process available to resolve the issue-impeachment. There is also the next election, in 2012, when the voters can remove Obama from office themselves if they so choose. The courts are not going to get involved in an attempt to nullify the results of a presidential election. There is no constitutional crisis-the voters have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified to be president and there is no express definition of “natural born” citizen to the contrary. Your next best shot at getting Obama out as president is the next election four years from now.

  12. Frannie says:

    Obama is definitely an illegal alien.

  13. kimcliftrn says:

    obama is a thug, why is this guy hiding his birth certificate, sealed all his transcripts? only one word FAKE. The guy is not a USA citizen and should be taken to gitmo for treason.

  14. kimcliftrn says:

    I think I will go to the El dorado Kansas court house Monday and file a motion to seek obama’s birth certificate. Wouldn’t that be appropriate since his commie mother stanley ann dunham lived there for a couple of years. google obama’s momma. I think you will be real surprised. Fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  15. Ted says:

    On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).

  16. slagtastic says:

    No matter how many times this garbage is debunked, you people keep bringing it back up.

    You lost. Now get over it.

  17. Sue C says:

    Slagtastic, the USA will lose if Obama gets sworn into office and is NOT eligible. Our national security will be compromised and he will be subject to blackmail from anyone who would KNOW his situation. He has teams of LAWYERS covering for him on this… so you bet there are people who know the truth.

    All he has to do is release the records that have been covered up. If they come out OK, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief. If not, the sooner we know the better and the less damage done.

    For me, it’s not about whether or not I like that he won, it’s about the integrity of our Constitution and the future stability of our country.

  18. smrstrauss says:

    If we lay aside the question of Obama being born in Hawaii (he WAS born in Hawaii) and consider only the law cases that seek to disqualify him for reasons other than the location of his birth, we find that there are three approaches.

    (1) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
    (2) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
    (3) Revolving around Obama allegedly not being a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).

    Taking these up in order.

    As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship.

    You will see the proof of this at:

    In particular look at the Elg case:

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
    Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
    Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called “Bancroft Treaties” enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.

    The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg’s parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.

    Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.

    As to (2). It turns out that this is based on a completely mistaken premise. The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:

    In addition to travel on a foreign passport not being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:

    “…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”

    As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.

    Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.

    This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue of jurisdiction is unclear. It is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.

    More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.

    To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have. So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes.

    smrstrauss: I disagree with most of your ‘legal’ analysis – most of the legal cases you cite are inapposite to BO’s status or to pending litigation – but, I appreciate the time you took to pull this together. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Ted says:

    “Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!

  20. mtngoat61 says:

    For more information about what Barack Obama has proffered as evidence that his is a Natural Born Citizen and what he has NOT provided, see these new websites:


  21. DoNotGiveUp says:

    To Leo Donofrio, our leader, and everybody,
    Please do NOT give up! This is exactly what they want us to do – to give up and let them rob us of our freedon, our liberty and our country! If our founding fathers had given up their fight we won’t be enjoying our free country now.
    We will seek justice to the end. We will do whatever it takes to uphold the Constitution. Nothing can stop us. The truth will prevail. We can overcome corruption, deceits and whatever they throw at us. The fact that they are resorting to such despictable tactics as using the “anthrax test” as excuse to delay the case show that they are really frightened that the case will be heard. We have made progress and we simply should not and cannot give up now. Leo, we are behind you 100%. Time and patience is on our side. Even if they managaed to drag it on they will only make it worse for themselves – an ineligible president will cause chaos. When/If that happens, we will have even stronger voices, greater strengths to wake up the waylaid Americans, put the traitors where they belong, and put our country back on the right track.


  22. Bibblesnæð says:

    Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that Obama’s a natural born U.S. citizen?
    Also, you do know, I trust, that Walter Annenberg was a Republican. Judge Surrick in Pennsylvania is a Republican.
    Are Republicans in Obama’s pocket, too?

    zz: You are all over the board with this post so let me try to answer what I think is your pivotal question: what would it take to convince [me] that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen? For starters, I am not the issue; what is at stake here is the Constitutional eligibility of the man who could be ‘President.’ And Obama conceded his ineligibility, albeit presumably unintentionally. He said on his web site that when he was born, as the son of a Kenyan national he, too, acquired dual citizenship. But he made clear, he lost that status by virtue of failing to ‘renew his vows.’ Only, by law, being born with dual citizenship means he cannot be a natural born citizen. Now, I have a question for you: on what evidential basis do you presume he is even a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born? ADMINISTRATOR

    01.21.11: I am re-reading comments looking for something I said and found this incorrect statement regarding dual citizenship as a barrier to being natural born. I want to correct this mistake now. As I realized after I wrote this, without a ruling from the federal appellate court, no one knows what constitutes being a NBC.

  23. Carl says:


    In the time it took you to write that, you would have been better off having a beer and reflecting on what you were about to type.

    Regarding your points:

    1) You do realize that there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, right? The Swedish girl was declared a “citizen” .. nothing more.

    2) No one is arguing that travelling on a foreign passport is automatic grounds for loss of citizenship. Indonesia, at the time in question, did not recognize dual citizenship. To get an Indonesian passport, you must be an Indonesian citizen. To have attended public school in Indonesia, he again must have been an Indonesian citizen. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand through this.

    3) “the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA” – Wrong. That is referred to as a “native born citizen”. Refer to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and you’ll see the justices make a clear distinction between “native born” and “natural born”.

  24. Kevan Corkill says:

    Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.

  25. Mike says:

    Maybe my approach is oer simplistic, but all I need is a certified long form birth certificate and college school records. If he was born an American citizen and went to school as an American citizen (after he turned 18), then I think he’s a citizen (able to run). If, on the other hand he wasn’t born a citizen or he went to school under the guise of being a non-citizen, foreign exchange or whatever (where I feel like he freely gave up any US citizenship he may have had) then he needs to admit he’s not eligible to run and step down. Either way, he needs to give up the paperwork and let us all move on. I don’t like almost everything about him. He scares me for our nation’s sake. Having said that, with the help of the main stream media (who should be VERY ashamed), it appears he bought the election and may be our president… if he is constitutionally eligible. If he doesn’t get with it soon though and give up the information, he’ll be crap to us all, and not our president, forever.

  26. AOne says:


    I am still troubled by the picture of approx. 10 yr old Obama and the
    ONLY picture that has ever turned up of him with his “father” Obama Sr.

    as well as the picture of mother Ann AND OBAMA SR
    (Also the only one of them together) no wedding pics or any others that you would expect to see
    Note: Sr. was registerred in school in Hawaii in 1961 and Ann was registerred in school in Washington state IN 1961 and didn’t return to the Univesity of Hawaii until after Sr left for Harvard

    If in fact those pictures were taken at the Hawaii Airport, then the only logical conclusion that could be drawn is that his appearance had to do with Obama Jr. and something need by Ann Dunham from him as he had nothing to do with his son before or after that photo

    We do know these facts
    1. Obama was enrolled in Indonesia as Barry Soetorro (adopted)
    2. Ann divorced Lolo Soetorro and brought Barry back to Hawaii (1972)
    3. Obama meets Obama for the first time in the airport in Hawaii (looks
    to be approx 10 yrs old)
    4. registerred in school as Barry Obama (1972)

    COLB has father listed as African (note: not showing the adoptive parent
    Lolo Soetorro)

    I am sure that the name change and the timing will be reflected in the vaulted records in Hawaii, more than likely with affadavits by Sr that Jr was his son,etc,……..I would guess dated 1972

  27. d2d says:

    Hey jbjd – how about Soldier4Hillary who is a regular poster over at NQ? I think her name is Patty or Patsy. She was a passionate and vocal supporter of HRC but since campaigning for Barry and then accepting the SOS Soldier is not as enamored.

    Larry and Susan would know how to get a hold of her. I think she is stationed either at Camp Lejeune or Fort Bragg. She might be interested. As well, she’s a young, black, extremely articulate and very thoughtful woman.

    Hey d2d: I tried to get to s4h. I posted at NQ several times, and ‘chatted’ on her radio show. I agree that she would be the perfect Plaintiff or, would surely know someone else who would fit the bill. ADMINISTRATOR

  28. d2d says:

    I think she’d be perfect too!

    You know another person that comes to mind is the young fellow who posted a YouTube video telling the world why he as a young black man wasn’t going to vote for the one. He was very articulate and spoke his mind, which I found refreshing.

  29. mcr says:

    The following is a response by the AG’s office to my letter to Jim Hood, AT of MS

    Re: Status granted to the Democratic Party on Mississippi ballots

    Reese Partridge, Assistant Attorney General of MS, responded to my leeter to Jim Hood (for Jim Hood, Attorney General of MS), by saying that the remedy does not lie with the AT’s office. She noted:

    “To the extent that changes in state law will address your concerns, I suggest contacting members of the Mississippi Legislature to sponsor corrective legislation. You concerns may, however, be addressed more fully by seeking to reform party rules at the state and national levels.”

  30. NBC says:




    HE ADMITS OPENLY THAT HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN at the time of his own birth in 1961.

    Ergo, since de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, used by our Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution, defines a NBC as

    “someone born in the country, whose parents are citizens of the country”

    Neither Obama not McCain nor Calero are NBC.

    Nor can any court defined them otherwise, or change the definition.


    Because the definitin of a “natural born citizen” is a historical fact, not a legal determination, it is a truth of history and political philosophy.

    You can no more change that definition of De Vattle’s, that you could demand that 1 +1 = 3 just because the Supreme Court says so.

    Those who claim Obama is a NBC, have given themselves lobotomies, and abandoned all reason….in a word, they are MAD and INSANE for the sake of their political GOD.

    NBC: Wonderful to see someone expend the energy to research the issues affecting this Republic. Just to clarify, no one actually ‘knows’ what a law means until the courts define this through case law. And the term “natural born citizen,” while discussed in other court cases, was never central to the holding of the case. Thus, this “dicta” holds no precedential value. The case the focus of which is a determination of what is the definition of “natural born citizen” will be a case of first impression. ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Fred says:

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who, I hope, knows the Constitution and all this legal stuff as well as anybody) has a hell of a decision to make on Jan. 20.

  32. We No Longer have a Congress to Write To


    (Though I wrote this to one very well intentioned lady, we will all find ourselves forgetting American is no more.)

    You are in as much of a fog of confusion as all of us. On one hand you readily acknolwedge that our Congress and Senate has failed us by refusing to hear the calls and letters we sent them regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand you are asking us to write to our Congress regarding a new bill to be voted upon. It is apparent reality hasn’t hit us yet.

    If Congress failed America on the most important issue in American history–the installation of a Usurper as President,– what on earth makes you think it is still OUR CONGRESS? We no longer have a Congress, Senate, or Supreme Court that gives a rats tail about us. I will never again write to a dead government.

    The only issue left is terminating all our elected officials before their terms expire. WE must concentrate on finding every way to publicly expose them for the treason they committed against America and terminate them for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and treason. These elected officials are not politicians in office. They are criminals! They should be behind bars. We should be doing every thing in our power to indict all of them. We must constantly remind the public of Congress, Sennate and The Supreme Court’s betrayal of America! There no longer is a Congress that exists for the people!

    Usa Patriots Shout

  33. Chewy says:

    You are wrong.

    John McCain was not born on a Military Base. His mother left the base and went into the city to a regular hospital. John was born off the base in the city and in a regular hospital.

    Besides this was not a regular military base as we have today in most cases.

    Even at that the military base would have to be sovereign land of USA.

    SORRY I thought about this for a very long time. John McCain is simply not a natural born citizen.

    Chewy: Thank you for finally getting this off your chest; next time, don’t wait so long. I, too, agree, JMc is not a NBC, since he was not born on U.S. soil. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. jbjd,
    I have some thoughts regarding the matter and was hoping you could sort through the issues I have. I’m having difficulty articulating my standing. I’m thinking it has to do with my 5th Amendment right regarding the deprivation “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (emphasis on due process). My conundrum as a Soldier, is that the only way I could definitively find out if Mr. Obama is qualified for office is to disobey an executive order and then be tried by courts-martial to discover the lawful nature of the order as determined by a military judge. I am still exploring what my rights are regarding a clear and unambiguous chain of command. If entitled then I should be able to sue in civilian court. If not, then I would have to fall on my sword to get the answer from the Army. I write this in light of what was filed in response to Hollister v. Soetoro by the defendant’s lawyers-
    The following is an email response I sent to Dr. Orly stating my issues:

    1. I am required to obey “lawful orders”.

    Army Command Policy, Chapter 4-2. Obedience to orders

    Click to access r600_20.pdf

    All persons in the military service are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.

    2. I am required to disobey certain “unlawful orders”.

    IAW Article 90
    (a) Lawfulness of the order.
    (i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
    (ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

    3. I am subject to punishment for disobeying an order from the President under Article 92 (Failure ot obey order or regulation)

    Click to access mcm2008.pdf

    c. Explanation.
    (1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
    (a) Authority to issue general orders and regulations.
    General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Homeland Security, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
    ( i ) a n o f f i c e r h a v i n g g e n e r a l c o u r t – m a r t i a l jurisdiction;
    (ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
    (iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).


    (c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

    4. I am aware (unfortunately) that significant doubt exists as to the constitutional elegibility of my current Commander in Chief.

    5. I have no intent to determine the outcome of this election in an official capacity. I ask the court to determine the the constitutional elegibility of Mr. Obama on the behalf of a citizen who happens to be subject to the unique rules of active service in the Armed Forces. If unanswered, my rights under the constitution have been violated IAW the 5th Amendment:

    “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    (substantive due process- Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior ).

    6. I have no intent to disobey the orders of the President or the officers appointed over me. Due to my knowledge of the questionable eligibility of President Obama, I have doubts as to if I am culpable in a crime obeying General Orders initiated by a potentially unqualified President. Likewise, I have doubts as to the validity of said orders and thier potential conflict with my oath of enlistment:

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the [lawful] orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    7. I assert that I am entitled to a CLEAR and UNAMIBIGUOUS chain of command as a Soldier subject to OBEYING lawful orders. I recognize the fact a military judge IAW the MCM determines the nature of lawful orders in the case of trials by courts-martial. I contend that a Soldier should know implicitly the legality of an order from the President PRIOR to military trial; such would require a determination by the highest civilian court of these United States.

    (d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
    Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time. An act performed pursuant to a lawful order is justified. See subsection (c) of this rule. An act performed pursuant to an order is excused unless the accused knew it to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful.

    Anyway, jbjd, thanks for your reason and clarity regarding this constitutional crisis.

  35. jbjd,


    A. Plaintiff, an active member of the United States Armed Forces, has significant reason to believe defendant is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander in Chief and consequently is unable to issue “lawful orders” to said plaintiff.

    B. Plaintiff is subject to punishment IAW military jurisprudence due to his awareness of defendant’s questionable eligibility to issue said orders. Plaintiff is required by military regulation to disobey orders that are understood to be unlawful (patently of a criminal nature).

    C. Plaintiff can only prove defendants ineligibility through placing himself in peril of military courts-martial due to the regulatory constraints of active service in the Armed Forces. Plaintiff asserts that his 5th Amendment rights have been violated by the defendant regarding the immanent threat of deprivation “of life, liberty,…without due process of law”. Specifically, the defendant is uniquely capable of violating “substantive due process” by which the defendant’s executive orders have subjected plaintiff to laws that are not clearly understood by a reasonable (informed) person as to whether they are of a criminal nature due to the questionable lack of issuing authorities qualification.

    D. Plaintiff has three courses of action (COA) for redress of grievances- violate his oath of enlistment to “obey the [lawful] orders of the President” and follow all instructions of his usurping Commander in Chief, disobey the orders of the President and await adjudication by a military judge as to the [lawful] nature of said order, or seek discovery by the highest civilian court of the United States. The first COA is contrary to all precepts regarding the military obligation of service members to disobey “unlawful orders” IAW the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The second and third COA would require defendant to prove his eligibility. The second COA unfairly subjects defendant to potential punishment IAW the regulations of the Armed Forces.

    E. Does plaintiff have to risk loss of liberty (or life) to seek redress or is he entitled to discovery by civilian authorities to protect his constitutional rights? Plaintiff contends the third COA is the only reasonable method to resolve the issue of defendant’s constitutional eligibility to serve as plaintiff’s Commander in Chief.

  36. jtx says:

    The Washington Post article about McCain’s birth on some “Coco Solo medical facility” (with no documentation of it) is incorrect. There is a BC copy from the Live Birth Records of the Panama Railroad Company that shows McCain was born in Colon Hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama which was not – and still is not – part of the Canal Zone.

    It was incorporated in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit in NH district court under case #1:08-cv-00009 but you have to dig to pull it out.

    jtx: Thank you for this comment. However, this would not change the analysis. That is, JMc cannot be said to be a NBC where Panama was at all times and in all places a sovereign nation. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. John Jay says:

    We are a military family, and we thank you for your attempts to have this Orly person change the terms of her contract. We have tried numerous times and our comments were deleted. We asked her to retract and apologize and she responded by calling us “cowards.” We are not cowards, many members of my family have died in the service of our country. My sons, ARE serving in Iraq. My daughter was deployed a few months ago. Yet, this woman had the audacity to call them, and their families “Cowards,” while they risk their lives, as I did in the past to protect our country. That was the last straw.
    We contacted Central Command, and as per their instructions,we cannot comment any further on the matter, beyond what I have stated here.

    John Jay: I am so very sorry for any additional anguish Orly’s Release has caused you and your family. In one of my posts, I explained that when I learned of the contents of this Release, I attempted to get her to change this. I heard from another military person who requested assistance in getting the Release he signed, revoked, which I was able to do. Just to be clear, I understand that you did not sign Orly’s Release, correct? Have you read my military Complaint? This was always my dilemma; how to both insulate the military Plaintiff from any legal repercussions and, at the same time, make clear, he/she was in imminent liability to be a Defendant in a subsequent legal proceeding under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I thought I succeeded admirably; however, I fear, people are conflating this Complaint with Orly’s Release and so, are unwilling to go forward with this. My best thoughts for you and your family. ADMINISTRATOR

  38. John Jay says:

    JTX, that is a common mistake made as to the City of Colon being in the PMZ. Actually Colon and Panama City were specifically excluded in the treaty. The US had absolutely no jurisdiction over the city of Colon.Here is the Article relevant to the issue. There were changes to this treaty, but this part never changed. McCain is not at natural born citizen. He obtained his citizenship by statute.

    (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty)
    The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark *with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.* The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said ….

    John Jay: Nice work. You are absolutely correct in your legal analysis. ADMINISTRATOR

  39. […] For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)… […]

  40. […] I began advising people on August 2, 2008, weeks before the Presidential nominating conventions, when I knew far less about our elections process than I do now; if you think a candidate is ineligible for office then, the only way to keep him out of office is to keep his name off the general election ballot. CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS  “In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.” FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CO… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: