Supreme Court Turns Down Obama Birth Case
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
Hawaii Secretary of State Says Obama Born There.
The U. S. Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. Leo Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.The cout didn’t explain its ruling.
At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed.
Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit. Federal courts in Ohio and Washington state have rejected similar lawsuits.
Allegations raised on the Internet say the birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is a fake. But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there’s no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. It has also produced a 1961 birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser.
The matter is further complicated by reports that Obma’s grandmother and half brother, both Kenyan, say he was in fact born in Kenya.
Comment by Ted on 8 December 2008:
The Supreme Court filing (application, brief etc.) in the Connecticut Wrotnowski case is soooooo much better than that in the New Jersey Donofrio case (apparently hurredly written before the Nov 4 election) that I don’t think Team Obama should get too comfortable with the Court’s denial of the first case since the second case IS distributed for Dec 12 conference. How the heck can anyone effectively counter this (great work Leo):
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=fb6dc015edba6d8ec689b56a06b79d0b
Comment by dennis on 14 December 2008:
In wa.st. There is a statute in our rcw which allows citizens standing to contest an election. So read it and weep. This is soo important to understand,it is our Constitution that is at stake here. I believe one of these cases are going to blow this farce wide open.
Any of the following causes may be asserted by a registered voter to challenge the right to assume office of a candidate declared elected to that office:
(1) For misconduct on the part of any member of any precinct election board involved therein;
(2) Because the person whose right is being contested was not at the time the person was declared elected eligible to that office;
(3) Because the person whose right is being contested was previous to the election convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person’s civil rights restored after the conviction;
(4) Because the person whose right is being contested gave a bribe or reward to a voter or to an inspector or judge of election for the purpose of procuring the election, or offered to do so;
(5) On account of illegal votes.
(a) Illegal votes include but are not limited to the following:
(i) More than one vote cast by a single voter;
(ii) A vote cast by a person disqualified under Article VI, section 3 of the state Constitution.
(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
All election contests must proceed under RCW 29A.68.011.