Should the Supreme Court hear arguments on Obama's citizenship?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I say yes.  This way, people will stop complaining about it.  We'll finally have an official statement saying that he can serve as President.  I normally don't support courts hearing dumb cases like this, but if it gets people to shut up about it, I'm for it.

Then again, people still complained that Bush stole the 2000 election, so this may just add more fuel to the fire.  Still, I think it'll help end all the wacky theories.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

[phk]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

This here. If Obama was unconstitutional, he wouldn't have run.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

This here. If Obama was unconstitutional, he wouldn't have run.

My hope is that the justices will issue a statement to the effect of "his citizenship is not in sufficient doubt to warrant us hearing this case." Most cases referred to the Supreme Court never get heard.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

This here. If Obama was unconstitutional, he wouldn't have run.

My hope is that the justices will issue a statement to the effect of "his citizenship is not in sufficient doubt to warrant us hearing this case." Most cases referred to the Supreme Court never get heard.

Actually, that would suffice for me too.  As long as we get the dumb conspiracy theorists to shut up about it.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, that would suffice for me too.  As long as we get the dumb conspiracy theorists to shut up about it.

They're still talking about the moon landing and about Kennedy's assassination. Heck, there's still people out there claiming Bush won Florida in 2000 - a theory about as supported by utter lack of evidence pointing in that vague direction as this one.

[Lunar]

They should visit Snopes.com

[The Ex-Factor]

They should visit Snopes.com

Liberal bias.

[Horus]

If the supreme court were to somehow rule that Obama could not serve as president, the reaction would be so incredibly violent and harmful to the nation that I would fear for the lives of those who voted no on Obama being a citizen.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

We'll finally have an official statement saying that he can serve as President.

But we already do. He was born in the United States, Hawaii to be precise. Is that not, enough evidence for those that don't believe that he's eligible to serve as President of the United States?

Anyway, of course I don't support such a hearing undertaken by the Supreme Court. Firstly, such a would be a waste of the Supreme Court's time and secondly if Barack Obama wasn't constitutionally eligible to seek the Presidency of the United States, then he would never have sought higher office in the first place.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No (Obama).  The SCOTUS has better issues to spend their time on.

[Dr. Cynic]

No: this case is frivilous and a waste of the court's time.

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't be retarded (Obama)

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually, that would suffice for me too.  As long as we get the dumb conspiracy theorists to shut up about it.

They're still talking about the moon landing and about Kennedy's assassination. Heck, there's still people out there claiming Bush won Florida in 2000 - a theory about as supported by utter lack of evidence pointing in that vague direction as this one.

[Stranger in a strange land]

could someone more knowledgable about these matters than me comment on what they think the likelihood of the Court actually hearing this case is? I can't imagine Thomas could get four other justices to go along with him and vote to hear the case. Even if Roberts and Alito were feeling vindictive against Obama for voting against their confirmations, I very much doubt he'd be able to get Kennedy (the likely swing vote) to go along with it. And probably none of them want to be seen as repeating Bush v Gore.

[angus]

could someone more knowledgable about these matters than me comment on what they think the likelihood of the Court actually hearing this case is?

I second the request.  All I know is that he was born in the United States, is over 35, hasn't committed any felonies (at least not any that stuck), and hasn't renounced his citizenship or taken any titles of nobility. 

I am aware that some refer to the rule that states that a "natural born citizen" is one who is defined either as a person born in the US of two US parents, or born on foreign soil of two US parents who are on US official business, or born in the US of one US parent who has lived in the US at least ten years, and at least five of those years should have been after the parent's 16th birthday.  This was apparently the law applicable to those born from circa 1950ish to 1980ish, and therefore applies to Obama, who was born in the same years as my older brother.  And since his mother only lived in the US for two years (after her 16th birthday) when she birthed him, then there may be some issue.  This is apparently a continuation of a New Jersey case that has hounded him for a long time, and does seem to have some legitimacy.  Is that what this is all about? 

Anyway, I voted NO, and I hope it doesn't become an issue, mostly because I think it would violate the spirit in which the law was written, though perhaps not the letter of the law.  I know sometimes the spirit and the letter come into conflict, and in this case I'd side with the spirit, but I could respect those who disagree and side with the letter, if only they knew what the letters said.  So, does anyone know what the letters say?

[Stranger in a strange land]

could someone more knowledgable about these matters than me comment on what they think the likelihood of the Court actually hearing this case is?

I second the request.  All I know is that he was born in the United States, is over 35, hasn't committed any felonies (at least not any that stuck), and hasn't renounced his citizenship or taken any titles of nobility. 

I am aware that some refer to the rule that states that a "natural born citizen" is one who is defined either as a person born in the US of two US parents, or born on foreign soil of two US parents who are on US official business, or born in the US of one US parent who has lived in the US at least ten years, and at least five of those years should have been after the parent's 16th birthday.  This was apparently the law applicable to those born from circa 1950ish to 1980ish, and therefore applies to Obama, who was born in the same years as my older brother.  And since his mother only lived in the US for two years (after her 16th birthday) when she birthed him, then there may be some issue.  This is apparently a continuation of a New Jersey case that has hounded him for a long time, and does seem to have some legitimacy.  Is that what this is all about? 

Anyway, I voted NO, and I hope it doesn't become an issue, mostly because I think it would violate the spirit in which the law was written, though perhaps not the letter of the law.  I know sometimes the spirit and the letter come into conflict, and in this case I'd side with the spirit, but I could respect those who disagree and side with the letter, if only they knew what the letters said.  So, does anyone know what the letters say?

according to the guidelines laid out in the 14th Amendment, Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. He would be such even if his parents were foreign nationals who had never set foot in the United States before giving birth to him. The requirement for years of residence after the age of 16 applies only to those born outside the United States. In short, he was a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. Done, period, end of story.

A different lawsuit claims that Obama lost his citizenship if and when he was adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, when he moved to Indonesia. However, the only way to lose one's citizenship is to renounce it in the presence of consular officers in a US Embassy overseas.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It only takes four justices to hear a case, but I'd be shocked if they would agree to do so. And no, it's not the business of the Supreme Court to deal with any case claimed by any idiot.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It only takes four justices to hear a case, but I'd be shocked if they would agree to do so. And no, it's not the business of the Supreme Court to deal with any case claimed by any idiot.

my concern is that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts would all agree to hear it, which would then result in a major media circus even if they ultimately find 9-0 that the case has no merit and that Obama is natural born citizen.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Actually, that would suffice for me too.  As long as we get the dumb conspiracy theorists to shut up about it.

They're still talking about the moon landing and about Kennedy's assassination. Heck, there's still people out there claiming Bush won Florida in 2000 - a theory about as supported by utter lack of evidence pointing in that vague direction as this one.

Bush won.  And if we would have done the recount how Al Gore wanted to, he would've won by more than any other method that was tried (I think it was NY Times who did it, but I'm not sure).

[JWHart]

I say yes.  This way, people will stop complaining about it.  We'll finally have an official statement saying that he can serve as President.  I normally don't support courts hearing dumb cases like this, but if it gets people to shut up about it, I'm for it.

No (Obama). We already had an official statement from the government of Hawai'i, didn't we?

An official statement never "shuts up" the tinfoil hat crowd -- any official statement from the SCOTUS will just be met with "ZOMG the court is in on TEH CONSPIRACY!!!!111!!!" Don't waste the time.

[angus]

The requirement for years of residence after the age of 16 applies only to those born outside the United States.

I guess that's what I always thought as well, which is why my main question is the same as yours:  Would someone please explain the facts of the lawsuit, if there are any?

[Jacobtm]

It's important to leave no doubt that our President is in fact an American citizen. The Supreme Court should hear the evidence, and if (nearly) everyone's assumptions are correct, they'll declare Obama a natural-born citizen and he'll assume the Presidency. It'd be good to show that we're willing to question our leaders.

[J. J.]

I second the request.  All I know is that he was born in the United States, is over 35, hasn't committed any felonies (at least not any that stuck), and hasn't renounced his citizenship or taken any titles of nobility. 

I would point out that felony is no bar to the presidency.  He was born a citizen, as I understand the law, so I would hope that SCOTUS would decline to hear the case on lack of merit.  Only if there was some strong evidence to the contrary would I favor it.