Can Keyes Overcome Inevitable Standing Challenge?

After receiving word from Alan Keyes’ camp as to their take on the standing issue–it was patently unfair for me to have gone two days without providing the other perspective, and for that I apologize–I decided to update this piece and move it back to the top (for now, of course, as new material should come later today) so their take can receive the attention it deserves.

– Jeff

Former Reagan administration official, Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes was among petitioners who filed an action last Thursday in the Superior Court of California seeking a court order enjoining Barack Obama’s California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until documentation showing the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president is produced.

“I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office,” Keyes said in a statement released after the suit was filed. “Otherwise, there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation.”

In my opinion, however, Alan Keyes will likely not be found to have standing to sue Secretary of State Debra Bowen, President-elect Barack Obama, and others in the Superior Court of California, and for that reason his legal action will most likely go the way of many of the other, similar cases filed across the country — dismissal.

The question is whether California Superior Court adheres to standing requirements more broad than the standing rules employed by the federal courts and enforced by the U.S. Constitution’s Case and Controversy Clause. Under those rules, a similar eligibility-related suit filed by American Independent Party of California Chairman Markham Robinson–who also appears as a petition in yesterday’s action–against Bowen and Sen. John McCain failed back in August.

That case, however, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California–where the federal rules apply–and did not feature Alan Keyes, the America’s Independent Party’s candidate for president of the United States, as a party. To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) a causal relationship between that particularized injury-in-fact and the actions of the defendant or defendants, and (3) that proper adjudication of the matter will provide redress for that injury. Robinson, according to the Hon. William Alsup, failed the test for standing on several levels.

First, Alsup wrote, because he was suing merely as a voter and as “a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate,” he had “no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter.” Second, because Robinson himself was not a candidate in competition with McCain, he could not show proper causation for that injury. Finally, Judge Alsup’s statement that Keyes’ “presidential prospects” as an “obscure, third-party candidate” were “theoretical at best” suggests that Alsup believed that Keyes’ chances of winning California (or beyond) would still have been slim, even with McCain being removed from the state ballot through a favorable decision for Robinson.

Due to the latter, I find it hard to believe that an action filed by Keyes against Barack Obama in federal court would fare any differently — he might be able to show particularized harm, he might be able to show that Obama caused that harm, but he’d be hard-pressed to show that he would have prevailed in California, even if Obama’s name had been stricken. This action, however, was indeed filed in California state court, and that’s where the question of standing once again rears its ugly head.

Tom Hoefling is chairman of both the America’s Independent Party National Committee and the Alan Keyes for President 2008 campaign committee and, with regard to the case at hand, is acting as the petitioners’ spokesman. Hoefling says that, regardless of the particulars of the standing doctrine in California or beyond, it is the Constitution that matters and the importance of the presidency which is paramount.

“I believe all American citizens have standing in this matter, in that they have the right to the assurance that the Constitution is being followed,” Hoefling said. “The presidency is the one office that represents the whole body of the sovereign people of the United States. Each of the members of that sovereign body has a vested interest in making sure that the occupant of the office of the Chief Executive–the individual issuing executive orders, issuing orders to our military, negotiating treaties, vetoing and signing legislation, etc.–be constitutionally legitimate.”

In fact, Section 16100(b) of the California Elections Code specifies that “[a]ny elector of a county, city, or of any political subdivision of either may contest any election” if, among other reasons, “the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.” In yesterday’s filing, however, Keyes and the other petitioners appear to rely solely on 3 U.S.C. 8 to justify and confer standing:


3 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 8 provides, “The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.” This federal statute confers upon each elector an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate for President for which the elector is seeking election is a “natural born” citizen. Otherwise, the elector would not know if his vote was being cast in the “manner directed by the Constitution.”

Given this constitutionally mandated duty, PETITIONERS have standing to bring this Writ before this Court.


I’m not so sure it will be enough. Even if they had cited Section 16100(b), I’m not sure if it would be enough.

When it comes to state law, the issue of standing is often difficult to wrap your head around. At the federal levels, standing is an issue of jurisdiction, essentially a measure of the particular court’s authority under the Constitution to hear the case at hand. In state courts such as the Superior Court of California, however, standing is looked upon not as a jurisdictional question but more like an element of the particular cause of action itself. In unfair competition cases (think “trademark,” not “election” competition), for example, the requirements for standing are injury-in-fact, monetary loss, and the causal relationship of the injury and loss to the defendants’ actions.

In other types of cases, however, standing acts more like that jurisdictional requirement seen in federal cases, and in those cases, California appears to look at the traditional federal doctrine–injury-in-fact, causation and redressibility–to determine questions of whether or not someone has standing to sue.

Keyes’ chances, in my opinion, boil down to whether the element of redressibility is included in the test for standing for this particular cause of action. Because he did in fact appear on the California ballot along with Barack Obama, it seems likely that Keyes could very possibly show the injury-in-fact and causation that Robinson–and Philip Berg, and others–could not, especially considering the “sliding scale” approach to injury-in-fact employed by Berg in his petition for writ of certiorari, but the question remains as to whether redressibility is a factor. Alsup expressed, in the Robinson decision, doubts that striking McCain from the ballot could have significantly helped Keyes in California and beyond — if redressibility is figured in as an essential element of standing here, the Ambassador might run into the same problem.

Considering what I believe will be the eventual outcome of this matter, as well as the final dispositions of the other related matters filed from coast to coast, I cannot help but be disappointed that none of these cases have been heard on the merits. Of course, I understand completely the reasoning behind the standing doctrine, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Hoefling, it seems, feels that the court systems’ inaction represents a dangerous trend in this country, as he told America’s Right that “the courts have become an oligarchy” and that continuing down our current path could mean disaster for the United States of America as we know it.

“I saw the Ohio case, in which the Republican Party was not recognized as having any standing to assure that voter fraud wasn’t occurring, as one more bit of evidence that government of, by and for the people is being destroyed,” he said, referring to last month’s decision in Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to uphold an order directing Brunner, Secretary of State in Ohio, to check for voter fraud. “If the people themselves, their electors, their political parties, or their candidates for public office, don’t have standing – don’t have access to the courts to have their grievances redressed – the Constitution is now, in practice, a dead letter.”

Without getting too complicated, the Court’s decision in Brunner is important with regard to the eventual disposition of Keyes’ action, as it essentially held that there is no private, individual right to sue unless Congress deliberately and explicitly creates the right to do so — language similar to that employed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick when he dismissed Philip Berg’s case against Barack Obama from the district court in Philadelphia.

Personally, I wonder how much of the reliance on procedure, how much of the unwillingness to expand the pie when it comes to the standing doctrine, comes from an inherent reticence regarding election-related questions. In his dissent in Bush v. Gore, Justice John Paul Stevens famously expressed his view that the Court was treading on dangerous ground:


Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner in this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.


Across the country after that decision, newspaper headlines confirmed Stevens’ worry. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece entitled “Turbulent Election Taints Top Court’s Reputation for Neutrality.” The New York Daily News’ lead headline read “High Court’s Integrity at Risk.” The Boston Globe chose “Supreme Court Compromises its Legitimacy.” Confidence was indeed in low supply.

Three years later, when the ACLU filed suit in California seeking suspension of the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis on grounds that an October 2003 vote–rather than a vote in March of 2004–would disenfranchise minority voters, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals echoed Stevens’ sentiments when it held that the recall should proceed as planned.


Interfering with impending elections is extraordinary, and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented. Investments of time, money, and the exercise of citizenship rights cannot be returned.


The judiciary was wary of the consequences of its decision in Bush v. Gore, and that uneasiness manifested itself in California a few years later. I believe that it is once again showing itself now. With regard to the questions regarding Obama and the second Article of our Constitution, it seems likely that the standing doctrine provides the courts with the perfect excuse to avoid forcing the return of those investments of time and money spoken of by the Ninth Circuit. The courts, it seems, want nothing of this pressing matter. If standing is to be granted to individual voters, they say, responsibility for doing so should fall onto the shoulders of Congress.

Hoefling, however, feels that this is absolutely a matter for the courts to decide.

“An impartial judiciary,” he said, “sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is ideally suited to settle election-related controversies — particularly a case like this one in which it couldn’t be clearer that this imperative sworn duty is central to everyone involved, including the judges who are deciding the case.”

I tend to agree. The judiciary has a long-standing tradition of immersing itself in questions of campaign finance, gerrymandering, party primaries, voter rights and more — the question of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to hold the office of president seems to be pertinent and worthy of adjudication on the merits. Still, given the attitude of the courts in the past, given the reasoning behind the dismissal of Berg’s suit from federal court in Pennsylvania, David Neal’s action from magistrate court in Ohio and, most importantly, Robinson’s prior suit against McCain, I cannot help but feel as though this case, despite being in a state-level court, will be dismissed on grounds of lack of standing. I wish that weren’t the case, but I fear it is.

Of course, I am not an expert on any of this, much less the specifics of California state law. I could very well be wrong, and hope that I am. Still, please remember what I wrote on Wednesday — America is bigger than one man, president-elect or not. While the concentration on so many on these legal actions is certainly understandable (it is our Constitution, after all), I cannot stress enough my hope that the same vigilance would be given to an Obama presidency should these challenges not pan out as hoped by so many.

Hoefling is more optimistic, and stresses that he has high hopes that this “vitally important matter” will not go the way of the others.

“My hope for this action is that Sen. Barack Obama will simply make the documents available to the American people which prove that he is constitutionally capable of serving as President of the United States,” he said. “If he will not, or cannot, he should be immediately disqualified from holding such office.”

“It’s very simple, really. A grammar school child could understand it.”

Share

Comments

  1. CandyCandy says:

    So distressing on so many levels…

  2. Anonymous says:

    Can anyone find a video of the Obama and Keys debate showing Keys telling Obama “You are not even a Natural born citizen” and Obama telling Keys “That’s OK, I am not running for president, I am only running for Senate”. I would like to that video….if its true.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Is this the debate being mentioned, from Oct 12, 2004? http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=367

    There’s no such comment that I can find, in the transcript at least, but perhaps there was another debate. If anyone has an hour free, they can watch the video from this same link and see if it was just left out of the transcript.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Actually, here are all 3 debates, perhaps someone can listen to each one:

    Oct 12, 2004: http://2008.keyesarchives.com/video?clip=041012debate

    Oct 21, 2004: http://2008.keyesarchives.com/video?clip=041021debate

    Oct 26, 2004 http://2008.keyesarchives.com/video?clip=041026debate

  5. Anonymous says:

    The Obama/Keyes Augusta piece is available again. Drudge has it on their site.

  6. Anonymous says:

    There were 3 debates – you can listen or see transcripts. No one has found such repartee in them. I didn’t. By now that kind of statement would be all over the place, quoted in truth.

  7. Anonymous says:

    After being removed from the web site, the NBC Augusta, Georgia story is back online. (I’m including it here because of the apparent ephemeral nature of the link):

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

    Powered by

    SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

    Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect’s citizenship
    By Rich Rogersrrogers@nbcaugusta.com and NBC Augusta Staff
    Story Published: Nov 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM EST
    Story Updated: Nov 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM EST

    SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama’s has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama’s citizenship.

    According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Some conservatives have questioned Obama’s citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate.

    Find this article at:
    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

    ©2007 WAGT-TV. All Rights Reserved.

  8. Anonymous says:

    My husband did a thorough search (he knows how to utilize various search engines) and found no evidence of Obama having said that. What I found interesting is that Obama has used similar phrasing with “that’s okay, I’m not running for Vice President” and the same with “not running for pastor” or something (I think I heard that from a youtube clip from one of the debates). So, it wasn’t that far-fetched to me that he would use that same phrase back to Keyes concerning the citizenship issue.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Koyaan said…
    anonymous wrote:

    Finally they mention this:

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

    Not for long they didn’t.

    The article’s been removed.

    k

    Sorry k, it’s up on Drudge today.
    Bots keep trying to bury but the truth will come out.

  10. Anonymous says:

    People lets try sending letters and emails to Ron Paul. Lets see how much of a stark defender of the constitution he really is.. If anyone would have standing he should. Not to mention he’s a sitting congressman.

    http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml

  11. SouthernBelle says:

    Has anyone noticed that the article at NBC Augusta now has a copy of the birth certificate with the article…I am sure because of pressure from the Obamabots. This is getting ridiculous!

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/obama/34587804.html

  12. Koyaan says:

    southernbelle wrote:

    Has anyone noticed that the article at NBC Augusta now has a copy of the birth certificate with the article…I am sure because of pressure from the Obamabots. This is getting ridiculous!

    Why should anyone have a problem with that?

    k

  13. SouthernBelle says:

    Koyaan said…

    southernbelle wrote:

    Has anyone noticed that the article at NBC Augusta now has a copy of the birth certificate with the article…I am sure because of pressure from the Obamabots. This is getting ridiculous!

    Why should anyone have a problem with that?

    k

    Because it is not a real birth certificate and unfortunately, there are many who will see it for the first time and believe it to be real. There are many who have not followed the story from the beginning and are just coming in midstream. They see that birth certificate that is posted and will think end of story…the birth certificate has been produced, case closed.

    It is up to the bloggers to put the word out that it is not the real deal! That’s all!

  14. Koyaan says:

    southernbelle wrote:

    Because it is not a real birth certificate and unfortunately, there are many who will see it for the first time and believe it to be real.

    It is a Certification of Live Birth, which takes its information from the original Certificate of Live Birth, and as per Hawaiian law (HRS 338-13(b)) “shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.”

    So if the Certification of Live Birth gives the place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii, then that’s the place of birth given on the original.

    This demand for the “original” is just a red herring.

    k

  15. SouthernBelle says:

    Koyaan said…

    southernbelle wrote:

    Because it is not a real birth certificate and unfortunately, there are many who will see it for the first time and believe it to be real.

    It is a Certification of Live Birth, which takes its information from the original Certificate of Live Birth, and as per Hawaiian law (HRS 338-13(b)) “shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.”

    So if the Certification of Live Birth gives the place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii, then that’s the place of birth given on the original.

    This demand for the “original” is just a red herring.

    k

    Koyaan, I am not going to argue the point with you…it is not real! It is not his Certificate of Live Birth! It has been falsified. Even if it is real, there are many other questions surrounding his eligibility to be POTUS.

    There is no red herring here…just produce the vault copy and be done! Why hire three different law firms to fight these lawsuits when he could produce the original vault copy and put the issue to rest? One of two reasons, either he doesn’t have one or there is something on there that he is trying to hide. The longer he doesn’t produce, the more suspicion there is surrounding his eligibility.

    Produce it and move on! Enough said!

    SB

  16. Anonymous says:

    According to the Hawaiian press, Obama and/or his sister have stated two different hospitals as places of his birth. That in itself deserves clarification. What on earth does Obama do all day that he can’t bother to clear up the nation’s concern and confusion over this constitutional requirement?

    Already, the 28% of the voting population that voted for this man has got to be scratching their heads.

  17. Koyaan says:

    southernbelle wrote:

    Koyaan, I am not going to argue the point with you…it is not real! It is not his Certificate of Live Birth! It has been falsified.

    There’s not one shred of credible evidence that it has been falsified.

    When you say it is not his certificate, it seems you are yet another unquestioning victim of Techdude’s fabricated claims which Phil Berg continues to promote.

    In case you weren’t aware, Techdude was exposed as a fraud months ago.

    Even if it is real, there are many other questions surrounding his eligibility to be POTUS.

    If it is real, then there are no other questions regarding eligibility, only the false claims made by Berg such as his claim that Obama lost his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and stepfather.

    Here Berg continues to promote the erroneous claims made by another exposed fraud, “Judah Benjamin,” who misrepresented the law regarding loss of citizenship.

    I find it interesting that those such as yourself will question everything regarding Obama, yet you never question any of the claims made by people such as Berg.

    Why is that exactly?

    There is no red herring here…just produce the vault copy and be done!

    If you had bothered actually reading either the Berg or Keyes lawsuits, you would know that even if Obama were to produce the vault copy, that would not be the end of it.

    Because if you had bothered to actually read either of those cases, you would know that both claim that Obama lost his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia.

    So don’t insult the intelligence of those aren’t so lazy and who took the time to actually read these cases by saying that if Obama produces the vault copy it would be done.

    Why hire three different law firms to fight these lawsuits when he could produce the original vault copy and put the issue to rest? One of two reasons, either he doesn’t have one or there is something on there that he is trying to hide.

    Or he simply doesn’t care to give people who file lawsuits loaded with bullshit any sort of undeserved credibility by capitulating to their demands.

    k

  18. Anonymous says:

    So, he does not care to give credibility to people with the audacity to file lawsuits by actually producing the documents, but he will hire 3 law firms and a bunch of bloggers to fight for his right not to produce the documents. Months ago you might have had a shot at convincing me that this was a load of crap, but this man has gone through such hoops to avoid showing us some paper, I can’t help but believe there is something he is hiding.

  19. Koyaan says:

    anonymous wrote:

    So, he does not care to give credibility to people with the audacity to file lawsuits…

    You leave out some rather pertinent information here.

    First, prior to filing his lawsuit, Berg made no attempt whatsoever to contact the Obama campaign to attempt to get answers to any questions he may have had.

    Second, when he did decide to take it to the courts, all he did was dredge up a bunch of crap he’d come across on the Internet and sloppily and incompetently cobbled it into a lawsuit.

    And I say incompetently because he did absolutely nothing to verify any of the claims he made against Obama. They went straight from the Internet into the lawsuit.

    Virtually all of his claims are either demonstrably false, or lack any sort of substantiation.

    There has never been any good faith effort on Berg’s part to get at the truth here. His lawsuit was never intended to be anything more than a political smear campaign, hoping that something “official” like a lawsuit would lend an air of credibility and attract the attention of the mainstream media.

    If I were in Obama’s shoes and someone like Berg tried pulling the same shit on me, I’d make the son of a bitch work for everything they asked for, until they gave up, went broke, or I was given an order by the court.

    And if someone like McCain or Bush or anyone else was in the same position, I’d give them the same advice.

    k

  20. dcomus says:

    Interesting. It shows that this question is being raised by more than the “fringe element” like us:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/livechat/2008/nov/18/andrew-card-taking-questions-live-noon-tuesday/

    Note question:

    “Second, as you might be aware, Mr. Obama has sparked an unnecessary controversy by his adamant refusal to forthrightly address his constitutional eligibility as it concerns his place of birth and his multiple foreign citizenships. My question is this: What could he do, in your opinion, that would best resolve this uncertainty prior to January 20, 2009?”

  21. john mirse says:

    If I remember correctly, computers were not invented yet when the founding fathers wrote that wonderful document known as the Constitution of the United States.

    That is, because the founding fathes did not have computers, they could not view a candidate’s birth certificate on a computer screen in order to try to prove or disprove that George Washington, James Madison,Thomas Jefferson, and others were natural born citizens and were eligible to be President of the United States.

    So, if the founding fathers needed to examine a candidate’s birth certificate, they would have had to do so by holding it in their hands and examining the document just a few inches from their faces.

    1. So I am wondering: If computers were not around yet, how did the president-elect prove that he was eligible to be President of the United States, say, between the time the Constitution was written in the 1700s and the time of the modern computer age as we know it today?

    2. That is, what documents did early president-elect persons–like Truman and Kennedy— have to provide in order to prove their eligibility under the lawss of the Constitution of the United States?

    3. In the past, was the burden of proof on the presidential candidates to prove that they were eligible?

    4.Or, was the burden of proof on private citizens like me to prove that the candidates were NOT eligible?

    5.NOTE: It seems today—during this Obama eligibility mess—that it is up to the public—people like me—to prove that Obama is NOT eligible rather than Obama proving to the public—people like me—that he IS eligible.

  22. Koyaan says:

    john mirse wrote:

    If I remember correctly, computers were not invented yet when the founding fathers wrote that wonderful document known as the Constitution of the United States.

    This is the most ludicrous argument I’ve seen in a while.

    That is, because the founding fathes did not have computers, they could not view a candidate’s birth certificate on a computer screen in order to try to prove or disprove that George Washington, James Madison,Thomas Jefferson, and others were natural born citizens and were eligible to be President of the United States.

    How interesting that you refer to the Constitution of the United States as “that wonderful document” yet you clearly demonstrate here that you haven’t actually read it. Or at least you haven’t bothered reading Article II, which is at the crux of all this.

    Because if you had bothered to read Article II, you would know that the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and their contemporaries didn’t have to be “natural born citizens” in order to qualify to serve as President.

    Here, try reading what Article II actually says:

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

    You get it now?

    By the way, I once had a friend who argued that because of the second comma in that sentence, we haven’t had a constitutionally legitimate president since William Henry Harrison.

    So, if the founding fathers needed to examine a candidate’s birth certificate, they would have had to do so by holding it in their hands and examining the document just a few inches from their faces.

    Yes. Rather like the folks at FactCheck did when they visited Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters where the document was kept.

    Which begs the question, why did neither Keyes nor Berg nor anyone else I know of for that matter, ever bother to avail themselves of the same opportunity?

    This just illustrates how silly your argument here is.

    1. So I am wondering: If computers were not around yet, how did the president-elect prove that he was eligible to be President of the United States, say, between the time the Constitution was written in the 1700s and the time of the modern computer age as we know it today?

    Prove to whom exactly?

    2. That is, what documents did early president-elect persons–like Truman and Kennedy— have to provide in order to prove their eligibility under the lawss of the Constitution of the United States?

    Have to provide to whom exactly?

    3. In the past, was the burden of proof on the presidential candidates to prove that they were eligible?

    Again, prove to whom exactly?

    4.Or, was the burden of proof on private citizens like me to prove that the candidates were NOT eligible?

    I don’t know. To what government entity has any past president ever had to prove their eligibility?

    5.NOTE: It seems today—during this Obama eligibility mess—that it is up to the public—people like me—to prove that Obama is NOT eligible rather than Obama proving to the public—people like me—that he IS eligible.

    Obama has already provided to the public, inasmuch as one can provide to the public, his Certification of Live Birth, showing that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.

    If the scanned image on Obama’s website or the photographs on FactCheck aren’t sufficient for you, you’re perfectly free to visit his Chicago campaign headquarters and ask to see the actual document itself, so you can hold it in your hands and examine it just a few inches from your face.

    And again I ask, why have neither Keyes, nor Berg, nor you, nor anyone else apparently ever bother to do this?

    What does this say about the motives of people like Keyes, Berg and yourself?

    k

  23. SouthernBelle says:

    Koyaan,
    Why don’t you go “troll” somewhere else? Are you one of the “trolls” on the payroll of BHO? If so, what will you put on your resume when you no longer have a job? What would the job title and description be for a BHO “troll”?

    I don’t know if anyone has ever told you before, but you are really annoying! Get a life!

  24. john mirse says:

    Koyaan:

    Obama’s Chicago headquarters and his Hawaii birth certificate issue:

    Do you really believe that if news media and media personalities like Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Hannity, Greta, and Fox and Friends walked up to the Obama Chicago headquarters and demanded to examine Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate as displayed on its smears site that the Obama Chicago headquarters would do so without a fight?

    If you do, then I have a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.

    (Note: Could Anonymous posters please try to use names, even if fake? When many posters use Anonymous, I can’t tell who is who.
    Thanks.)

  25. john mirse says:

    Koyaan:

    1. How did presidents Abraham Lincoln and Grant prove that they were natural born citizens of the United States back in the 1800s?

    2. How did presidents Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt (sp?) prove that they were eligible to be President of the United States back in the early part of the 1900s?

    Thanks.

  26. Sharon says:
  27. Anonymous says:

    If BO has nothing to hide why in the heck doesn’t he just provide the information. I think he withholds it just to thumb his nose at Americans and taunt us with the fact that he is the One and doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as anyone else!

  28. Charles says:

    Wow! Looking back on these comments, it was obvious that Obama’s plan all along was to simply ignore the Constitutional requirements and see if he could get away with it. It seems as if he has.

Speak Your Mind

*