and this from the actual court document of the unfounded lawsuit.C. § 1343; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no authority under which any of these statutes would confer standing on him to bring his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim and we are aware of none. We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion. Plaintiff avers violations of some of these statutes as freestanding causes of action in the Amended Complaint. We address the merit of those causes of action belowThe irreducible basis of all Plaintiff’s alleged violations is that Obama might be elected to the Office of President despite being constitutionally ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen Clause. This alleged fact underscores his claim that he has been deprived of money and billable hours, his claim that he has been insulted in public, his claim that he is being deprived of a chance to vote for an eligible candidate, his claim that he will be deprived of life, liberty and property, and his claim that the non-Obama Defendants are causing him harm by not stopping Obama. The question, therefore, is straightforward: Does the Natural Born Citizen Clause create14 State action is also a necessary element of a § 1983 claim. See Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141-45 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing state action requirement). While we do not need to reach this question because Plaintiff does not allege the violation of any legally protected right, we note that he would likely have difficulty showing that either Obama or the DNC are state actors or acting under color of law. We have found no cases where a presidential candidate has been treated as a state actor merely for running for office. To the contrary, the few cases that we have found suggest that presidential candidates are not state actors or engaged in state action for purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Fulani v. McAulif e, No. 04-6973, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20400, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2005) (dismissing § 1983 claim against defendants, including the DNC and 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, because they were not “acting under color of state law”); Riches v. Giambi, No. 07-0623, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53123, at *20 20 a federal right the violation of which results in a cognizable § 1983 claim? We think not
johnaustin123: Again, this is going to be very interesting.
On Super bowl Sunday, Bill O'Reilly will interview Obama just prior to the super bowl on Feb 3. Bet you Bill will ask about the Birth Certificate.
that would be interesting to see in a live televised forum for the whole nation and world to see.then i think he should ask him how it feels to be the first president to head the u.n. security council of nations.and then ask him why he thinks why it is no other president has held that title(?), and then ask him what his thoughts are on Article VI,in the articles of confederation of the u.s constitution.him being a constitutional scholar would make it quite the interesting political fare... Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
Hawaii has no record of Obama's birth Certificate because it was found in Kenya. The only thing that Hawaii has (where I am now) is that there are a couple of newspapers that published his birth here.
A newspaper publication does not present proof of birth. It only reports the birth of a Mother that owns Hawaii citizenship.
It is not a legal document.
(Obama's Father failed to abide by the Law. In international marriages, it is required by Law for the Father to change certification, not the Mother. This is because ((Strange as it may seem)) The Father owns the child).
Hawaii has no record of Obama's birth Certificate because it was found in Kenya. The only thing that Hawaii has (where I am now) is that there are a couple of newspapers that published his birth here.
A newspaper publication does not present proof of birth. It only reports the birth of a Mother that owns Hawaii citizenship.
It is not a legal document.
(Obama's Father failed to abide by the Law. In international marriages, it is required by Law for the Father to change certification, not the Mother. This is because ((Strange as it may seem)) The Father owns the child).
there has already been papers filed to the courts, to prove the existence of this hawaiin birth certificate. the courts findings after being presented with the actual birth document, that the case was unfounded.
i have given you the actual courts findings on the matter. why is this hard evidence being denied by you?
and again, do you think that if this RUMOUR had any legs, the republicans would run with it?
Yes emmaline, it has legs. I believe that the truth about the Birth certificate was hidden by the media and powerful Obama supporters, like our Governor in Hawaii that is a close friend of Barak. Strange that the Governor said last week that he could not find the Certificate and it was lost?
Yes, not only the Republican's, but some Independent’s and Democrat's will also run with this.
Personally, I believe that the Constitutional Law about the President being a Natural Born Citizen should be changed. We now live in a worldwide Society. If the Law could be changed, it would open up USA elections to anyone in the world to run for President.
To me, I wouldn't care if Obama was from Mars. The issue has come to the forefront because Obama is failing, otherwise it wouldn't.
That was a very, very intelligent comment emmaline. It made me think.
Yes emmaline, it has legs. I believe that the truth about the Birth certificate was hidden by the media and powerful Obama supporters, like our Governor in Hawaii that is a close friend of Barak. Strange that the Governor said last week that he could not find the Certificate and it was lost?
Yes, not only the Republican's, but some Independent’s and Democrat's will also run with this.
Personally, I believe that the Constitutional Law about the President being a Natural Born Citizen should be changed. We now live in a worldwide Society. If the Law could be changed, it would open up USA elections to anyone in the world to run for President.
To me, I wouldn't care if Obama was from Mars. The issue has come to the forefront because Obama is failing, otherwise it wouldn't.
That was a very, very intelligent comment emmaline. It made me think.
hwat about the courts? they are tainted by obama? because thats exactly were the complainant who like you insisted he was kenyan born, and lost. it didnt even get past the revue, because the judges viewed the document, and reported it to be intact and untamepred with and REAL
ActractorguyTims Ford Lake, Tennessee USA2,089 posts
johnaustin123: Personally, I believe that the Constitutional Law about the President being a Natural Born Citizen should be changed. We now live in a worldwide Society. If the Law could be changed, it would open up USA elections to anyone in the world to run for President.
There is a reason for the Natural born Citizen requirement in the Constitution. It is to assure the American people that the president has Allegiance to the US and no other Country.
There was some chatter about opening up a Constitutional Convention but it's not ever gonna be opened again. Why would you need to open it up and change it when the majority of the elected federal officials have ignored it for so long.
Obama keeps re-hashing things that he should have already accomplished to get re-elected in 2012.
He misses the point. The new report is that un-employment dropped to 9% this month. Fact is that it includes people who have stopped looking for work in USA because they can't find a job. Only about 36,000 new jobs were created, far short of the 200,000 new jobs needed to turn the economy around. Most of the jobs created were minimum salary and does not help many.
Get it together Mr. Obama? Reaganomics, Reaganomics, Reaganomics...
President Obama Weekly Address Video, Transcript Feb. 5, ...
I’m just pulling up this poll that I did on CS . I only want you to look at the poll and comments. Let it die down unless you feel otherwise, I don’t want to overshadow jjwinner thread…it is front page CS.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
here it is
and this from the actual court document of the unfounded lawsuit.C. § 1343; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no authority under which any of these
statutes would confer standing on him to bring his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim and we are
aware of none. We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to
pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.
Plaintiff avers violations of some of these statutes as freestanding causes of action in the
Amended Complaint. We address the merit of those causes of action belowThe irreducible basis of all Plaintiff’s alleged violations is that Obama might be elected to
the Office of President despite being constitutionally ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen
Clause. This alleged fact underscores his claim that he has been deprived of money and billable
hours, his claim that he has been insulted in public, his claim that he is being deprived of a
chance to vote for an eligible candidate, his claim that he will be deprived of life, liberty and
property, and his claim that the non-Obama Defendants are causing him harm by not stopping
Obama. The question, therefore, is straightforward: Does the Natural Born Citizen Clause create14
State action is also a necessary element of a § 1983 claim. See Mark v. Borough of
Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141-45 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing state action requirement). While we
do not need to reach this question because Plaintiff does not allege the violation of any legally
protected right, we note that he would likely have difficulty showing that either Obama or the
DNC are state actors or acting under color of law. We have found no cases where a presidential
candidate has been treated as a state actor merely for running for office. To the contrary, the few
cases that we have found suggest that presidential candidates are not state actors or engaged in
state action for purposes of § 1983. See, e.g., Fulani v. McAulif e, No. 04-6973, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 20400, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2005) (dismissing § 1983 claim against defendants,
including the DNC and 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, because they were not “acting
under color of state law”); Riches v. Giambi, No. 07-0623, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53123, at *20
20
a federal right the violation of which results in a cognizable § 1983 claim? We think not
here is the link to the information above