Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

On December 3, 2008 an article was posted to a message board about a possible case involving Obama's citizenship, since some people claimed he was born in Kenya and his father was a foreigner.  The link to the original article doesn't work, but here is an excerpt:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by many opponents of Obama's election.

On December 4th I asked a question about Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution:

Does the second part of the clause only apply to people born before 1787? 

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.

Then I wrote this:

Mitt Romney's father wanted to run for President and this issue was brought up because he was born in Mexico and I briefly recall hearing about it for John McCain. I read through the Constitution this summer and my initial understanding was that of course someone could run for President born elsewhere as long as they are a legal citizen, however you don't want non-Americans or former non-Americans becoming President. I knew an American guy in high school who was born in Japan (possibly on a military base).

Someone said:

I think this attorney, Berg, who is one of the supposedly more credible of those fighting this battle, is actually a Democrat. I don't know his political beliefs, though.

Another person added:

And gave money to "The One" though I don't know whether the motives were altruistic or not...or to obtain standing in a legal fight.

I responded with:

I heard he was a supporter of Clinton.

Then I wrote:

In college I knew a woman who thought she was a legal citizen, because her parents lied to her; one was from Germany and the other from Venezuela. She went on a trip to Mexico and when she tried to get back home, the border patrol said sorry you are not a citizen. She did get back, but I'm not sure how, perhaps because she was a student.

Someone responded to the question I posted earlier with this:

The key is the natural-born part, which I take to mean is that you had to have American citizenship conferred at birth. You cannot have been a naturalized citizen.

The law on the books at the time of Obama's birth was the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. I don't have access to our online law library at work here, but the pertinent point of the 1952 act is that if you have only one parent who is a U.S. citizen (Barack Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan citizen, Ann Dunham was a natural-born U.S. citizen) and you are born outside U.S. jurisdiction (alleged to be the case where Berg et al. say he was born in Kenya, the official story being he was born in Honolulu), then that parent must have resided 5 years in the U.S. after attaining the age of 14 in order to confer natural U.S. citizenship at birth (note that current law states 2 years). The problem there is Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when she gave birth to Barack Jr. By a literal reading of the law and assuming the Berg contention that he was born in Kenya is true, Barack Obama Jr. could be not be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg also makes additional contentions, which, in addition to (a) above, boil down to (b) His stepfather, whatshisname Soetoro legally adopted or claimed Barack as his child in Indonesia, and in doing so, forfeited any claim to U.S. citizenship Barack may have had and (c) at the age of 20, Barack allegedly passed through Indonesia en route to Pakistan and other destinations and renewed his Indonesian passport, and in doing so, swore an oath to a foreign government (dual citizenship not being recognized by either nation) and thus again nullified any American citizenship in doing so. I have not really looked at (b) and (c) to see if they hold any water.

Since the Constitution does not define "natural born Citizen", I proposed a definition in my book:

Any child born to two American parents shall be granted citizenship regardless of place of birth.  Any child born to one American parent shall be granted citizenship as long as he or she is born in one of the States or the District.  Congress shall have the power to determine immigration and citizenship requirements for everyone else.

My first gay marriage debate

I posted this to a message board on November 23, 2008.  My second cousin and I got into a debate in response to a letter to the editor that I blogged about earlier.

He wrote:

One thing to think about, and this is where I differ from the Right. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, how does that fundamentally harm the "sanctity of marriage". It seems to me that the big "to do" about it is that some how by allowing homosexuals the same legal (that being the key word) rights and privileges (which aren't many, honestly I don't know what they're fighting for, because it ain't all that cool, lol) as heterosexuals, that we as "good Christian people" have somehow committed a sin. Why is that??? I don't remember anywhere in any of the accepted works of the gospel where the Savior, a Prophet, or anyone else taught that we as Christians were to uphold the Christian values, and make sure everyone else did too, (Mohamed taught that) and I think that is one of the big downfalls of Christianity. It's too bad people think they need to enforce their own beliefs on others, wasn't it Christ who said, "Judge not lest ye be judged yourselves", and "Judgment is to be left to God alone".

It seems to me people need to go back to worshiping in closets, and praying in private, and being "spiritual" instead of secular. Besides that, what would it truly hurt to allow homosexuals to marry??? I would argue nothing. And what's more if we are a country that practices separation of church and state, then tell me how does a religious organization have any say in what laws are passed? They shouldn't have any! Not one of them, it's not like they haven't done enough to screw up their own history. Not to mention true unbiased equal rights can never exist when a religious organization is involved in government, because of their "moral compass", which will always skew legislation, and thereby rights in the favor of their beliefs. Just a thought!

Oh, and one more thing, if homosexuals were allowed to marry what would they gain? Lets see, they'd get to own property equally, they would have financial rights to each others estates, um... they'd be able to visit one another in the ICU at the hospital if the need arose, they'd get the tax breaks... did I miss anything? Oh yeah, and the big one, they'd get to divorce as well, yeaaaaaaaa! lol 

And what would that change for us as heterosexuals and our marriages... still thinking... there's got to be something, or else why would so many people be so upset about it... wow, it's not coming to me... oh, I know, NOTHING! It would change nothing in the life of any heterosexual person in this country, the law would pass, and life would go on just like it did the day before, completely unchanged. Just like our lives go unchanged every time a "fellow" heterosexual gets married.  It's rather funny to me, that we are supposed to be a country of equality, fairness, acceptance, and understanding, and yet it seems to only apply to those the majority sees fit to "bless".

Oh yeah and one more thing, sorry, isn't it the Supreme Courts job to "interpret" the constitution, and make sure that laws are passed inside the legal writ of that constitution. And do we as citizens really want our laws and constitutions at the mercy of every sociopolitical wind that blows? I think the courts are in a much better position to rule on constitutional law than the average citizen is, that's evidenced just by the civics test you recently sent me your score on. lol Did you know most people scored under a 50% on that quiz? Pretty sad! lol

I wrote back with this:

Thanks for sharing your opposing viewpoint. I'm not certain if it would change the sanctity of marriage. I think it is important for children to have a stable mother and father to be exposed to two types of love and discipline. I know not everyone can have children, but how do you know that when they get married? Age is usually a solid indicator, but a man can probably produce sperm until death and some women in their 60s have been able to carry children (they might have to be implanted at that stage). If the government accepts the relationship as equal then in all public discourse it must be considered as such, no matter what your personal or religious views on the matter are. It will likely be taught to children in schools, without their parents permission. I've heard that in Massachusetts, the Catholic church stopped their adoption service because it would go against their beliefs about giving children to gay parents. Current marriage law does not prevent a homosexual from getting married. Some do it anyway, now whether they can be satisfied is another issue. Here is a long article written by a libertarian on possible unintended consequences of endorsing such a relationship: https://web.archive.org/web/20081223154146/http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Now, my letter was partially sarcastic, but if equality of sex means that women and men must have equal opportunities, then I am serious that a relationship between two men, is exclusive to women. I don't view homosexuality as a sin or them being allowed to have marriage as a sin, I'm just not sure if it is healthy for a society or a government to endorse such relationships. I am also not convinced that a person has the right to marry whoever they personally want to. I realize that there are several factors in people being gay.

The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people".

A study of twins showed that genetic factors explained about 34-39% of the variation, whereas specific environmental effects explained the remaining 61-66% in men. In women, the genetic part of the variation was 18-19%, with 16-17% for shared environmental and 64-66% for unique environmental factors.

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means the government is not allowed to have an official religion and it cannot restrict those who practice other religions. A church should have every right to express their social and moral views, without interference from the government.

In response to his statement that: "Lets see, they'd get to own property equally, they would have financial rights to each others estates, um... they'd be able to visit one another in the ICU at the hospital if the need arose, they'd get the tax breaks", I wrote:

I disagree with other Republicans on this issue and so did Sarah Palin. If these are truly restricted from gays, then the problem should be resolved. These are property and economic freedoms and should be available to all people. Why must a "marriage" ceremony be performed to give them these responsibilities?

What part of the Constitution says that the government has the right to determine morality? Shouldn't that be left to the people to decide?

On November 24th I posted the following to the message board.  Some of the links are no longer valid so I tried to find similar ones.

Here are links to examples, now they are not all necessarily violent, but they are used as intimidation. Are people not allowed to have a different viewpoint?

White powder: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705263982/FBI-to-run-more-tests-on-mystery-substance-mailed-to-LDS-Church.html

Letter to Mormon seminary: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4830211&autostart=y

Mormon church vandalized: https://web.archive.org/web/20110604174839/http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11062015?source=rss

Book of Mormon burned: https://web.archive.org/web/20110604174839/http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11062015?source=rss

Fire at Mormon institute: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705264285/Ogden-police-investigate-fire-at-LDS-Institute.html

Boycott Utah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110703786.html

My title on the message board was "Gay fascists and Calif. prop 8" and so I said this:

I admit that I diluted the title by posting what my cousin wrote and responding to it. I should have just had the original letter and the introduction.

On the 29th I posted two more examples, but I couldn't find an active link for the second article:

Here is a list of more crimes related to the bill:
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_11062014

Here is another article on the topic talking about hate crimes in Utah:

Later on the same day I also posted this to the message board:

Back a few years ago when I was a little more sympathetic to liberal social views, I was talking to a gay man online. I said to him that it must be really tough to be gay, and he responded back and said no actually it's not that bad and everybody experiences disappointments and challenges in life. At college there was a demonstration by a gay group and they threw some cake on the sidewalk in protest of their views on marriage. A former gay student who was living in California wrote a letter to the editor about his disappointment in the group's actions. I asked that same guy what he thought and I think he basically said that it is unfortunate when protests get out of hand, but he understands the sentiment. He had previously been married and has a daughter. I think he lives in Utah.

My grandpa's brother is gay, and although I'm not certain, I would guess that most in the family are opposed to homosexual relationships. He lives in another state away from the family, but whenever he visits he and his live-in boyfriend are both treated very well and I don't think I've heard any gossip about them in the family. His mother, my great-grandmother, even lived with both of them during the last few years of her life. I think she died in the mid-90s.

On the 30th I wrote:

There was not a "right" to same-sex marriage, until the California Supreme Court declared it so in May. It seems odd that the "banning" of it could be overturned according to a legalistic method. Unless they did not follow the proper procedure for a ballot, but I think that would have come up before the election and it was already passed the first time in 2000. I think the tension will explode if this vote is ignored.