Supreme Court rejects another "birther" lawsuit

President Obama listens as a reporter asks a question at the start of a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington Oct. 3, 2011. / AP Photo
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned away another challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be president.
The high court on Monday refused without comment to hear a challenge brought by conservative activist Alan Keyes and other members of the American Independent Party. They contend Mr. Obama wasn't eligible to be president because he was not born in the U.S., and thus not a citizen. U.S. courts, and the Supreme Court, have previously thrown out similar suits.
Birther issue back, but now Democrats raising it
Obama 2012 team sells birther-mocking tees
Poll finds percentage of "birthers" is down
Keyes wanted the certification of Mr. Obama's victory halted in California until there was documented proof by a state official that he was eligible to be president. The Supreme Court of California threw out the lawsuit.
The case is Keyes v. Bowen, 10-1351.
Obama releases long-form birth certificate
Birth certificate won't kill "birther" movement
Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Officials confirm there's only 1 winning Powerball ticket
- 1 winning ticket sold in Fla. on Powerball
- Powerball frenzy locks down most possible number combos
- Long Island police defend Hofstra student killing
- Authorities: N.Y. college student was killed by police 52 Comments
- Crash in small Va. town injures dozens during parade
- The War in Chicago
- Official: Broken rail eyed in Conn. train crash














It has nothing at all to do with WHERE Obama was born. He could have been born on the White House steps and he still wouldn't be eligible for the Presidency. Obama's father was never a US citizen and has no rights to confer US citizenship to anyone.
My facts, sourced by the Library of Congress, PROVE that I am right!
Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639 (1862):
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
In 1866 while introducing the bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law.
The LAW they were talking about was the Civil RIghts Act of 1866 which states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records of when they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
And last but not least:
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Anyone that spends so much money hiding his past must really have something to hide.
I wrote to Bowen before the election and inquired as to the vetting of the Presidential candidates and she said that wasn't her job but rather the National Committees. I disagree. If she and others had actually done their jobs we would not be in the position to doubt who is suppose to be leading this country. Trusting the National Committee, no matter what side, is ridiculous.
The Supreme Court is remiss in not accepting this case and settling it once and for all.
These are the clowns that are trying to run for president of the United States?
Isn't that what you guys who only use the left side of your brain say when Obama is criticized.
and he's president!? Something STINKS to high heaven here, folks!
But, the Supreme Court (an oxymoron), ruling as it has, has
shown us once again, why we, as citizens, should pay little
or no attention to its' rulings!
And, why, adjustments to the Supreme Court need to be made!
Such as, term limits, age limits, and professional qualifications
for eligibility to serve on the court!
As, most of the decisions we have been seeing for the last
few years, are NOT well thought out at all!