Birther Conspiracy: Putting It to Rest or Fanning the Flames?
[Guest post by DRJ]
Ten Congressmen, including six from Texas, have joined in sponsoring legislation that would require the campaign committees for future Presidential candidates (2012 and beyond) to provide copies of their birth certificates:
“The Constitution stipulates that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to serve as president. The Presidential Eligibility Act proposed in March by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., would require campaign committees to submit a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate to the Federal Election Commission with other documentation as necessary to prove eligibility.”
Several sponsors say their goal is to put to rest any Presidential birth conspiracy theories, but Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee described it as a bid to impeach Obama’s birthright as the first black president.
UPDATE 8/5/2009: See this related Hot Air post dated 7/28/09.
– DRJ
TJt like so many other silly bills this isn’t going anywhere. Introducing a bill is an easy way to gin up some headlines, then it can die in committee like nearly everything else.
Comment by Soronel Haetir — 8/2/2009 @ 8:22 pm
You can always count on Ms. Jackson-Lee to inject race into a controversy.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/2/2009 @ 8:29 pm
Said bill, or at least its purported purpose, would be a bad idea why?
Comment by Diffus — 8/2/2009 @ 8:43 pm
Because it embarasses the Obama Kool-aid drinkers. It further proves “Mr. Ethical and Transparent” is neither, and so to are the “most Ethically Challenged Democrat Congress”.
Comment by PCD — 8/2/2009 @ 8:48 pm
Fact #1: Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States born in Kansas.
Obama may have been born in Hawaii or Kenya, but it’s irrelivant. Where he was born doesn’t change fact number 1.
If his maother had renounced her citizenship this doesn’t effect Barry in the slightest. He is still a citizen of the United States due to fact number 1.
A child born to an expatriot must wait until they are of the age of consent then petition on their own behalf to renounce their citizenship, it can’t be done by their leftard parents.
Comment by papertiger — 8/2/2009 @ 9:11 pm
I misspelled mother as “maother” by accident. I meant to spell it “Chairman ‘Mao‘ ther”.
Comment by papertiger — 8/2/2009 @ 9:14 pm
As I mentioned over at my blog, this whole kerfuffle has highlighted the fact that we do not have a procedure for checking citizenship. Many of the related lawsuits have been rejected due to “lack of standing.” Would it be such a bad thing to establish a process?
Comment by Gazzer — 8/2/2009 @ 9:20 pm
[...] Patterico has news of proposed legislation that would require proof of citizenship. As I have said before, [...]
Pingback by Gazzer’s Gabfest » The born conspiracy III — 8/2/2009 @ 9:24 pm
I don’t give two craps about the President’s birth certificate. He was born somewhere to an American mother, so he is a citizen.
However, I do pay attention when Rep. Lloyd Doggett is shouted down in his home district. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UjY3YDlwA. If that doesn’t work, go to instapundit.
Doggett is one of the most liberal Congressmen from Texas representing the most liberal district in the state.
Those folks may not be his constituents, but it does go to show that people are not happy. When something such as this happens, I pay attention.
What was it that Dirksen said? Something along the lines of “When I feel the heat, I see the light?”
Comment by Ag80 — 8/2/2009 @ 9:25 pm
So does the bill stipulate that the birth certificate-like thingy Barack Obama’s people have been waving around is somehow not sufficient?
Comment by happyfeet — 8/2/2009 @ 10:03 pm
I believe that Obama is a citizen. My question is why won’t he release his birth certificate to put this to rest? What advantage is it to him?
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 8/2/2009 @ 10:05 pm
Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/2/2009 @ 10:08 pm
I don’t care about his birth certificate.
I care that Obama’s supporting Central and South American dictatorships over democratic governments.
His admiration and ties to Castro, Chavez and the rest of the socialist thieves is one of the real problems with Obama.
One that his handlers hope doesn’t get as much attention.
Comment by Apogee — 8/2/2009 @ 10:10 pm
According to what I read, in 1961 a 17 year old female could not confer citizenship upon her offspring. The constitution requires a Natural Born Citizen to be able to run for President. Obama’s daddy was not an American citizen nor did he ever become one. For Obama to be a natural born citizen he would have had to have both parents be either naturalized or natural citizens. His father was a Kenyan and British citizen. Obama cannot meet the requirements. He is a pretender. It has nothing to do with his race. It does however have to do with who his parents were. This may be a matter for the Supreme Court.
Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 8/2/2009 @ 10:27 pm
…but Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee described it as a bid to impeach Obama’s birthright as the first black president.
Which, of course, is a silly claim anyway. Everyone knows Bill Clinton was the first black President.
Comment by PCachu — 8/2/2009 @ 10:28 pm
“…in 1961 a 17 year old female could not confer citizenship upon her offspring…”
Except, at the time of Obama’s reported Kenyan birth of 4 Aug 61,
Ann Dunham was 18-yrs, 8-months, and 5-days of age (born: 29 Nov 42).
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/2/2009 @ 10:34 pm
Forget Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee. Obama really needs somebody like slappy Cindy back in Congress scaring people with her bug eyes and threatening to cap somebody in the ass to tamp this down.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/2/2009 @ 10:36 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with this at all though if that’s the question. But this…
It seems it would be easier for Hawaii to just change their law and make an exception for releasing the birth certificates for people what become president.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/2/2009 @ 10:46 pm
Re # 16, from the State Dept,
For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
So she would have to have been 19 to confer citizenship.
Comment by Gazzer — 8/2/2009 @ 11:00 pm
And I still think this a massive distraction designed to give cover for not releasing his college transcripts, nor the method in which he gained entry to those places of higher learning, nor the grades he received, nor the subjects he took. By placing arguably the least important paperwork in the vanguard, he can then issue a blanket refusal to release anything under cover of the citizenship issue. Or not…
Comment by Gazzer — 8/2/2009 @ 11:04 pm
I believe that Obama is a citizen. My question is why won’t he release his birth certificate to put this to rest? What advantage is it to him?
You gotta be kidding me?
Having the GOP seemingly riven by this non controversy is political gold.
Comment by spart — 8/2/2009 @ 11:07 pm
oh my! We’re riven.
I just going to sit here torn in my bottle of merlot.
Fractured is me.
Comment by papertiger — 8/2/2009 @ 11:12 pm
Is this really smoking gun of Obama’s Kenyan birth?
My eyes originally glazed over when it came to this issue, mainly because I thought it involved a minor discrepancy in dates, addresses and availability of legal records.
Then I read some very carefully detailed, involved analysis of the computer-scanned images of the current president’s birth certificate, which concluded it was a forgery. So I went “hmm.” But then I saw an explanation about scanned images in today’s era of things like PDF files can make authentic documents look phony, and, in turn, phony documents look, well, inauthentic.
And then I read that an announcement of the current president’s birth published in 2 Hawaiian newspapers back in 1961 gave a home address that didn’t correspond with, or apparently wasn’t clearly linked to, either the current president’s mother or his grandparents, or visa versa.
Whether there is something or nothing to this issue, all I know is that so many aspects in general of the guy now in the White House is the essence of “flaky.”
Oh, and I’ve just read that — surprise, surprise — even middle-class Americans may see an increase in their taxes, thanks to talk about Obama doing his own version of “read my lips.” However, this is almost a given since Obama has a penchant for being ass-backwards. So, of course, if he were to mimic a major aspect of the policymaking of his Republican predecessors, it would be the ONE idiotic — the one liberal — thing associated with some of their administrations.
Comment by Mark — 8/2/2009 @ 11:37 pm
Again, the essence of “flaky”:
Comment by Mark — 8/2/2009 @ 11:44 pm
Mcarthy said it best. It’s not about his citizenship, but rather his disingenuiness. He portayed himself as open and transparent. Yet he is the least known of all presidents. Everything about him has been sealed. He won all his previuos elections by suing states, and having personal files released of his opponents. He has shrouded himself in secrecy. We the American people have the right to know who it is that is running our country.
Comment by Chris falcone — 8/2/2009 @ 11:58 pm
Closing the barn door a bit late, folks. We have to deal with what is, not what was. This is sapping our energies and focus.
Comment by Peg C. — 8/3/2009 @ 5:56 am
Peg,
But a Constitutionally Ineligible President can have ALL his legislation, nominees, Czars, and Executive orders voided by the courts.
Comment by PCD — 8/3/2009 @ 5:58 am
PCD, you may be right, but this country doesn’t have the stomach to go through all that again. I wish we did but we don’t. Now we have to work to politically disembowel HIM before he does US.
I hear you, though! Speaking as one who cannot watch or listen to him AT ALL (unless it’s his chipmunk voice on Rush).
Comment by Peg C. — 8/3/2009 @ 6:16 am
I don’t think this is going anywhere. If I recall, the states are responsible for conducting the elections. I just think it would be nice for the various states to require proof of eligibility for various offices, state and federal.
I recall that the SOS of California denied ballot eligibility to a couple of fringe Presidential candidates. Proper way to handle these issues is through the state legislatures. Define what constitutes “proof” of eligibility to be on the ballot and require that it be produced.
Comment by rls — 8/3/2009 @ 6:55 am
rls, I think what riles many of us is the gummint will enforce laws when “fringe” candidates are involved but not the tsunami of a media-backed, unqualified thug con artist sham Marxist narcissist.
There, I hope I’ve made all the Watch lists.
Comment by Peg C. — 8/3/2009 @ 7:03 am
Birthright????
Birthright???
So, he’s president by Divine Right??????
[note: fished from spam filter]
Comment by Timothy A. Jumonville — 8/3/2009 @ 7:03 am
BTW, none of my adjectives are racist. They apply equally to Frank, Pelosi, Reid, and a host of elected idiots who are white.
Comment by Peg C. — 8/3/2009 @ 7:04 am
Peg,
They aren’t white, but Red or Rainbow.
Comment by PCD — 8/3/2009 @ 7:07 am
Why Obama’s birth certificate issue won’t go away: Vanderbilt expert
The controversy over President Obama’s birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University .
“I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.” Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. “It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive,” she said.
Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue. Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business.
Carol Swain is available for media interviews at carol.swain@vanderbilt.edu.
Media contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, 615-322-NEWSannmarie.owens@vanderbilt.edu
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-obamas-birth-certificate-issue-wont.html
Comment by PCD — 8/3/2009 @ 7:08 am
Birtherism is the final nail in the coffin of the Republican party.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 8/3/2009 @ 7:16 am
No.
That document is a forgery. Someone summed it up nicely:
If the birthers are resorting to producing forged documents to bolster their case, this puts them squarely in the same level of credibility as Dan Rather.
Comment by Steverino — 8/3/2009 @ 7:22 am
The implication that there’s something nutso about the birth certificate thingy… I don’t get that. Barack’s dirty socialist media will still use any newshook whatsoever to drag out their holy footage of the beloved icon of Boomer douchebags getting his head blowed off and there’s very little at all in terms of innuendo they won’t print about the mothballed presidencies of Nixon or Reagan.
As soon as Barack Obama is out of office this sort of speculation will forever and ever be fair game and a great newshook for reiterating the wondrous fascination people still have with blah blah blah but does some of this enthusiastic nostalgia have a dark side we’ll take a look in Barack Obama… A Nation Remembers, a special three-hour…
Gack. But the idea that it’s kooky to want to look under the rock the Barack Obama slithered out from under is completely unfounded I think. For sure that Barack Obama can obliterate the fundamental solvency of our little country while John McCain and his feckless crew of pansy Republicans stand fecklessly by gives the lie to the idea that maundering on about our goofball president’s birth certificate is some kind of unaffordable distraction.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/3/2009 @ 7:29 am
Typical of all conspiracy theories, the Birthers repeat false facts and false statements of the law ad infinitum. It does not matter how often that you correct them, they will refuse to cease repeating the falsehoods.
Conspiracy theorists require the possession of “secret” knowledge to feel that they have worth. Attempting to correct them is in essence attempting to remove their only source of self-worth.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 7:39 am
36, Ah, Like the Democrat party’s mantra that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections?
Comment by PCD — 8/3/2009 @ 7:49 am
But I don’t think we need to class conspiracy theorizing about birth certificates outside the realm of the normal conspiracy theorizing that attends any abnormal or unsettling event. It’s just human and I’m not at all clear on what’s threatened by it. Some fealty to Truth? In an Inconvenient Truth society? In a we have to spend money so we don’t go bankrupt society? In a no new middle class taxes society? In a teh Iraq War killed 350,000 civilians society? It is to laugh.
This is me laughing. Hah. Ok I lied. I’m not really laughing.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/3/2009 @ 7:51 am
Quite right SPQR. I’ve been having a huge fight over tha past few days in a movie forum with defenders of Oliver Stone and his noxious JFK. No matter what I tell them about Garrison’s nonsense they refuse to listen.
Conspiracy is like a drug to far too many people. When earth-shattering events like 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination(s) happen we all, quite naturally, have a lot of questions. And it’s safe to say that some of them will never be answered to the satisfcation of some. But that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out and drink the bathwater.
Birther hysteria is trul ridiculous.
There are perfectly sane valid reasons for opposing Obama’s policies on any number of issues — and stating counter-arguments in a reasoned, logical and perfectly valid way. But looking for a “magic bullet” to wrest the presidency away from him is idiotic and not worthy of discussion by serious people.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 8/3/2009 @ 7:56 am
Because it tars responsible criticism with that of the kooks–and is used by the left to make all Republicans look stupid because a very few believe this crap.
Comment by Dave N — 8/3/2009 @ 7:58 am
Republicans already look stupid. They nominated John McCain. They got their asses handed to them by an idiotic dirty socialist debutante and Joe Biden. They don’t have a spare minute to worry about whether some birth certificate kerfuffle makes them look even more stupider. They’ve maxed out stupid-looking I think. Except maybe Lindsey Graham. Just when you think he can’t look any more stupid…
Comment by happyfeet — 8/3/2009 @ 8:04 am
“…Third, Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya…”
Comment by Steverino — 8/3/2009 @ 7:22 am
Except, Zanzibar is a group of islands off-shore of Tanganyika, that was merged with the Colony of Tanganyika to become Tanzania (sometime in the ’60’s as I recall).
And, according to my 1958 Rand-McNally Atlas, Mombassa is a port in the British Crown Colony of Kenya.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/3/2009 @ 8:33 am
The birther kerfuffle is tailor-made to keep the Republicans looking like idiots. (Not a hard task anyway, of course.)
If I were the Prez, I would continue to ignore this & let the crazies taint the Republicans.
I’m sure there are still some people out there who think the Mena airstrip in Arkansas is significant.
Comment by steve miller — 8/3/2009 @ 8:35 am
Comment by steve miller — 8/3/2009 @ 8:35 am
It was if you were in the import/export, recreational-pharmaceutical trade in the 70’s & 80’s.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/3/2009 @ 8:40 am
Comment by Gazzer — 8/2/2009 @ 11:00 pm
It is not my intention to debate the intricacies of U.S. Law re the transmission of citizenry to the foreign-born children of citizens, I was just correcting an error made on the age of Ann Dunham Obama, as reported on the purported Kenyan birth certificate, by a previous commenter.
I personally believe that if, and when, the details of BHO’s pre-Chicago life come out, he and his media supporters will be run out of town on a rail!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/3/2009 @ 8:54 am
This is truly great entertainment. By all means, continue.
Really. We’re laughing with you, not AT you.
Comment by JEA — 8/3/2009 @ 9:02 am
The birther kerfuffle is tailor-made to keep the Republicans looking like idiots.
Exactly. That’s why you can’t ameliorate it by bitching about how it makes Republicans look stupider. Beyond that the meme is tailor-made to play upon the natural insecurities John McCain Republicans have about about their perceived intelligence.
Instead of worrying about birth certificate questions right on cue for the dirty socialist media, Republican what are worried about looking stupid should mukluk about teh internets agog and atwitter in a mindless regurgitation of Hot Air comment bait du jour. That would definitely be a more productiver use of time and energy I think.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/3/2009 @ 9:03 am
HERE’S The Smoking Gun!
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 8/3/2009 @ 9:26 am
I say let it fester a while longer. Let the other side suffer for years of “Stolen Election” & “Selected, not Elected” nonsense. I didn’t see the democrats step up and demand an end to that nonsense.
If this causes enough distraction to hobble health care and cap & tax, let’s use it
Comment by TakeFive — 8/3/2009 @ 9:43 am
Birther Conspiracy: Putting It to Rest or Fanning the Flames?
What does Radley Balko say?
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 10:01 am
It will probably fan the flames of the current controversy, but it will help avoid future controversies. That’s the part that bugs me about people saying this is too stupid to talk about.
Well, yes, maybe it is stupid. But if we don’t do something, we will be talking about it after most elections. Obama is just the current “victim”, he won’t be the last.
Comment by tim maguire — 8/3/2009 @ 10:09 am
Steverino, this purported document from Kenya may only be authenticated only after doing two things: by looking up the original birth certificate in the proper volume in Kenya, and then to see if it matches the information generated on this typewritten document, and then to authenticate this document further by having experts look at it–and real ones, not the ones Dan Rather used.
Until then, we won’t know if the document is real, or fake.
But the Freepers have countered many if not all of your complaints, so far. For example, “E.F. Lavender” is not a laundry detergent, although there is a lavender-colored detergent called “E.F.” But the Freepers have also uncovered and posted a photo of a purported records clerk named Eric Lavender. Who’s right? (We report, you decide.)
And how you get your talking points so quickly? Steverino, I believe you continue to exhibit a counterproductive, if not bizarre, eagerness to discredit the examination of the simple question of whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/3/2009 @ 10:44 am
The Freepers have countered many if not all of your complaints, so far.
Oh well that settles it then. I want every Republican member of Congress armed with the Freeper talking points and screaming about this on Fox like now!
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 10:48 am
Steverino, always proofread your talking points before copying and pasting. For example:
“Eigth, his father (born in 1961) would have been 24 or 25 when he was born and not 26.”
Obama’s father was not born in 1961.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/3/2009 @ 10:56 am
Oh well that settles it then.
No, the way I think this will be settled by the method I outlined at the beginning of my post in #51. Arguing about circumstantial evidence is useless. Pretty soon you start sounding like Mae Brussell.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/3/2009 @ 11:01 am
There’s nothing wrong with a law saying that candidates for the presidency prove their eligibility; in the same way we rank and file have to prove our eligibility for many things in this life.
Ms. Jackson-Lee’s comments feed into the whole realuctance of the left to admit that there is something very creepy about Obama’s secrecy when it comes to any elements of his history prior to becoming Illinois’ US Senator.
I’m no birther, but tend to agree with Gazzer at #20:
“And I still think this a massive distraction designed to give cover for not releasing his college transcripts, nor the method in which he gained entry to those places of higher learning, nor the grades he received, nor the subjects he took. By placing arguably the least important paperwork in the vanguard, he can then issue a blanket refusal to release anything under cover of the citizenship issue. Or not…“
Comment by The Oracle not at Delphi — 8/3/2009 @ 12:15 pm
I so hope the Dems keep pissing off the CIA. Hawaii cannot be all that secure after Jack Lord was cancelled. Seal it, Dano. Of course, one needs only recall the hysteria over Geraldo’s breathlessly opened vault, and the resultant nationwide deflating whoosh sound, to regain a modicum of sensibility here.
But still, there seems to be a prevailing mood detected among the commentariat that the overriding principle here is that it isn’t so much the crime of simple birth certificate fraud as it is the corruption inherent in the coverup added to the subsequent and vast socialistic overhauls that beg the nation’s wrath. Which stance is rather and particularly objectionable to my mind since no fraud should be discounted despite the level of the frauder elect. In any circumstance, I shall remain waiting breath bated should the vault eventually be flung wide regardless the source of the order of unsealing. Fling it, Dano.
Comment by political agnostic — 8/3/2009 @ 12:19 pm
political agnostic, could you rewrite that in english?
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 12:20 pm
Half black, Sheila. His mother was white.
Unless you subscribe to the old “one drop” theory – possible, I suppose, for someone whose last name is a combination of two of the Confederacy’s biggest players…
/snark
Comment by mojo — 8/3/2009 @ 12:23 pm
Congradulations, papertiger and Ag8o, you get an A in law. Sorry, Zelsdorf, you must re-take the course. You got both facts (Obama’s mother’s age) and law (a seventeen year old mother can confer citizenship) wrong.
Gazzer, you barely passed because of your comment that this issue was a red herring. However, summer school is indicated. Study the Rule against Impossibility. It is an old common law rule but still valid today. If an act is impossible of complete performance, complete performance will not be required. Since it would be physically imposible for Obama’s mother to live five years between the age of fourteen and Obama’s birth, the Rule against Impossibility would accept that she had lived as long as was possible and confer citizenship on Obama.
I sincerely doubt that any of the sitting Supreme Court Justices would disagree.
Comment by Longwalker — 8/3/2009 @ 12:46 pm
If an act is impossible of complete performance, complete performance will not be required.
Does that also mean that if you were already born in a foreign country, you will no longer be required to be born in the United States?
As Dennis Miller used to say, “Go on, get out of here!”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/3/2009 @ 12:54 pm
There are numerous questions that have not been resaolved.
Not only the location of his birth, someone born to US parents but overseas is not eligible to be president contrary to some of the comments seen here.
One of the biggest distortions I’ve seen is it matters little if he was born overseas. If Obama had Indonesian citizenship as a minor he is required by 18 to declare which nation he was citizen of.
To my knowledge no such declaration was ever made.
Finally, I believe no one spends as much money to hide the data in a fashion that Obama and his allies have without reason.
The most ridiculous argumemts against people who demand proof of Obama’s birth reminds me of the woprst attacks conducted against the Swiftboat veterans.
And we all got to see Kerry’s honorable discharge didn’t we.
We ought to amendment our Constuitution to require future presidents to demonstrate not only birth in the US but birth of both of his parents in the US.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/3/2009 @ 1:30 pm
Thomas Jackson, you are making stuff up again. Born to US parent overseas does not make a President ineligible.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 1:38 pm
The legislation clearly just fans the flames. It does nothing to actually answer the question of what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” although I guess it could/would eventually lead to it through court challenges (i.e. “with other documentation as necessary to prove eligibility.”) Is that the intention?
Obama has produced a valid, authenticated birth certificate which would fulfill the facial requirements of this legislation. Except without a definition of “natural born citizen” it just throws open the door to “other documentation as necessary to prove eligibility,” whatever that constitutes. That seems to coincide (too) tidely with the Birthers desire to get their hands on the “long form,” or more importantly to simply invalidate his candidacy because his dad was a dirty Brit (along with other undesirable traits?)
Whether that is the intention or not, it comes across as trying to set a new standard designed for THIS particular candidate in 2012 – they could have set the incept date as 2016 for instance. Because of the potential foreign father threat to Obama’s candidacy (impeach Chester Arthur!), this legislation is likely to die, which makes its introduction appear to be designed to do nothing but bolster the birther conspiracy. Were it to pass, it does nothing “[t]o ensure that we eliminate future debates;” it just gets the ball rolling.
If they actually wanted to put the conspiracy(s) – and indeed the issue – to rest, they could design a bill that affirmatively answers the “natural born citizen” question once and for all going forward – without threatening Obama’s eligibility (either through design or implementation). Wouldn’t that be a more productive use of their time in this area? [For the Constitutional/SC scholars: How much weight does congressianal direction give the SC in Constitutional questions like this?] I guess there is the possibility that the Rs & the Ds might be so divided on what should constitute a “natural born citizen,” that they’d be fanning the same flame we have now; but at least there would be a potential upside!
Personally I would suggest that anyone who has US citizenship at birth, wherever they may have been born in the world, with at least one parent who is a US citizen at the time (born or naturalized) should be considered a “natural born citizen.” (Go Chester Arthur!) It only seems to affect the question of eligibility to become President or Vice Pres. The wiki page provides some nice background on the issue.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 2:13 pm
Oh, and I also agree with Gazzer @ #20, but I’m ok with that
Impeach Chester Arthur!
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 2:17 pm
Where did he produce a valid certified birth certificate, Bob? Or are you conflating the COLB and an actual Birth Certificate?
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 2:24 pm
JD,
Yes, as it is “prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”.
Does the legislation under discussion require anything different?
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 2:38 pm
I agree with spart that our libertarian friends have got to have an incredibly awesome angle on this. Just last night TAO dropped the bombshell on us the the AUMF’s in Iraq and Afghanistan were unconstitutional. Obviously with creative thinking like that the politicized Bush Justice Department and boot licking authoritarians everywhere had to actively suppress legal efforts using that theory to end our involvement in those areas. Oh, the oppression, which is I’m sure why people like TAO only feel comfortable airing the theories in public now lest the black helicopters come take them away. It’s so simple it just has to be true!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/3/2009 @ 2:46 pm
The point Bob is that you are using the two terms interchangeably and that is an error. It is the kind of error that the conspiracy nuts focus on despite the fact that it ends up in the same place.
daleyrocks, TAO is a blithering idiot.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 2:49 pm
Bob – You answered a question I did not ask. I do not dispute that the COLB says that. However, you stated that he has produced a valid certified birth certificate. He has not, he produced a copy of the COLB.
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 2:51 pm
SPQR – I did not know that. Thanks.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/3/2009 @ 2:52 pm
SPQR – I am no birther. It just pisses me off when people intentionally conflate the 2, when they are not the same.
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 2:54 pm
daleyrocks, ROFL.
JD, sometimes its laziness and sometimes it is just ignorance of the arguments they claim to be refuting.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 3:11 pm
SPQR – This one expressed the knowledge that it knew the difference, and stiil conflated them.
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 3:17 pm
Oh, sorry. No, I understand there are two different forms (certificates & certifications), but it is also my understanding that both forms are considered valid, authenticated birth certificates. And as I previously asked: is that distinction even relevant under this legislation? Does anyone deny that a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth would satisfy the requirement for “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate”?
And for those that would require nothing short of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, I guess the question is: Under what standard or law? and Would it bother you if you were holding the candidate to an impossible standard?:
from http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 3:56 pm
The Government and several state parties have required Birth Certificates for years for most if not all statewide and national candidates.
All Federal Positions require a birth certificate and most I-9 forms require a birth certificate or an ID that was created from the examination of a CERTIFIED COPY of an Original Birth Certificate
Oh Well, cant Obama just do it?
Come on what was the saying – YES WE CAN?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/3/2009 @ 3:57 pm
SPQR – That is the kind of hooha I was talking about
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 3:59 pm
“Would it bother you if you were holding the candidate to an impossible standard?”
Bob – What is impossible about it?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/3/2009 @ 4:03 pm
WHERE’S SARAH PALIN’S MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE????!!!
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 8/3/2009 @ 4:08 pm
daleyrock, from above: “the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
EricPWJohnson, Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is certified (bearing the seal of the state and signed by the registrar): http://www.factcheck.org
(P.S. please join me in my Impeach Chester Arthur! campaign!)
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 4:35 pm
“All Federal Positions require a birth certificate and most I-9 forms require a birth certificate or an ID that was created from the examination of a CERTIFIED COPY of an Original Birth Certificate
Oh Well, cant Obama just do it?”
It’s almost as if some things just never happened. and yet the black guy is still president.
Comment by imdw — 8/3/2009 @ 4:38 pm
So, EricPWJohnson, you’ve given up defending your previous misstatements and now double up with some new ones?
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 4:45 pm
SPQR
I dont argue with morons
Look up any state political party applications, residency, citizenship are all standard questions.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/3/2009 @ 5:00 pm
EricPWJohnson, that’s another of your statements contradicted by the record.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 5:02 pm
Could you girls make nice?
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/3/2009 @ 5:04 pm
SPQR
Last year I was in Qatar on the phone with the Us State Department, The defense Department and the Sec of State of Lousiana to expedite a CERTIFIED COPY of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE – apparently my uncertified but original print out given to me FROM THE HOSPITAL when my duaghter was birn wasn’t good enough.
If little league players have to provide one
Your argument is that gee the constitution inst in detail or an instruction book is both moronic and mute
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/3/2009 @ 5:04 pm
The Very Last Word on the subject.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 8/3/2009 @ 5:06 pm
SPQR
Like I said all he needs to do is prove he is native born the question stands and now there is a lawsuit questioning it.
Its up to the courts to decide
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/3/2009 @ 5:07 pm
“daleyrock, from above: “the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.””
Bob – Has he said he doesn’t have an old one? He traveled to Indonesia when he younger and needed a passport for that. Did he use a U.S. passport or an Indonesian passport? If it was a U.S. passport, he had to present a birth certificate. You seem to have all the answers, Bob. These are not tough questions. I still have my certified B.C. from my first passport.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/3/2009 @ 5:15 pm
EricPWJohnson, legislation can’t create new requirements for office beyond what is in the Constitution. So there is no legal requirement that Obama produce a birth certificate. If someone properly got a case in front of a court, which is highly unlikely, Obama can prove his status anyway he wishes. He could produce a certified copy of a state vital statistics record – and he does not have to produce the exact document you want – or he could just produce an eyewitness who spanked his freshly-birthed backside in a hospital in Hawaii.
Or anywhere else, so long as they saw him depart a US citizen’s womb.
Clearly we know who the moron is here.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 5:19 pm
daleyrocks,
While those are some mighty pointless questions, good luck! You have my enthusiastic backing to pursue them to the ends of the earth. Will you be pursuing a lawsuit in the near future?
Impeach Chester Arthur!
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 5:51 pm
SPQR
The constitution doesnt mention passports, the constitution didnt create political parties, the constitution didnt create the senate rules ad naseum
To get on an election ballot Your party has to file with the 50 states, applications for enjoinment of office or whatever each one calls it
Texas and most of them REQUIRE *NOTE* REQUIRE certain statements of fact including citizenship tests and residency requirements where applicable.
This includes birth certificates
I agree with everyone that this birther thingy is probably pointless, meaningless, but if my daughter and I have to do it to serve our country or in my place to even work to pay taxes
then Obama can step up and do what he should have done in the first place afterall Congress makes the rules for Federal employment requiring certified copies of original birth certificates….
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/3/2009 @ 7:10 pm
I’m no birther, but this legislation makes sense.
That documentation is a little more important than all the other stuff they have to submit.
Comment by Amphipolis — 8/3/2009 @ 7:19 pm
EricPWJohnson, you do not understand the law. It is well established that the states cannot create new requirements for federal office. This is why state level attempts to create term limits for Congressional districts failed.
Passports, political parties etc., are all meaningless digressions.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 7:23 pm
Bob – And you wonder why people question whether or not you discuss issues in good-faith ?!
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 7:25 pm
“Its up to the courts to decide”
It may not be. This may not be justiciable.
Comment by imdw — 8/3/2009 @ 7:27 pm
Ees beeg trouble for mooslim squirrel
<a href="” target=>
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 7:40 pm
Bugger me no linkee?
Ees beeg trouble for mooslim squirrel
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 7:42 pm
spart, give it up.
Comment by SPQR — 8/3/2009 @ 7:42 pm
These trolls have proven JD’s 1st Rule of Trolls beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 7:46 pm
Just trying to liven the place up.
This Radley Balko all the time thing is kinda tedious don’t you think?
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 8:12 pm
Nothing livens a place up like some dishonest trollish douchebaggery.
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 8:19 pm
Comment by JD — 8/3/2009 @ 8:19 pm
Our resident expert on douchebaggery has spoken!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/3/2009 @ 8:29 pm
Could this be the source of the Kenya forgery?
Bomford, Australia form
Check out the Registrar’s name: E.F. Lavender on the Obama cert., G.F. Lavender on this one.
Similarly the District Registrar is an M.H. Miller on the Obama cert. and on this one its J.H. Miller.
Earth Friendly Lavender (E.F. Lavender) as has been pointed out elsewhere, is a brand of soap used in East Africa.
Comment by spart — 8/3/2009 @ 9:17 pm
And that ^ is good faith in your opinion? Silly questions get silly answers.
Why don’t you go denounce yourself, THAT never gets old.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/3/2009 @ 11:03 pm
“And that ^ is good faith in your opinion?”
Bob – It’s a lot better faith than the hash you were trying to sling in avoiding the question. Heh.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/3/2009 @ 11:12 pm
It’s funny how so many Republican politicians and so-called conservative media types have been so thoroughly beaten into submission by the Democrats and the msm that they are actually terrified to back something as basic and essential as proving Constitutional eligibility for the President of the United States.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/4/2009 @ 2:51 am
“It’s funny how so many Republican politicians and so-called conservative media types have been so thoroughly beaten into submission by the Democrats and the msm that they are actually terrified to back something as basic and essential as proving Constitutional eligibility for the President of the United States.”
Sad you can’t see they just know he’s eligible.
Comment by imdw — 8/4/2009 @ 5:02 am
Sad you can’t see they just know he’s eligible.
Comment by imdw — 8/4/2009 @ 5:02 am
I was referring to the legislation. But, I’m not convinced he’s eligible even if his current nativity story is the truth. I know everyone thinks they are an expert on the meaning of “natural born” these days, though.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/4/2009 @ 5:55 am
S
SPQR
Again nothing there again – not surprized
This was the key legal argument the Democrats tried to remove McCain and many years earlier Mitt Rommney’s father from the race
This is also widely considered the founders intent as well.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:45 am
SPQR
You keep ignoring the argument by changing the definition
Everyone, repeatr Everyone has to submit evidence of Citizenship – now at a more increasing rate than ever before
Except the Leader of the same free country that has this standard
All your picking at me, twisting and making up arguments that havent been made does not remove the fact that
OBAMA HAS NOT RELEASED HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:47 am
All your upper-case letters don’t change these simple facts:
(a) A birth certificate is not the only way to prove citizenship
(b) The Certification of Live Birth and the Certificate of Live Birth both have the same legal weight.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 8:52 am
EricPWJohnson, claiming that points that go over your head are “nothing” is getting old. Your comments continue to wander around like a drunken sailor without any substance.
As I mentioned before and you’ve ignored, it is settled constitutional law that states can’t add new requirements to federal office qualifications. So states can’t exclude someone based on the form of certification of birth supplied. Your quote on natural born citizen does not advance your argument and your link’s scholarship is laughable, not least by differentiating between fathers and mothers ability to confer citizenship.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 8:53 am
EricPWJohnson, your comments are getting more incoherent. Evidently you are unable to read simple declarative english sentences.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 8:54 am
Specifically, EricPWJohnson, reread my #92.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 8:55 am
Eric, President Obama refuses to release his birth certificate because it contains information which contridicts the fictional life he’s created for himself. The man is a fraud and he’s determined to keep the truth of his life and activities from public view.
Comment by Ropelight — 8/4/2009 @ 10:40 am
I regard birther conspiracies the same way I regard 9/11 truther conspiracies.
Why (let alone how) would an eighteen-year-old woman, with little money and pregnant to boot, travel all the way to Africa? Traveling to Africa was even more difficult in the early ’60’s than it is today, especially if departing from Hawaii.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/4/2009 @ 10:56 am
Ropelight, you have no basis for that statement. It’s pure conjecture.
It’s like saying, “I haven’t seen the far side of the moon, but I know there is a Nike factory there, exploiting native moon children for slave wages.”
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 11:02 am
I think it would be fun if like Topps made pezzydential birth certificate trading cards and that way we could all get to see all the birth certificates. It would be fun. Except there probably wouldn’t be a card for Barack Obama cause of he refuses to release his but if he did I bet it would become a really valuable card like you would have to trade three Ropnald Reagans for it or something.
That’s probably been the plan all along.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/4/2009 @ 11:02 am
Why is this not considered a scandal?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/4/2009 @ 11:03 am
oh. *Ronald* I mean.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/4/2009 @ 11:03 am
(a) A birth certificate is not the only way to prove citizenship
What are the other ways? Maybe Daily Kos’ vouching for it? Maybe Steverino’s word for it?
Or maybe the director of the Hawaiian health department saying that a birth certificate exists, but we can’t tell you what’s on it?
[Steverino, let me ask you this: who's putting you up to this? I can't recall you commenting on anything else on this site, and certainly not as obsessively, except on this topic.]
(b) The Certification of Live Birth and the Certificate of Live Birth both have the same legal weight.
In mathematics, zero equals zero.
Why . . . would an eighteen-year-old woman, with little money and pregnant to boot, travel all the way to Africa?
Because she didn’t. My personal belief is that she had the baby in Vancouver, BC, Canada, while at the University of Washington. Of course, Canada is not the US, but it’s close enough for government work. And let’s not forget all the Canadians who have won a special place in the hearts of Americans–like Lorne Greene, William Shatner,
David Frum,David Brooks, Bobby Orr, Morley Safer, John Kenneth Galbraith, Marshall McLuhan. . .Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 11:19 am
OIDO, your question (a) has already been addressed above. Your comment (b) is just more false statements on your part. Repetition does not improve your false statements about the law.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 11:21 am
No, really, SPQR–what are the other ways?
And, SPQR, the presidential election is legally a Federal matter. You already know that from Bush v. Gore [2000].
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 11:30 am
daleyrocks,
But you still haven’t answered the very fundamental question I asked:
Does a valid, duly certified, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (the only form currently available from Hawaii) fulfill the requirement for “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” in the legislation under discussion?
If your answer is yes, your questions are irrelevant and needlessly pedantic.
If your answer is no, your questions are still irrelevant, but I’ll be happy to answer them. At least I’ll know if I’m actually dealing with a birther or just a pedant.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/4/2009 @ 11:40 am
So, no matter what the answer, you are dismissing it out of hand before it is ever given. The epitome of good faith there, I tell you.
What fluffy said
Comment by JD — 8/4/2009 @ 11:48 am
Ooops!
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 12:07 pm
Clearly, the digital image of the purported Kenyan document was photoshopped using the Australian document as a template, and so the Kenyan thing is a complete fake.
But, by whom? And why was it done?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 12:12 pm
Oily Titz? because that’s why
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 12:21 pm
Nobody’s putting me up to this. You don’t recall me commenting on anything because you are an idiot. I’ve made plenty of comments about other topics.
On this particular topic, I know my facts thoroughly and the opposition either (a) makes shit up or (b) ignores the facts. So, yes, it might seem I’m a bit more vociferous here than other threads.
Your implication that someone is putting me up to commenting here or paying me or in some way rewarding me is not only dead wrong, it’s grossly unfair.
Tell you what: let’s have Patterico or DRJ judge our bona fides. If I’m completely on the level, you shut the fuck up about the birth certificate. If I’m not on the level, I’ll take a permanent ban.
Time to put up or shut up, big mouth.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 12:43 pm
Thank you for confirming what I already believed to be true: that even if you had the original birth certificate, signed by a doctor, showing Obama was born in Honolulu, you would not take that as proof.
Your bad faith in this argument has been completely uncovered now.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 12:45 pm
SPQR:
Don’t demonstrate your ignorance so casually. Why not go full tinfoil hat as you have done here repeatedly.
So someone born of Anmerican parents in Iceland is eligle to be the president? Really. Uness that person was one of a very limited number of categories this is the kind of nonsense that one has come to expect of you.
So you define Iceland as part of the US how quaint. So stop with the drive by stupidity and making assertions that would make a drunken sailor blush.
Lets see you prove your ignorance.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 12:47 pm
Don’t accuse others of ignorance when you don’t know your facts. Someone born in Iceland whose parents are American citizen is in fact a natural-born citizen, and would be eligible to become President (provided s/he was at least 35 and spent the 17 years leading up to his term in the US).
Please go read 8 USC Section 1401.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 12:55 pm
Then there must be some hospital record up in Vancouver to support your theory, right? Why don’t you go do some digging and come up with a real scoop?
Until you offer one shred of evidence supporting this allegation of yours, you are talking out of your ass.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 12:58 pm
Jackson, you don’t find it amusing that EricPWJohnson’s silly link contradicts you? You Birthers can’t even get a coherent story line, nor a coherent explanation of the applicable law, but you accuse me of having a tinfoil hat?
Don’t try to play with adults, you are out of your league.
By the way, aluminum foil works better – the tinfoil stuff is a myth.
OIDO, your comments are making less and less sense. No one can figure out what you are refering to in #126.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 1:06 pm
My personal belief is that she had the baby in Vancouver, BC, Canada, while at the University of Washington
Your personal belief and 50c will buy you a cup of coffee. Bzzzzzzzzzzz Thanks for playing
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 1:06 pm
spart’s been buying too much of Obama’s taxpayer bailed-out subsidized coffee if he’s getting it for 50 cents.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 1:09 pm
SPQR, it’s not just about eligibility for office, though the law simply isn’t settled on what ‘natural born citizen’ means.
I think it’s ridiculous to think Obama isn’t eligible… they aren’t that daring. But it’s really not been established that he is… they released a computer generated document to KOS and then did it again to some news agency. Big deal. These guys are crooks and there probably will never be any real proof (something as old as Obama, for example).
I don’t know if the COLB is available to people born outside the USA. Maybe it isn’t. I don’t really care that Natural Born Citizen has been redefined from what everyone thought it meant (even Seinfield had jokes about it meaning born int he USA… thousands of articles and textbooks made such a claim before Obama was ever known of).
The issue here is that Obama should release as much info about himself as the people want, because we know so little about him and much of what we know is disturbing. His religion in Wright’s ideology is disturbing, his friendship with black panthers at Columbia, or Bill Ayers, his home from Rezko, his wife’s crooked dealings with a hospital… what little we know is just bad. We need to know more. We need to know what Obama is hiding on his birth certificate.
A lot of idiots claim there’s something wrong with saying the people have a right to know. They are hostile and aggressive about this issue for no clear reason. After all, Obama’s grandma did claim he was born in Kenya. We don’t know why she made that up, but it’s disturbing.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:13 pm
Juan, I’ve never said that people did not have a right to know. And I despise Obama for his hypocrisy and dishonesty as much as anyone here.
But that does not mean that I’ll stand silent as people make up nonexistant law and trade in invented facts – all the while calling serious people “morons” because they won’t share the fantasy.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 1:17 pm
spqr, it wasn’t really you I was criticizing. I agree with you on this basically.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:20 pm
I also note that a lot of people take the line that Obama has a right to keep this information private. This is the same Obama who leaked sealed divorce papers of his opponent in an election (with no legal right to do so).
We need to see any and every document, especially this one. If Barack Obama had a different name on it, there’s a real possibility he lied to the Illinois Bar Association. There are a hundred other potential reasons he’s hiding this paper (which he notes in his memoirs that he possesses).
Until we see it, it’s pretty great that people are assuming that Obama isn’t eligible. I don’t buy that, but it’s completely fair.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:35 pm
SPQR, I sympathize.
The worst part for me is having to defend a President I despise on this issue, just because the other side is wrong. And for my troubles, I’ve been accused of carrying water for Obama…or, as OIDO implied, being put up by some other entity to post here.
I’m sure you feel just as ambivalent.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 1:36 pm
Steverino, but you don’t know the other side is wrong. We don’t really know anything at all about this. we know that, no matter where or how Obama was born, it’s very unlikely that he’s going to be declared ineligible, and we know that his own party wouldn’t have let him run if he weren’t legit…
But we don’t know what he’s hiding and we don’t know why. We do know that every document he’s shown could have easily been faked by corrupt bureaucrats. Obama aligned bureaucrats commit crimes for him… this we do know.
There’s nothing embarrassing about the birth certificate demanders. They are just asking for information and noting that Obama is a liar.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:41 pm
SPQR
That Silly link was from one of the founding fathers who wrote article II
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 1:44 pm
Juan, my position this has been that Obama has proved that he met the qualifications for office. The bulk of the opposition on this has been that Obama isn’t qualified based on his place of birth. Based on that argument, Obama really doesn’t have to release anything more.
Arguing that Obama should release his documents just for the sake of releasing them is a different matter.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 1:45 pm
So we all make things up, are crazy out of control nut cases, ruining the country
But again, WHERE IS THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 1:47 pm
Juan: yes, I do. I know the Hawaii laws governing its birth records. I know the COLB Obama produced contained all the information needed to prove his eligibility. I know the document itself has yet to be rebutted.
And even if I’m dead wrong about the document, I know based on US law that no matter where Obama was born, he was born of a US citizen, and that alone makes him a natural-born citizen.
So, I don’t know how you can claim we don’t know anything at all about this.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 1:51 pm
Steverino, but what is he hiding, even if he is eligible.
He OWES the people ALL the information they want. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the eligibility.
He’s certainly nor proven anything. That’s absurd. He’s shown a document that is just too easy to forge, and his people simply break too many laws and lie way too much. While I seriously would be shocked if he was ineligible, he hasn’t proven anything.
And won’t. I am most people discussing this are not asking for proof and know we can’t get any. We just want to know what he’s hiding, and to point out, forever, that he hides everything he can about himself because he’s a slimeball criminal.
It’s not going to end at any point and isn’t meant to. They could just produce a better fake, a fake that appears to be older, witnesses, etc. They are still liars and hiding things, and we’ll still use this great issue to point out just how often they do it.
I don’t need people to swear they’ve proven he’s born in Kenya. That’s silly.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:55 pm
EricPWJohnson, prove that it is required by law. You’ve been challenged on this repeatedly and your response has been utter silence.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 1:56 pm
When will you get it through your cement skull that the COLB Obama produced is the legal equivalent of what you’re demanding?
Answer these questions:
1. Is the COLB certified by the State of Hawaii?
2. Does the COLB show the date and place of birth of Obama?
3. What more does Obama have to prove beyond his date and place of birth?
Juan: we really don’t know that Obama is hiding anything. He might be, he might not. Anything said about it is pure speculation, and should be recognized as such.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 1:58 pm
sorry about all the typos. Good Grief.
Regardless… my basic point is that his ‘proof’ is just too easy to fake, and that these people have shown way too much willingness to fake this kind of thing. they lie all the time, and wouldn’t mind faking a little document.
They aren’t crazy enough to run someone who isn’t eligible, but their proof is bullshit. They are probably hiding something, and I want to keep pointing out that they are hiding something. My argument is real simple: ‘Obama is hiding a lot of information about himself’.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 1:59 pm
Juan
The certificate of live birth issued by the state of HI meets the requirement to establish Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen to hold the office of President. End of story.
Obama’s political enemies are entitled to demand something more and Obama in turn is entitled to use the opportunity to feed them as much rope as it may take.
Good luck.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 2:00 pm
Steve
It isnt, never was, never is going to be.
WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 2:00 pm
The problem with this line of reasoning is that if you argue the COLB, which bears the seal of the state of Hawaii, has been forged, then you have to accept thatany document bearing a state seal can be forged.
By claiming the original is valid but the COLB is not, you are in the position of believing one state-issued document over another, but without a rational reason for doing so.
Do you understand what I mean here?
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 2:01 pm
“we really don’t know that Obama is hiding anything”
WOW
Do you really believe that? What was his GPA at Columbia? What was his relationship with Bill Ayers, Rezko, etc. What did he hear Wright say before continuing to bring his kids to that church?
What was Obama’s childhood like? Who was his father? When did he convert from Islam to Christianity? How many nations has he been a citizen of?
has he ever represented himself by a name other than Barack Obama (Bar question)?
We know, without any doubt whatsoever, that he’s hiding all kinds of things.
We know, without any doubt whatsoever, that Obama claims to have this document in his book. And that he won’t show it to us. That’s hiding.
There is no doubt that Obama is hiding a great deal of information about who he is. And Obama loves to dig up secret documents about his opponents and share them with the press… that is, if Obama can’t get them thrown off the ballot on a technicality.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 2:07 pm
EricPWJohnson
WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Stamping your feet and shaking your fists may be cathartic, but it does nothing to advance your ridiculous claims which are starting to stink up the place like a dead fish.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 2:07 pm
EricPWJohnson, you’ve been challenged to prove this “requirement” in the law but have repeatedly failed to do so.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 2:14 pm
“then you have to accept thatany document bearing a state seal can be forged.”
Well, of course. And we’ve seen that Obama and his bureaucrats will hide anything (cash for clunkers results, legislation, etc), and lie about it with other official government documents.
Anyone taking any government document at face value is a ridiculous person. Particularly if that document is on KOS first!
but regardless, you say that it’s pure speculation to claim that Obama is hiding something. And that’s wrong. Either Obama is giving us the document he claimed to have, or he is hiding it. There’s nothing more to it than that. Also, he’s hiding almost everything out there about himself.
And if it’s pure speculation, which is obviously isn’t, so what? These are questions that add up into a great argument against this guy… his actions don’t line up with his promises because he lied to us about what he stands for! That’s the central aspect of this presidency.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 2:14 pm
Still no support from EricPWJohnson on his claim of a legal requirement to produce the original certificate.
** crickets **
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 3:02 pm
I disagree. An authentic government document is legal proof to my eyes.
Your statement about the document appearing KOS first is what’s known as the Genetic Fallacy. Something is true or false in its own right, regardless of who reports it first.
By your logic, therefore, there is no document that Obama could possibly produce which you will believe. If that’s the case, I don’t blame him one bit for not producing anything. If my political opponents were to take such a stance, I’d choke on my own tongue before I produced the smallest scrap of a document.
SPQR, he’ll come back without a cite. But he will restate his demaned with even more upper-case letters, just to show he’s really serious.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 3:10 pm
Steverino, regarding your post #132, you should learn to control your temper. You’re pretty much gone Godwin here. And no, I will not STFU. You should be ashamed of yourself. You didn’t even use the acronym.
I didn’t say you were being paid. Nor did anyone else, as far as I know. So why are you so sensitive to an allegation I didn’t make?
However, I did imply that your failure to use Occam’s Razor in the beginning and pound on the “prima facie” disclaimer on the green computer-generated Hawaiian Certification image, indicates that you’re not to be taken too seriously. If that makes the case airtight, then you should have said so from the beginning. But we are dealing with a matter which pertains to a Federal election. Surely, Florida’s top court (not a lowly department of health) thought it was okay bend the Florida rules a in a few counties after election day, but since it pertained to a Federal election, the Supreme Court of the United States pretty much said to heck with state law.
I have painstakingly showed you loopholes in the issuance of a Hawaiian birth certificate (until 1972), and the possibility of the introduction of error. You ignored it. I showed you Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate. You ignored it.
You also said,
“. . .even if you had the original birth certificate, signed by a doctor, showing Obama was born in Honolulu, you would not take that as proof”
And, of course, you already know that this allegation is baloney. Of course I would accept that as proof. That’s why we say, “Where’s the birth certificate?” That’s proof. Until then–not proven!
However, you apparently can’t think deeply enough to realize that loopholes in the issuance of a Hawaiian birth certificate may mean that there is a chance he was not really born there, and so Hawaii can swear up and down they have a birth certificate–and I’m sure they do have something–but it proves nothing until someone in authority (like, for example, the Chief Justice of the United States) looks it over. Sun Yat-sen was born in China, not Hawaii. Or maybe Obama was born in Hawaii, and he genuinely deserved his Hawaiian birth certificate. I’ve also said that, too! But, to me, it’s not proven yet!
You also said,
“Tell you what: let’s have Patterico or DRJ judge our bona fides.”
No, I’ll tell you what–let’s have Roberts judge Obama’s bona fides by examining the original paper birth certificate. Let’s have everyone interested in the topic examine the arguments based on the arguments, not on who’s offering them. And, by the way, what are these bona fides you have? Tell us, please. I hope it doesn’t involve your birth certificate, though.
Finally, you said:
“Time to put up or shut up, big mouth.”
Once again, Steverino, you’re not improving your public image by blustering like this. I’d expect to see this kind of behavior in a bar, or back in the eighth grade, but not here at Patterico’s place!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 3:16 pm
OIDO, and yet you’ve shown no evidence of any error in Obama’s certificate(s). Zipola.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 3:20 pm
No, you asked who was putting me up to this. The clear implication was that I was not acting on my own, and someone else was directing me, either through payment or some other system of reward.
It’s a grossly unfair allegation of you to make, and you have no right to claim the moral high ground in this matter. Don’t lecture me on my anger: you are the one who made an outrageous claim against my personal integrity. If you don’t like getting harsh words in return for that, tough.
Patterico or DRJ: I appeal to either of you to look at the original question OIDO posed, and clarify for us both whether I was unreasonable in reacting the way I did.
You have not showed that any of this happened with Obama. That’s why I ignored it. It’s like arguing “My brother’s Audi was painted red, therefore your Audi must be painted red.” Your “proof” does not jibe with Hawaii Revised Statutes, by the way.
No, I don’t know the allegation was baloney. In fact, when I said that the COLB had the same legal standing as the birth certificate you said:
The clear implication of this is that you regard both documents to have no value. If that is not correct, then why did you say zero?
The fact is, under Hawaii law, the COLB has the full weight of the law behind it. You keep trying to talk around this, but you haven’t presented any evidence to refute the facts it contains.
I really don’t care what a bunch of people who have never met me in person think of me. What I care about is the truth. I have argued in good faith here, and my motives have been questioned constantly. You are long on talk, but when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, you are a coward.
Again, to Patterico or DRJ: Go take a look at OIDO’s comment in #124. Tell me whether I overreacted by thinking OIDO was trying to imply that I was being paid. Tell us both your opinion; if you don’t think I was justified in reacting the way I did, I will accept a permanent ban.
[Steverino: I just saw this -- it's a long thread and I didn't read these comments earlier. What I noticed about OIDO's comment was the suggestion that you don't comment often so he questioned why you are so interested in this topic. I don't read every comment posted here but I read a lot, and I think you comment on a regular basis on a range of topics. -- DRJ 8/6/2009]
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 3:32 pm
How can we show any evidence of error without the document? However, by examining the methods of obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate in 1961 (which I linked to on the previous birther thread) we can see certain loopholes that may or may not have been used. What I’m saying is that it’s not airtight. It’s not proven. Obama’s failure to release the paper document from Hawaii indicates that he has something to hide, which is exactly what he’s doing, in my humble opinion.
As for a Canadian birth, that’s some speculation I’ve heard, and that’s what I believe for now, instead of a birth certificate that’s being wilfully and deliberately hidden.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 3:39 pm
Obama’s failure to release the paper document from Hawaii indicates that he has something to hide, which is exactly what he’s doing, in my humble opinion.
Obama’s ‘failure’ to release the paper document from Hawaii indicates that he knows the legal requirements involved in verifying his status as a natural born citizen. And you don’t.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 3:44 pm
Sigh. Astroturfing continues apace. Surely “spart” is a concerned Christian former Republican….
The interesting part, as with another of the Balkons, is why they spend so much time trying to stir the pot?
Oh, yeah. Pot. That explains it.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/4/2009 @ 3:46 pm
SPQR
Still waiting for you to prove = and more importantly – that its not required
Balls in your court
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/4/2009 @ 3:49 pm
Just take the comment at face value Eric. No need to analyze my nefarious motives for expressing an opinion on a public forum, not unless you are the paranoid type.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 3:51 pm
Steverino, once again, settle down. I gave you links–you ignored them.
I quipped “Zero equals zero” because the latter computer-generated birth Certification (as most call it) is based on the former paper Certificate (as most call it) and the latter could be reproducing incorrect information, or omitting significant information. If so, they’re both worthless. If not, he’s eligible after all.
Like lawyers say, when the law is with you, pound the law, and when the facts are with you, pound the facts, but when you have nothing, pound the table. And I believe your present tone, and your profanities, and your insults, and your belligerent attitude all indicate that you’re pounding the table right now. Why the heck is this topic so important to you? Apparently, you have this unseemly need to have people agree with you, or you get really mad.
I doubt that Obama is eligible, for now. Of course, if he is found to be ineligible, we have four years to prove it. And even then, that may not be a good idea, because that would mean all bills he signed and executive orders he made are void, just as if they never happened. The budgets would be void. Military funding would be void. All heck would break loose. But the Constitution of the United States would remain law.
Where’s the birth certificate?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 3:52 pm
This is complete bad faith. You claim that they both could be reproducing incorrect information, but you also claim that you would accept an original birth certificate.
If they both say the same thing, you will say, “See? The original is wrong.”
Therefore, I was completely justified in claiming that you wouldn’t accept the original birth certificate were it to be produced to you.
As for the claim of the Vancouver birth, you “heard it somewhere”. And, without one shred of evidence, you believe that over a state-certified document. Who’s being unreasonable and illogical?
I will react angrily when my integrity is challenged. If you were any kind of a decent man, you’d apologize for your insinuation. Until you apologize, I will treat you with every ounce of the contempt you deserve.
You made the initial claim, Eric. It’s up to you to provide evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, like OIDO, you’re just talking out of your ass.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 4:00 pm
By your logic, therefore, there is no document that Obama could possibly produce which you will believe. If that’s the case, I don’t blame him one bit for not producing anything. If my political opponents were to take such a stance, I’d choke on my own tongue before I produced the smallest scrap of a document.
SPQR, he’ll come back without a cite. But he will restate his demaned with even more upper-case letters, just to show he’s really serious.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 3:10 pm
Jeez, that’s pretty unnecessary…
I never demanded anything from anyone in this thread, and I didn’t insult either of you two. My position is pretty basic and not at all zany.
I freely admit that if Obama came out with an original certificate, I would look at it very skeptically unless it explained why he was acting so evasive about the document.
it really doesn’t matter how you would act. What matters is that the people have a right to see this document, whether or not they are concerned with eligibility for office. The people have a right to know what’s on this piece of paper… and you claiming you’d act like Obama here isn’t any kind of defense against that.
Obama’s entire life is shrouded in mystery, and this is just one example, one great example, that can be used to point out that Obama is the least transparent president in history.
Obama’s documents aren’t trustworthy because he lies a lot. Your genetic fallacy language is unpersuasive because you are mistaking a great argument for a fallacy. KOS is not a reasonable place to go to establish your eligibility to be president. Noting that you’re suspicious of suspicious behavior is hardly a fallacy.
You can insult me and get angry with me all day… I don’t mind a bit. People are becoming more sophisticated about this issue and you’re helping that process along by making absurd generalizations, that then get discussed to great benefit, about people who note this as an example of Obama hiding facts.
Comment by Juan — 8/4/2009 @ 4:05 pm
Right you are, spart. We are all paranoid, and spend way too much time cruising leftwing websites, bringing up spurious comments, astroturfing nonsense, and picking fights.
You betcha. We are the nutty ones!
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/4/2009 @ 4:07 pm
How about some better reading comprehension, Steverino? I would accept the original paper birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship only if it proved that he was born in Hawaii. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. How can we tell?
Steverino, stop digging. You will recall that in #132, you said
“. . .even if you had the original birth certificate, signed by a doctor, showing Obama was born in Honolulu, you would not take that as proof”
And then, back in #163, I said:
“. . .of course, you already know that this allegation is baloney. Of course I would accept that as proof. That’s why we say, “Where’s the birth certificate?” That’s proof. Until then–not proven!”
And until it’s proven, I am free to speculate about other possibilities. Of course I know that Obama is not legally bound to show his birth certificate, which is why people have taken the issue to court, and why some Congressmen are proposing an eligibility statute in advance of the 2012 election.
But, boy, wouldn’t it be funny if that eligibility law is passed this year or next year, and before re-election rolls around Obama can’t satisfy the requirement–which means he didn’t satisfy the requirement all along! Whoa! No wonder Chris Matthews has a Chrissyfit (TM) when he had Congressman John Campbell, one of the co-sponsors, on his show!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 4:12 pm
Glad I could straighten that out for you Eric, any time.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 4:18 pm
“But you still haven’t answered the very fundamental question I asked:”
Bob, Bob, Bob – Let’s be honest. This is where you have finally chosen to set down your goal posts after furiously moving them up and down the field trying to deny that Obama has been one of the least transparent Presidential candidates ever. To all of a sudden adopt arguments from others on the thread as your own merely shows your deep intellectual dishonesty. That’s par for the course for you, however, Bob. If you tried honestly answering the questions of others with responses of other than more questions you might get some respect here, but I don’t think respect is your goal.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/4/2009 @ 4:29 pm
I’m sorry, Juan, the last part of the comment of mine was about SPQR’s demand from EricPWJohnson, and had nothing to do with you. I don’t think you’re zany.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 4:35 pm
How about some logic, OIDO? First you say that you think the birth certificate has zero value. Then, when I call you on that, you say you’d accept it as proof. Then you say it could have the wrong information on it.
My point is that even if you had the birth certificate in your hands showing that Obama was born in Hawaii, you would claim something might be wrong with it. In other words, it really isn’t proof.
Your own words say that right now, you will not admit it’s absolute proof.
That’s not good faith arguing, dimwit. You’re just cherry-picking whatever facts you want.
Here’s what you said:
Do you deny that you claimed the birth certificate would be worthless? Now you’re saying you’d accept it as proof. Do you get tired talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Still waiting for some evidence of the Vancouver birth you believe in. As usual, you are full of shit.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 4:42 pm
Okay, here’s where your reasonableness goes south. What if Obama’s birth certificate has nothing unusual on it? What if it shows the same things that appeared on the COLB issued by the state of Hawaii? Why would you be skeptical of that? You seem to be saying that the birth certificate is believable only if it contains some horrible thing that Obama was hiding.
As I’ve said before, maybe he’s not hiding anything at all. In that case, you’d look pretty damned silly being skeptical of a birth certificate just because it doesn’t show anything of interest.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 4:45 pm
Steverino, your contention that I am “full of s__t,” is, of course, the last refuge of a blowhard.
I think the problem is that you don’t read carefully enough. For example, I clearly said Canada was my speculation, not established fact. Read carefully, Steverino!
You said:
“First you say that you think the birth certificate has zero value”
No, for the last time–I indicated that the green computer-generated Certification was inconclusive, in that we can’t see the paper form which was purportedly used to assemble the data on that Certification. I’d accept the paper certificate as proof, if it says he was born in Hawaii. That’s at least three times I’ve said that so far. Got that, now? That’s why we say, “Where’s the birth certificate?” Once again, if someone shows Chief Justice Roberts the paper, and he says “cool,” the matter is settled.
When I used the word “zero,” I meant that if the latter image was generated from a faulty paper document, then both things are worth zero in proving Obama’s eligibility, as in the sense of “garbage in, garbage out.”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 5:00 pm
inconclusive?
What does the state of Hawaii say about that?
I’d accept the paper certificate as proof, if it says he was born in Hawaii.
Are you accusing the State of Hawaii of taking part in a conspiracy by issuing a COLB that misrepresents Obama’s place of birth?
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 5:23 pm
Hey, spart, let me quote your spiritual brother to you:
=yawn=
Really, dude. Quit playing Astrotroll.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/4/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Do you have an opinion on the birther conspiracy Eric? If not I’m sure there are other threads more worthy of your talents.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 5:36 pm
Now that is funny, coming from a troll like you!
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/4/2009 @ 5:43 pm
EricPWJohnson, you are living down to my expectations. You’ve made assertions of law that you can’t back up. Repeatedly. And when challenged, your response is to make it someone else’s burden of proof.
You are a clown.
Comment by SPQR — 8/4/2009 @ 5:56 pm
I never claimed you said it was established fact, you blithering idiot. Stop making stuff up. What I did say was that you believed it. And your exact words were:
You also said:
SO, it’s pretty clear that you believe this, right? Please go back and show a quote from me stating this was established fact. You can’t becuase you’re a lying sack of feces.
Now, as to your belief in the Canadian birth: where is the evidence to support this belief? If you have none, then you are full of shit, just as I said.
For the last time, you have been walking both sides of the street on this issue. I said that the COLB and the birth certificate had the same legal standing. You said “In Math, zero equals zero,” which means that you think that the birth certificate and the COLB are both worthless.
You did claim that both documents could be in error. This is undeniable. Once again, your exact words:
To anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty, this means that you think it’s possible that birth certificate could have incorrect information, and that the COLB would be reproducing that incorrect information. Therefore, it’s a reasonable inference that you may not accept the birth certificate as valid: your own words say that you think both the COLB and the birth certificate could be worthless
The latter image was generated from the original, you dimwit. By saying the latter image was generated from a faulty paper document, then you are claiming the birth certificate is faulty.
Stop lying about what you said, it’s all there in plain English.
Comment by Steverino — 8/4/2009 @ 6:04 pm
Just to add one more item to the Australian/Kenyan forgery, Kenya used shillings and cents (100 to the shilling). The fee of 7s6d marks the latest silver bullet as a pure fraud.
I must say, I remain amazed by the willingness of those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome to offer such incoherent arguments. For example, we have one claim that the Democrats wanted to disqualify McCain (born in the Canal Zone) and George Romney (born to Americans in Mexico). This is nonsense, in that no Democrats ever did any such thing, instead agreeing that McCain was eligible. But while Democrats had no quibble about McCain and Romney Sr., Thomas Jackson views it as incredible that a child born to American citizens living in Iceland would be a natural born citizen. In other words, it is conservative crank Thomas Jackson who says that George Romney for sure and McCain perhaps (depending on the status of the CZ) were not eligible to run for president. Jackson also resurrects the hoary and no longer accurate claim that children who are dual citizens are required to choose one. And, not yet satisfied, someone insists that Obama must have had a passport as a child which could be used to prove his ineligibility. First, his American citizenship would not have been alienated by use of a passport as a child (or, under current law, as an adult!), and second, in those days, children could be included on a parental passport.
Let me tell you what Obama his hiding. His birth certificate, as opposed to his certificate of birth (doesn’t this sound like one of those tax protestor arguments where by changing the name of their salary they make it tax-free?), is signed by a surgeon. You see, Obama was delivered by C-section, or in other words, from his mother’s womb untimely ripped. Hence, he is not a natural born person, much less citizen. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent anyone delivered by C-section from becoming president, because the example of Caesar himself showed that such a leader would be fatal to republican government.
I know it seems like a speculative theory, but doesn’t it make more sense that Jackson, Johnson, etc. on the thread?
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/4/2009 @ 6:38 pm
AJL proves himself to be every bit as wacky as those he is claiming are wacky.
Comment by JD — 8/4/2009 @ 6:44 pm
Ah, JD, do you really need the </sarcasm> tag?
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/4/2009 @ 7:12 pm
And before we forget, let’s all wish a Happy Birthday to Barack Hussein Obama II, wherever he was born, and whatever his real name is!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/4/2009 @ 8:24 pm
Steverino:
I suggest your ignorance of US citizenship is fairly complete. If you bother to read the 14th amendment it defines who and what constitutes US citizenship. If you believe your source trumps the Constitution, that is your particular delusion, which you apparently share with our resident drive by snarker.
You may recall that McCains citizenship was called into being because he was born in Panama. Invalid in McCain’s case because the Panama Canal was under us JURISDICTION, BUT TODAY THIS WOULD NOT BE THE CASE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
Now why would this had been an issue if as you contend McCain was eligible according to your unique view of citizenship? Case closed you may proceed to the SPQR section of I got my law degree from the Acme Diploma Mill.
I am sure all those Americans born in Uganda will rejoice at your and SPQR’s legal brillance.
Really you ought to read the Constitution. You might learn something.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:29 pm
AJL:
Wow what a crank. Thanks for putting words in my mouth there troll but unfortunately the dhimmies did question McCains eligibility.
If you had bothered to read the 14th Amendment you might comprehend what a US citizen is and under what circumstances he is considered American born as opposed to a US citizen.
You do grasp the significance of the difference troll?
Your ignorance is beyond description. The US law requires all individuals who may be dual citizens to declare their US citizenship before their 18th bithday, failure to do so can result in the loss of US citizenship. Doubt it, try consulting the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
You are beyond doubt both a liar and a knave. But even a first time reader can recognize that truth isn’t exactly your lingua franca.
So off you go troll. Peddle your fertilizer at the Kos Kiddies where the uneducated will appreciate your braying.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:36 pm
#154:
Spat:
Are you aware that a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth could be obtained based on the sworn statement of two relatives? That such documents were issued to individuals who had not resided in Hawaii?
As a proof of birth its value is at best questionable, at best it resolves nothing.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:42 pm
As a proof of birth its value is at best questionable, at best it resolves nothing.
If it’s good enough for the State of Hawaii it’s good enough for me and it should be good enough for you too. Or are you claiming that the State of Hawaii is involved in a conspiracy to misrepresent the birth registration of one Barack Hussein Obama?
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 8:52 pm
I suggest that the usual suspects review Article II, Section I of the Consttution before demonstrating why we venerate them for their catatonic cud chewing in reference to who is eligible to be a candidate for the President.
aS ONE MIGHT EXPECT THOSE WHO KNOW THE LEAST BRAY THE LOUDEST AND PRESENT THE SMALLEST EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR ASSERTIONS.
But do read their comments for a lesson in impertinent yet mendacious reasoning and knowledge.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 8:55 pm
Nothing in Article II, Section I of the Constitution pertaining to the means of establishing natural born citizenship status. If you want to challenge the COLB provided by the State of Hawaii, I suggest you take it up with them and leave the rest of us out of it.
Comment by spart — 8/4/2009 @ 9:12 pm
Thomas Jackson goes all in on the stupid.
First, far from hinting that McCain was not eligible to be President, Democrat Claire McCaskill authored a resolution making clear that he was eligible. I don’t think you can find a link to Daily Kos questioning McCain’s eligibility, compared to ten GOP Congressmen demanding Obama show a birth certificate.
Second, obviously to be “American born” you have to be born in America. However, the Constitution doesn’t say “American born”, it says “natural born”. On your formulation, George Romney (Mitt’s father), who ran for President in 1968, would not have been eligible to serve because he was born in Mexico. No legal scholar that I know of agrees with your interpretation. Was George Romney eligible to be President, yes or no?
Third, are you aware that in California, if a baby is born at home with neither a physician nor midwife present, either parent may (in fact, must) submit the data for a birth certificate? So, whatever it is you are saying about Hawaii doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is it your belief that if a physician isn’t at the birth, the baby doesn’t exist?
Fourth, persons who are citizens because they were born in the United States of America do not need to make any declaration of citizenship, even if they are potential dual nationals (e.g., because of the citizenship of their parents). Let’s go straight to the State Department web site.
Isn’t it embarrassing to endure a one-sentence refutation you could have found with Google if you weren’t a crank? I would think you were some sort of agent provocateur recruited by Kos to make conservatives look like morons, but I serve on Kos’s Conservative Agent Provocateur Moron Recruitment Committee and your name isn’t familiar.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/4/2009 @ 10:01 pm
#198
You truly are an idiot. First you attribute things I have never said. Romney never mentioned him. So what are you drinking. Its obvious you can’t read too.
I specifically said someone born to American parents outside the US is not eligible to be president. But since you prefer not to read what I have written, or cannot grasp what is written it is clear that my references to the specific articles of the Constitution will also remain blissfully ignored by your giant intellect.
What doesn’t make sense is that again if you bothered to read and not twist what I have said is the Certificate of Live VBirth in Hawaii does not constitute proof since it is based on a sworn testimony without proof. It is issued to people who never resided in Hawaii. So how is this proof of anything?
The document that does matter has never been released. No hospital records exist nor has any medical staff attested to the claims.
Again this matter can easily be remedied but Obama has choosen not to.
I believe most people can understand this given his character and truthfulness which appears to be somewhat better than yours.
You are an idiot. If you have dual nationality you must select before you are 18, this is the law. State Department does not pass laws, it can only administer the laws passed.
So some one born in Italy of US citizens has the right to born nationalities up to the age of 18. He must then declare his US citizenship. If he fails to he can lose it.
Again I suggest you read the Immigrational and Naturalization Services rules. Or are you just:
1. Too lazy
2. Too stupid
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 10:49 pm
#197
AJL
Its true, you are brain dead. Its time for the editors of this blog to put you out of your misery and pull up the sheet. Icited the constitutional requirements for President to those who said American born abroad could be president.
You responded in a way that is the norm for the lobotimized.
I suggest you consider employing Johnny Cochran, although dead he might make a case for your sanity if not intellect. You are the perfect distillation of idiotarian wingnut philosophy. The bias, prejudice, and overwhelming sanctimony highlighted by an arrogance that parades its ignorance untainted by the slightest regard for the truth to sully your Marxist viewpoint.
I doubt you’ll be able to deal with your sincerity deficit. You are the Leni Riefebstahl of Morlock Leftism. Keep posting. We all need someone to pity.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/4/2009 @ 10:59 pm
Tell me, Thomas, are you also one of those cranks who believes the income tax is unconstitutional? There’s a lot of similarity in the reasoning: fascination with irrelevant labels, ignoring plain black letter precedent, ignoring simple declarative sentences in government documents under weird theories that the agency has misinterpreted the law but that Thomas has the secret understanding.
First, the issue of whether George Romney was eligible was discussed in 1968, and again with respect to McCain. Although there were a few dissenters, the overwhelming majority of legal opinion was in favor of his eligibility, since his parents were American citizens. Your interpretation, like the tax protestors and flat earthers, is wrong.
Now, if you think there is some INS rule (that wouldn’t be INS any more) that requires children to declare their citizenship, in direct contradiction to the State Department web site, why don’t you quote or link it here? Because there is no such rule and you are just making stuff up. Now, there are circumstances under which someone born in Italy to US citizen parents who had spent little time as US residents would not be a US citizen at all. This idea that children have to choose US citizenship is total crap (and I dare you to post this mysterious INS law otherwise), and you may be confused with some other countries that might have such a rule.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/4/2009 @ 11:27 pm
Actually, I’m pretty sure that there are a number of positions in the Federal Government that require you to not hold two passports (which you can only do if you have duel citizenship).
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/5/2009 @ 12:02 am
That’s just a bunch of red herrings you’ve brought up, Lazarus. You say:
1. “Democrat Claire McCaskill authored a resolution. . .”
That resolution about McCain has no legal authority–it’s just a resolution, just an opinion, just a sense of the Senate.
2. Was George Romney eligible to be President. . .
George Romney was never president.
3. “Third, are you aware that in California. . .”
California is not relevant. Only Hawaii is relevant, and only in the period in question.
4. “Fourth, persons who are citizens because they were born in the United States of America do not need to make any declaration of citizenship. . .”
How do we know that Obama was born in the United States of America?
Heh. Try to stay focused, Lazarus.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 12:29 am
Lazarus, that section from the First Congress says that the child born beyond the sea is a natural-born citizen if his parents were. That means both of them. It’s the child of citizens–plural. But, only one of Obama’s parents was a natural-born citizen.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 12:36 am
Scott
All Federal overseas posted employees of embassys must hold 2 passports – an embassy one and a personal one
Reason (as we found out on these school trips) that diplomats do not have the absolute right to travel country to country on a diplomatic passport – there is protocol to be followed – however if not traveling in an official capacity – they use their private passport we had a kid who used her diplomatic passport to tavel to cairo with the track an field team – had to send her back to Qatar to travel on her private passport – and she’s just a kid.
The Egyptian General in charge of our security told me that children of diplomats require very heavy security and it must be arranged in advance.
(I wondered why her passport made her diplomat status change?)
But thats the way it is
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:20 am
OIDO, the 1790 law is not relevant to Obama, but it shows that George Romney was eligible to be president. The fact he lost in the primaries is not material. Just his running and being considered eligible is enough to show that TJ’s argument was rejected 40 years ago.
TJ is upset that Hawaii birth certificates can be obtained based on sworn affidavits. In California, birth certificates can be obtained based on parent’s affidavits in the case of home birth. In other words, his standards for what birth certificates require are not valid. (Cf. tax protestors who say you don’t have to pay tax if you never use a ZIP code.)
Etc.
These aren’t red herrings. They show that every one of TJ’s claims has been looked at and found wanting.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 7:30 am
I’m not an expert, to say the least, but I think the issue is that if she could validly use a diplomatic passport in Egypt, it would imply she had diplomatic immunity there.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 7:32 am
Jackson, still awaiting any evidence for your assertions, which makes your comment about braying self-referential evidently.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was expansive of the right to citizenship, not restrictive, overruling Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. It does not restrict the definition of “natural born citizen”, nor restrict Congress’ power to define such.
Again, you are making up facts and law from whole cloth.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 7:33 am
Spart SPQR
Yes I have an opinion on the birther conspiracy
I am preplexed that Republicans can be challenged but not Democrats
Name one US President, born since the civil war that had a foreign parent not residing in the USA.
Name one American President who, when challenged, did not show a certified copy of a birth certificate.
I have no Idea what it says, Obama’s birth certificate.
I know I’ve had to provide one to run in the Republican Party in Texas and a friend of mine had to provide one to run as a democrat in Texas so I know Obama should have provided one as well.
I know there are other states including Minnesota that reqwuire proof of citizenship beyond just a statement of fact.
SPQR is challenging the entire argument by throwing a red herring – gee there is no SPECIFIC requirement for a birth certificate when indeed there is the requirement to show citisenship in most of the 50 states, including Illinois, and the only true proof of citizenship is a valid birth certificate or an ID that was created from the careful examination and investigation of an original birth certificate.
SPQR is strong and vocal and quite effective in his attacks – but in the end
Where IS THE REQUIRED CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW
Simple Illinois in its elections website cite for every single position possible in the state of Lincoln there is a citizenship test.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:34 am
And SPQR
Your argument that showing proof of Citizenship (which is either a valid US Passport, a Mil ID or a CERTIFIED COPY OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE)
is valid as long as you can show that proof of citizenship is NEVER requested by the State Election officials in all 50 states
By challenging my assertion that proof of citizenship is legally required you are, in fact stating the opposite.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:44 am
Would you kindly indicate your authority for this assertion? It is false, as you could see from instructions for getting a passport. Indeed, in England government birth certificates did not become compulsory until 1837, so presumable not in early American history either.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 7:44 am
Andrew
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
Cerified copy of Birth Certificate is required
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:51 am
Steverino, SPQR
From the United Stated Department of State Official Website:
BTW the proof of citizenship to file for office is in most states one of the three magic items
Current Passport, Current Mil ID, or CERTIFIED COPY OF US BIRTH CERTIFICATE,
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 8:00 am
I like that a lot of the argumentation here is that, because the flat earthers are wrong, and because the tax system isn’t unconstitutional, that birthers are wrong too.
People who rely on that kind of non sequitor are the real kooks.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 8:24 am
Eric, did you miss the part where it lists all the ways of establishing citizenship other than a birth certificate? And that Obama has published a state-certified copy with a seal? The Government of Hawaii and the US Government are both on record as saying that it is an acceptable certified copy. The fact you guys have decided you know better what’s an acceptable certified copy is not important, and most people following this craze suspect that if Hawaii (which has a Republican governor) produced some other certificate, you’d find a reason it wasn’t acceptable either.
The birthers use the same epistemology as tax protestors, to similar results.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 10:35 am
EricPWJohnson, your dishonesty continues.
It is your assertion that the only way to prove citizenship for the office of president is with the certificate that you insist upon. And you keep failing to provide any actual law that matches your claim.
The Dept of State’s requirements for a passport are irrelevant and are being misrepresented by you.
Why do you make so many misrepresentations, Eric? What’s the point?
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 10:40 am
Andrew
Yeah but in Obamas case he couldnt qualify as his dad was not a resident and his mom had not been continously in the USA
And even so that secondary would not fall under natural born
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 10:40 am
SPQR
All or most of the 50 states require a proof of Citizenship
Which is one of the three magic cards
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 10:45 am
EricPWJohnson, which Obama’s certificate meets by law under the Full Faith and Credit clause.
You keep making false statements of the law.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 10:47 am
Only 220 comments on a birther thread? Come on, people, you’re not trying!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 10:55 am
daleyrocks @#177:
My god what a ridiculous little troll you are.
Yes indeed lets:
In my first post in this thread (@#66) I state:
“Obama has produced a valid, authenticated birth certificate which would fulfill the facial requirements of this legislation.”
In my 4th post (11 posts later @#77) I ask:
“Does anyone deny that a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth would satisfy the requirement for “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate”?”
And the question I ask that you suggest that I have “furiously” been moving the goalposts on, and that I have apparently adopted from others (from my 8th post @#127):
“Does a valid, duly certified, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (the only form currently available from Hawaii) fulfill the requirement for “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” in the legislation under discussion?”
Oh yes I’ve certainly wandered far afield from my original starting point . Now if the final question is somewhat more pedantic – unfortunately such has been the nature of this thread – and your nature in general.
As for your contention that I have been “trying to deny that Obama has been one of the least transparent Presidential candidates ever.” Cite please. Shouldn’t be hard, I only have 8 other posts in this thread. Of course in another thread (in the midst of a discussion we were having) I state the exact opposite. But then, reality is apparently not your strong suit.
What a sad joke you are.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/5/2009 @ 10:55 am
Eric, I will concede that if Obama had not been born in the United States, he would not be a natural-born citizen. However, the Secondary Evidence link in my previous post also applies to persons born in the USA. It says so.
In Obama’s case, he could probably present the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, because those were printed not from parental submissions, but from state certifications.
Look, if my wife and I were willing to perjure ourselves, we could get a birth certificate for Rumpelstiltskin Lazarus by submitting the relevant form reporting a home birth this morning with no medical personnel in attendance. (I met a man at a party once who said his birth certificate listed his place of birth as a mile-marker on the 210 Freeway. They waited a few minutes too long.)
In Obama’s case, he has put up the state-certified copy on the Internet, the version any Hawaiian would get today if he were applying for a passport. The fact that it doesn’t meet birther standards is as irrelevant as the way 1040 tax forms don’t meet tax protestor standards.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 10:55 am
Let’s wait to see the final form of the legislation under discussion. But, even then, it won’t pass either chamber, and if it does, Obama will veto it.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 11:00 am
SPQR
WTF? FFCC? Look, I appreciate your views and sentiments, I appreciate your patience, but its required REQUIRED REQUIRED to be a citizen
Correct? To run in Ill Correct? For any party the state board of elections require REQUIRE REQUIRE a proof of citizenship (as do many other states)
Again, for those that don’t want to believe – all we are asking as unpatriotic, moronic, knuckle dragging scum buckets that we are is that Obama please furnish, the required, REQUIRED, REQUIRED certified copy of an original birth certificate
Simple enough, trash collectors, little league players, even mcDonalds workers have to why can’t Obama?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 11:10 am
the version any Hawaiian would get today if he were applying for a passport
Yes, Obama could get a US passport, assuming he doesn’t already have one. That’s not the point. The question is if he’s eligible under Article II, Section 1, clause 5.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 11:10 am
Oh, and for the record JD, daleyrocks presents a textbook example of operating in bad faith. Dishonest, evoking strawmen, personal attacks, focusing on issues only tangentially related to the topic under discussion all in the hopes of scoring some mythical “points” in the ideological battle raging in his head.
When I suggest his questions about whether Obama ever held a Certificate of Live Birth, or what passport he may or may not have ever held, his youthful travels abroad, et al are irrelevant and pointless (as apparently do you per #74), he is welcome to argue that they are not pointless and irrelevant. That he does not argue this is, I think, telling.
But still, I don’t question his motives for bringing them up, even though I strongly suspect he also believes that Obama’s Certification is valid.
What does daley really think about the topic of discussion? I don’t know because he carefully avoids committing to a point of view on this issue. Isn’t that part of the definition of operating in bad faith?
Bah! I’m done with you two.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/5/2009 @ 11:15 am
AJL
I agree, except that there are usually two or three sections where birth announcements are done especially back then.
Usually weekly are the official announcements normally in the Sat Paper are all the obits by funeral home and all birth announcements by hospital for the week.
Question is was Obamas phoned in? Who knows…
This is highly unusual, highly unusual behavior of an innocent man. Sinmple enough to provide a certified coopy of a birth certificate – simple enough.
What SPQR didnt realize is that the USA made the certified copy of an original birth certificate the gold plated standard of proving one’s status as a citizen.
All other vebage to the countrary, now its in the courts hands.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 11:19 am
If Obama can get a passport based on his birth certificate copy alone, then he didn’t have to be naturalized to be a citizen. (In that case, he would need the naturalization papers for the passport.) Since he isn’t a naturalized citizen, he’s a natural born citizen, and eligible.
What could be on the certificate that would make him eligible for a passport without further documentation, but not eligible to be president? Nothing. Unless you agree with the argument that I meant as a joke, that the certificate would have to attest to a vaginal delivery. (Legislation might be required to decide if a breech birth qualifies.)
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 11:19 am
If Obama can get a passport based on his birth certificate copy alone, then he didn’t have to be naturalized to be a citizen.
There is instant naturalization at birth. That is not the same as natural born.
If it’s in the statutes, it isn’t natural born.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/5/2009 @ 11:32 am
“Since he isn’t a naturalized citizen, he’s a natural born citizen. . .”
There’s another possible category available, besides those two: alien.
“What could be on the certificate that would make him eligible for a passport without further documentation, but not eligible to be president?”
What if there’s no hospital of birth named, or the name of an attending physician who didn’t work at the hospital that was named, because Grandma mailed it all in and got something obviously wrong?
The State Department issues passports. They have a certain standard of proof. But to the eligible to be president under the Constitution, you must answer to a higher authority.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 11:38 am
Oily Titz
This is who is showing up raising hell at the health-care meetings. They are the same people that believed the Clinton Chronicles, spent the last eight years waving American flags while singing Let the Eagle Soar, the same people who then changed into NOBAMA t-shirts and traded racist emails with each other after going to Palin rallies, the same misfits who then carried poorly spelled signs to tea parties. This is the fringe.
Comment by spart — 8/5/2009 @ 11:53 am
Say “hello” to Axelrod at your next conference call!
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/5/2009 @ 11:54 am
And your warrant for this claim? Just another made-up factoid. If you are eligible for a passport (hence, not an alien) and you aren’t naturalized, then you are a natural born citizen.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 12:06 pm
Print your own
http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/
[note: fished from spam filter]
Comment by spart — 8/5/2009 @ 1:21 pm
You must be a natural-born citizen to be president, not a naturalized citizen, and not an alien.
In any case, I reject your notion that there are only two categories to choose from, and I remind you once again that while the green computer-generated Certification template may be good enough to get Obama a passport, it’s not necessarily conclusive proof of where he was born for Article II section I purposes. Because of the several ways of obtaining a paper Hawaiian birth certificate until 1972, that green template does not prove he was born in Hawaii. In addition, I’m not sure that the current Supreme Court of the United States would interpret “natural-born citizen” as meaning the same thing as the statutory ways to be considered a citizen as listed in 8 USC 1401.
In addition, you’re not going to change my mind until we, or the Supreme Court, see if Obama’s papers are in order.
Besides, what are so worried about, Lazarus? What harm can there be if someone finds out where the guy you voted for was really born?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 2:26 pm
OIDO, you are inventing nonexistant law again. Just as EricPWJohnson does when he falsely writes: “What SPQR didnt realize is that the USA made the certified copy of an original birth certificate the gold plated standard of proving one’s status as a citizen.”
Both of you really should confront the fact that your beliefs requires so much invention on your part to sustain.
Its not a good sign.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 2:31 pm
208
SPQR the brayer
The 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment which I cited and you either do not grasp or understand both state the requirements for citizenship and the meaning or native born.
But you again fail to cite any proof of your delusions.
But this is typical of you but it does illustrate your ignorance and inability to either read or admit your error.
Must be all that projecting you do and all those anger issues you have.
So tell us again why someone born in Italy is eligible to be president if his parents are Americans.
We’re all waiting.
LOL
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:42 pm
#201
AJL
Res ipsa loquitur.
The issue is simple, can someone be born overseas be the president of the US.
You choose to cite Citizenship laws that no one addresses or cares about.
You have won the Roberto Menchu Achievement Award for Fantasy and devotion to the Party Line.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:45 pm
SPQR, I am not making anything up. If you have a problem with Johnson’s statements, take it up with Johnson. I’ve already stated earlier in this thread that I don’t think Obama is legally required to produce a birth certificate–at least, not yet.
Of course, I think you will also agree with me that if the Supreme Court of the United States ever decides to rule on the meaning of “natural-born citizen,” they will ask for the best evidence, which would be Obama’s paper birth certificate, not his driver’s license or latest utility bill.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 2:47 pm
#205
This is slightly inaccurate. You are not required to have two passports but are wise to do so because of security concerns.
Some countries will not permit entry if your passport carries the border frank of a nation they “dislike” so to travel through that nation you must insure that your passport lacks those “embrassing” franks.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:49 pm
Official Internet Data
Don’t waste your breath on SPQR brayer. He is a constant drive by flinger of feeces who never contributes factual content and when caught out in lies never fails to double his abuse.
He can’t grasp the Constitution, can’t grasp the difference between citizenship and native born, and can’t even understand the 14th Amendment.
SPQR likes to project.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:52 pm
#222
Boy AJL in your own words you demonstrate you do not understand the difference between citizenship and native born.
Pathetic.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:56 pm
#213
Mr. Johnson were you a n FSO?
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 2:56 pm
Except if Obama was born in the United States, he can not be an alien since the 14th Amendment. That leaves only two possibilities, and you can’t have it both ways. If his Hawaii birth certificate shows birth in Hawaii (as it does), he is a natural born citizen. If he obtained a Hawaii birth certificate that showed birth outside the USA, it would not suffice to get him a passport. There is no such thing as a super-duper birth certificate with an extra “Natural Born” stamp on it.
As for Thomas Jackson, where’s that cite to the law requiring 18-year-old dual citizens to choose one country? You post a mix of urban legends and self-invented nonsense and when that doesn’t work, insults. The law requiring minors to choose citizenship that you claim exists: __ USC __. Just fill in the blanks and you have a chance to humiliate a token liberal commenter. Or, remain silent and admit you can’t find the law, because you made it up.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 3:19 pm
No but I am an Expat who is in constant contact with embassy staff as they live in our compound and travel with us to sporting events and what not.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 3:23 pm
Splitting hairs – a dip passport is for official visits only in the capacity and to keep immunity from arrest in the country where your credentials are accepted
Please do not confuse the two
Eqypt did not accept the 14 year old girls diplomatic credentials making her immune under treaty from arrest, she and her parents attended as private citizens without credentials
You are required to haver a current private passport when on assignment
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 3:27 pm
OIDC
See the state of Ill’s latest revised manual for prospective candidate
then review the government of the State of Illinois definitions of citizenship and what documents it accepts as proof
THereby making Obama in his own state – REQUIRED to show a certified copy of his original birth certificate
Not a note from his mommy
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 3:29 pm
The 2008 Illinois candidates guide; the 2009 Illinois candidates guide. The word “birth” does not appear in either even once, according to my PDF reader. So, Eric, am I looking in the wrong version, or are you repeating something you heard on Limbaugh? And why is it that I am the one supplying the links?
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 3:38 pm
AJL
Its under Citizenship, the state is NOT going to take your word for it
Then under Illinois Law the only acceptable proof of citizenship is the same magic list to get a passport
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 3:51 pm
I guess we are confusing (well in the case of Steverino AJL and SPQR deliberately being disengenious) proof of citizenship and documents
There is no proof of citizenship except
A Certified Copy of an Original Birth Certificate
A Current US Passport
A Current Mil ID
And then the naturalization papers and documents for foriegn born but those are not germain to this discussion
There is no way you can get out of having at some point in the process in most of the 50 states – showing a certified copy of a birth certificate to prove citizenship
All this other crap has been just that crap – good crap, direct well thought out crap but in the end crap
Obama, boy oh boy, knows the score and I’m almost beginning to think that there is something there
But then I remember he’s dumb as a post and probably just screwed up and painted himself in a corner
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 3:58 pm
I don’t think so, Eric. I found an Illinois bill to require evidence of citizenship to register to vote (I don’t think it passed) accepted (a) a driver’s license that said it also was proof of citizenship, (b) a photocopy of a birth certificate, (c) a photocopy of a passport, (d) photocopies of naturalization papers, or (e) American Indian tribal ID. Moreover, while Illinois candidates are required to certify that the are citizens, I don’t see any place in the candidate booklet that the state requires them to present supporting evidence. That is, they do take your word for it (under penalty of perjury or some other criminal offense). See section A-4 on page 16 of the 2009 guide, listing the submission requirements. There is no requirement for a birth certificate. Petition circulators are also required to be citizens, required to affirm that under penalty of perjury, but no proof seems to be demanded.
Now, instead of reiterating the same thing, Eric, can you quote chapter and verse where candidates are required to submit a birth certificate? As opposed to my pointing to the specific page where the requirements (that do not include a birth certificate) are listed?
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 4:05 pm
Thomas, you have never caught me out in any lies. And in fact, that claim of yours is a lie itself.
EricPWJohnson, you keep claiming that there is only one way to prove citizenship. And that is simply a false claim. First of all, it is not true where you are stealing language from, as has been shown above, and secondly, that is not true in the constitutional sense either. And you’ve continued to give us nothing but BS on the fact that the COLB is an official document under Hawaiian law – which other states would be required to recognize under Full Faith and Credit clause.
OIDO, no, I don’t think that the Supreme Court would ask for the “best evidence”. First of all, the Supreme Court is not a tryer of fact and secondly, there is no legal requirement to provide the “best” evidence whatever that is. (The term is one of a contract law concept, not a constitutional one ).
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:14 pm
If it’s in the statutes, it isn’t natural born.
What?
The term “natural born” isn’t defined in the constitution.
It could be coterminous with the “all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language used in the fourteenth amendment, but that seems unlikely, as the term predates the fourteenth amendment by eighty or so years.
It could be some definition given in statute.
Or it could be whatever the term was commonly used to mean in the 1780s.
Which could very well have been defined by some English statute imported into common use in the colonies.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2009 @ 4:16 pm
SPQR
Ist obvious you are mentally drooling – leaving you alone
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 4:19 pm
aphrael, Jackson insists that it is the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment … to which one can only nod and back away while reaching for a stick …
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:19 pm
EricPWJohnson, why is it that you can’t handle simple declarative english statements of a logical form? Why is it that you feel the need to invent law that does not exist?
That’s all I want to know.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:20 pm
Everyone please take a breath and try to discuss, not cuss. (Did you know I could be so corny? Of course you did.) It’s a contentious topic but from this point on, I will moderate commenters who post insults [EDIT: on this thread].
Comment by DRJ — 8/5/2009 @ 4:43 pm
Its quite simple, DRJ, I’m just trying to get EricPWJohnson to back up his claim that there is a legal requirement that a presidential candidate prove his qualification with a specific document and in no other way.
I’m yet to see a legal citation that isn’t for something else … or that simply does not say what EricPWJohnson wants it to say.
But beyond that, like the 911 Truthers, there is a repetitive theme in the Nirther group. And that theme is the invention of legal requirements that don’t exist and the treatment of wild-eyed speculation as fact.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:50 pm
It was a coincidence that your comment came immediately before mine, SPQR. My concern is the tone of many of today’s comments.
Comment by DRJ — 8/5/2009 @ 4:52 pm
Well, thanks DRJ but if you can interpret Thomas Jackson’s problem for me, it would be a favor to me.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:55 pm
“Oh, and for the record JD, daleyrocks presents a textbook example of operating in bad faith. Dishonest, evoking strawmen, personal attacks, focusing on issues only tangentially related to the topic under discussion all in the hopes of scoring some mythical “points” in the ideological battle raging in his head.”
Bob – Oh my, you’re such a victim! Heh! You’re a funny man Bob. It’s apparent from each of your visits that you don’t come here with a shred of intellectual honesty, but go ahead and insult others, we’re used to it from people of your ilk.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/5/2009 @ 5:02 pm
DRJ: from which we should conclude that text on the internet, like Chinese, is a tonal language?
duck
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2009 @ 5:17 pm
SPQR
You sir are assuming and not reading
First you assume that there is nothing in either the volumes of the 50 state codes that does not require proof of citizenship, or in the election codes of the United States.
Second then you are assuming that I belong to some group
Third then – as I am busy and cannot do your research for you – that I am a liar and making stuff up
Fourth – I’d be real real real real careful making sweeping 50 state declarations, you wont be the first to be tripped up and neither will I
Fifth – I have conceded much of your argument and applauded you for your tenacity – all of which is meaningless though, because you are now saying that a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship or there is no standard burden anywhere of qualifying for president, just sign away an affidavit and off you go since the constitution didnt address burden of proof. Even though its clear as day.
Sixth – dont move to another state – most states that have been a red state have extremely strict requirements even to get a license and to prove both citizeship and residency as well as proof to run for office.
The standard today is that you have to prove yourself your citizenship over and over and over again.
All I am asking OBAMA TO DO IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND FURNISH HIS REQUIRED BIRTH CERTIFICATE
PARDON ME IF I DONT TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT
Golly darn gosherootie!
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 5:21 pm
EricPWJohnson, 1-3 means that you are making claims you cannot back up.
4 makes no sense.
5 is where you invent claims that I’ve never made and try to put words in my mouth. What you claim that I’m now saying, I never said. Strawmen that don’t hunt.
6 makes no sense.
And if all you are asking Obama to do is follow the law, then why can you not cite the law?
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 5:24 pm
SPQR
No you need to prove your assertions
I know Texas Requires it – you need to find it – I’m not doing the obvious for you
I know Tennessee also requires it – you need to find it – And do your own homework
The USA requires that someone be a natural born citizen
The only document through tens of thousands of hours of court drama and common law is a CERTIFIED COPY OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE
For every job in the united states, you need one except for the presidency none required as you would argue
I will give you the last word because there seems to be an impass
Again I already posted proof in the Illinois handbook for prospective candidates that is footnoted with the proper statutes.
Thats just one state.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 5:31 pm
EricPWJohnson:
All I am asking OBAMA TO DO IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND FURNISH HIS REQUIRED BIRTH CERTIFICATE
I admit to knowing nothing about the situation except for what I could glean reading the US Constitution.
That said, I can either assume that then-Senator Obama followed the law when getting himself placed on the ballot in fifty states, or I can assume that he did not follow the laws of those states and that the election officials of those states declined to follow their own laws.
It seems incredibly unlikely to me that, for example, the people running the elections in Texas declined to ensure that Sen. Obama followed the law when getting his name placed on the ballot there. Or Arizona. Or Georgia. Or, for that matter, Wyoming.
This is a standard-issue item with conspiracy theories: the simpler explanation, the one which doesn’t require as many people to be engaged in a conspiracy, seems more likely to be true. In this case, presuming that Sen. Obama violated the law requires far more people to have been negligent or malicious than presuming him to have followed the law- which doesn’t make it impossible, merely significantly less likely.
Accordingly, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with you to identify the laws you believe Sen. Obama to have violated and your evidence for that violation. Otherwise, without evidence, why should I believe an allegation which requires me to presume the less likely of two scenarios?
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2009 @ 5:34 pm
EricPWJohnson, your attempt to shift the burden of your own claims onto others is just juvenile.
Interestingly, I checked the other day and found one of our immigration files where our office submitted an I-130 and I485 petition to USCIS with a petitioner’s COLB from Hawaii very similar to Obama’s.
USCIS accepted it.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 5:39 pm
“Except if Obama was born in the United States, he can not be an alien since the 14th Amendment.”
And if your Grandmother had balls, she’d be your Grandfather.
And if Obama was not born in the United States, one of the things he could be is an alien. Duh!
“If his Hawaii birth certificate shows birth in Hawaii (as it does), he is a natural born citizen”
No, you have not seen his Hawaiian birth certificate. Obama claims he has, but not you. You have seen a Certification of live birth, which is not the same thing, and proves nothing because it’s not a complete record of the paper vault copy.
Because of the loopholes which existed prior to 1972 in obtaining a paper Hawaiian birth certificate, which were also issued to people who were even not born in Hawaii, you cannot conclude yet that the Certification proves Obama is “natural-born.”
That’s all, Lazarus. We’re done. I’m not going to repeat myself any more. Besides, I don’t think you’re trying to persuade anyone, not that I think you have. You’re just playing games, as your joke that you can’t be natural-born if the birth was a Caesarean, would indicate.
Now, as Dennis Miller would say, “Go on, get out of here!”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 5:47 pm
Conspiracy theorist logic:
The certified copy of the Certification of Live Birth is accepted for legal purposes as proving the facts stated on it, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The fact you don’t like how the form is labeled and want some other form doesn’t matter. Quibbling about the form’s name is a silly attempt to use words to evade facts. And the fact is, Obama has a legally recognized paper saying he was born in Hawaii and is therefore a natural born citizen. You say it proves nothing. The Hawaii Goverment, the Federal passport office and all other branches of government disagree with you, and their opinion has legal weight. Yours, mere bitter disbelief that a non-white Democratic liberal fills the highest office.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 5:56 pm
aprael
the process in all 50 states is that the documentation has to be challenged by another party the election boards no not investigate candidates they just gather reports
Now it has, they challenged McCains, but the McCain camp – noting correctly that obama was not following the correct procedures did not challenge him because they felt politically it was too risky
http://volokh.com/files/aames.pdf
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_24-2008_03_01.shtml#1204265246
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 5:58 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Interesting that McCain might have been challenged to the supreme court even if he had won the election
Obama doesnt even furnish a b-cert and has a dad who’s never even been a legal resident – just a visiting student
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 6:01 pm
Typical, AJL, for you to throw in the racist accusation.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 6:01 pm
If the people who are not convinced Obama qualifies are up against so many legal entities and institutions, then what are you so worried about, Lazarus?
Anyway, I’d say the Constitution of the United States has more legal weight that the statements of a Hawaiian bureaucrat, or the US Passport Office.
And now you’re implying people are racist now to doubt Obama, too? Carter was a white Democratic liberal, and I couldn’t believe he was elected, either. Carter’s administration was a living hell. But we fixed that in 1980.
No, we think Obama’s policies are anathema, even though that’s why you voted for him, along with the rest of your undergraduate classmates.
Go on, get out of here!
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 6:14 pm
“Anyway, I’d say the Constitution of the United States has more legal weight that the statements of a Hawaiian bureaucrat, or the US Passport Office.”
This made no sense OIDO. The references to the pass port office were introduced by Nirthers to claim ( falsely ) that the COLB was not accepted. Likewise, the reference to Hawaiian bureaucrats make no sense either as a certified copy of the original birth certificate you claim is needed would rely on the same bureaucrats’ certification.
Seriously, this is what I find so frustrating about you and EricPWJohnson, you simply can’t make any sense.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 6:20 pm
SPQR
Immaterial to the argument – first of if someone has a Hawaiian birth certificate they are an American Citizen.
Please stop now, I’m not responding anymore – I’m glad you have stood by your position even to the point of filing for a green card for someone that is obviously already a US Citizen by birth
Amazing
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/5/2009 @ 6:25 pm
I haven’t had time to read many comments here, but 275 comments? Really?
You can create your own Kenyan birth certificate here (note – it’s Democratic Underground, so click at your own risk).
Comment by carlitos — 8/5/2009 @ 6:30 pm
EricPWJohnson, you really are not making any sense. And I guess you don’t know that an I-130 is how an American citizen gets their relationship to a non-citizen recognized ( a spouse for example ) as a prerequisite for applying for adjustment of status for the non-citizen.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 6:42 pm
SPQR the brayer apparently cannot read the relevant sections of the Constitution I specified.
Its just too diffiuclt for his giant mind. Apparently the difference between natural born and citizen as described is such a difficult concept to grasp.
One must sympathize with the brain dead. But then again SPQR, AJL are both afflicted with making things up. At least Steverino realized he was wrong and bailed out.
But the Jason Blair Awards goes to the aforementioned trolls.
Just klick your heels together and say “I will report you to the White House fishy….”
Res ipsa loquitur.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:09 pm
aphrael-The term “natural born” isn’t defined in the constitution…It could be some definition given in statute.
Neither is militia, arms, speech, religion, I could go on. You won’t find constitutionally useful definitions for any of these words in the statutes.
The Constitution gave Congress the duty to establish the process for naturalization. Natural born citizens aren’t part of that process.
A statute can be repealed by Congress, so if a statute could define natural born, then the definition of natural born could always be repealed. I don’t think we want Congress to have the power to repeal parts of the Constitution anymore than we should want them to have the power to define its words.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/5/2009 @ 7:21 pm
Thomas Jackson, there is no substance to your comments. Certainly you’ve failed to identify anything I’ve made up.
Amusingly, even EricPWJohnson can find secondary sources that show your understanding of the First “Amendment” is wrong. Of course, they didn’t say what he wanted them to say, but that was just the rest of the amusement. I’m looking forward to you finding any interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that acts as a narrowing of the definition of citizenship / natural born citizen. Its plain language does not operate as you claim, no one has ever interpreted it to operate in that fashion and it was never intended to narrow the definition of eligibility of the office of President. You’ve got nothing.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 7:25 pm
EricPW Johnson, are pineapples American?
Comment by carlitos — 8/5/2009 @ 7:25 pm
And of course, none of the conspiracy theorists have the slightest evidence that Obama was born anywhere but within the US.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 7:29 pm
Thomas Jackson — 8/5/2009 @ 7:09 pm:
Did you miss my comment #257 (DRJ — 8/5/2009 @ 4:43 pm)? It asked everyone to take an insult break on this thread. Please review your last comment with that in mind or spend some time in moderation.
Comment by DRJ — 8/5/2009 @ 7:33 pm
Jonah Goldberg has a great piece on Nirthers and Democrats attempt to tar the GOP with it.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 7:47 pm
” First of all, the Supreme Court is not a tryer of fact and secondly, there is no legal requirement to provide the “best” evidence whatever that is. (The term is one of a contract law concept, not a constitutional one ).
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 4:14 pm “
In this SPQR you are totally wrong. The USSC is indeed the triar of fact, note;
Article 3 Section2: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Note that it says both as to law and fact.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 8:37 pm
Note also that they have original jurisdiction in certain cases, and qualifications for President is one of those, they then have original jurisdiction, which would also mean they are the tryar of facts.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 8:41 pm
peedoffamerican, note that the Eleventh Amendment removes a lot of the original jurisdiction that appears in the Art III clause you quote.
However, in the situation we are discussing here, the case would only fall in the USSCt’s appellate jurisdiction and so the USSCt would not be a tryer of fact.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 8:42 pm
Who needs facts when you have Rahm Emmanuel and Davis Axelrod on your side?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 8:44 pm
peedoffamerican, the original jurisdiction clause is a bit of a hash these days, here’s some short discussion. Note that the various statutory vesting of jurisdiction can be found in Title 18 of the US Code. While I oversimplified, the bottom line remains that in the kind of suit hypothetical, the USSCt would not be the tryer of fact.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 8:48 pm
But you are wrong SPQR, note that it also says, “. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact.”
Even in appellate cases they are both the tryar of law and fact.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 8:52 pm
peedoffamerican, “tryer of fact” and “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact” are not equivalent. That’s why oral argument in front of the USSCt is only a half hour long and no one brings any witnesses.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2009 @ 8:54 pm
peedoffamerican, note that the Eleventh Amendment removes a lot of the original jurisdiction that appears in the Art III clause you quote.
You are also wrong on the 11th amendment, as this applies to states being sued in federal courts
Originally the 11th Amendment only forbade actions by non-citizens against a defendant state. But Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890) extended the doctrine of such sovereign immunity, holding that the 11th Amendment barred suit even by citizens of that defendant state. All private parties were subject to the amendment, although other states and the federal government could still bring actions against a state.
peedoffamerican, “tryer of fact” and “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact” are not equivalent.
Now Oh wise and sage one please explain how the two are differentiated. If in their appellate jurisdiction, they are both the tryer of law and tryer of fact, how does that not make them the tryer of fact. Note in most appellate rulings, they mention the facts of the case that have already been discovered in previous trials, but also mention new evidence that was not discovered.
And as to why most cases only last 30 minutes, this has not always been the case. If they do not try the facts of the case then they are derelict in their duties, as the facts of the case also determine if the law was applied constituionally.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 9:15 pm
peedoffamerican, “tryer of fact” and “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact” are not equivalent. That’s why oral argument in front of the USSCt is only a half hour long and no one brings any witnesses.
Also, could it be the many pages of briefs that are now required by the USSC that is the reason for no witnesses?
But, I will bet you a dollar to a donghnut, that if the birth certificate issue makes it to any trial, the USSC will assert its original jurisdiction so fast it will make your head spin. Notice how the USSC asserted its jurisdiction in Bush v Gore.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 9:21 pm
And, pray tell, what happens when they under their appellate jurisdiction of both law and fact, discover that the facts were wrong or prejudicial?
Can anyone say overturn? Nahhhhhhh,never happens does it?
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 9:24 pm
After all, who would have the original jurisdiction to overturn an election of a US President if it turns out that he is actually unqualified as per the US Constitution. Who else but the highest court in the land.
SPQR, I hereby submit that it is you that are not arguing in good faith.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 9:28 pm
“The Hawaii Goverment, the Federal passport office and all other branches of government disagree with you, and their opinion has legal weight.”
It goes without saying that the government is on the government’s side on this issue. That’s not an argument. The people should have access to any and all information about any president.
We should be able to read Bush’s DD214 and transcripts and writings. Obama’s papers in law school, his grades, and all information about everything he’s ever done should now be free for all to read. We should know who ghost wrote his books and who babysat his kids.
We should know if he’s sleeping with his interns or if he’s a black panther (this is hyperbole, obviously).
That the government has accepted Obama as president is just banal observation. It’s beside the point.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 9:37 pm
OOPS, “donghnut” should read doughnut.
Big LOL there.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 9:43 pm
peedoff,
I think SPQR is arguing a very difficult position, but trying to do so fairly. He’s right that this is something most people disagree with, and he’s right that we really don’t have much evidence that Obama isn’t eligible. A lot of the legal rules in place are either wrong (from a natural law perspective) or subjective, and that’s frustrating to a lot of people, and when used as an argument seems very circular.
But I don’t think he means to be insincere or dishonest. It’s just that this is an issue that runs deep.
I spent the last 8 years watching monsters pretend 9/11 was deliberate (far more democrats believe this than republicans believe Obama is ineligible). I don’t think Obama is ineligible (I explain why way above), and I can understand getting angry to be aligned with people who seem to be following in the footsteps of truthers.
When I look at the issue, it’s not clear that the ‘birthers’ are nearly as offensive as the truthers, but it’s a pretty complicated comparison.
that’s why I say we should see what’s on this paper, just because it’s our right (not legally, but fundamentally) to know who the hell Barack Obama is. I make no promises about what will come to light if that happens, aside from noting that it’s obvious Obama is hiding the document and he’s a liar.
But most of us know that SPQR is not a bad guy.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 9:52 pm
I should add that many of SPQR’s premises I disagree with. The recent discussion of the USSC never being a trier of fact is an example.
But why is the analysis hinging on that kind of thing? We’ve got a corrupt government. It doesn’t matter what they say.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 9:53 pm
“peedoff,
I think SPQR is arguing a very difficult position, but trying to do so fairly.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 9:52 pm”
First, you can refer to me as POA, saves a lot of time. Secondly, by bringing into the discussion the 11th Amendment, which has nothing to do with limiting the Original Jurisdiction
of the USSC, but has to do with the sovereign immunity of the states, he is being in this instance, disingenous and arguing in bad faith. And especially in this instance of who would have original jurisdiction in the case of overturning a national election of the POTUS on constituional grounds if it be shown that Obama is ineligible.
Now I don’t know if he is or is not ineligible, but if he would just provide his original birth certificate and not a Cerification of Live Birth that could have been obtained in numerous ways, then the case could be closed one way or the other. This is not going away until he produces one that is unquestionable. It will only grow and fester until it reaches a boiling point and roils over, and some nut acts on it and makes him a martyr.
My question is this, “What is he hiding or accomplishing by his refusal to produce a valid Birth Certificate that the very same govt requires for employment and US passport?” They do not accept a Certification of Live Birth, I know, I possess both, and when applying for a passport it was fortunate that I had both with me. I first produced the smaller Certification of Live Birth and was told it was unnacceptable. I then handed them the folded humongous ( about 16″x20″s) Birth Certificate and the application was processed.
Comment by peedoffamerican — 8/5/2009 @ 10:18 pm
Or he made a mistake or assumption that was wrong. Or he was arguing in bad faith, but only through laziness because there are just too many angles to this argument to go into it at a great level of detail.
I truly hope not. It would be so awful for this country to have that happen and cement so many of Obama’s awful ideas as somehow part of American culture the way JFK’s mediocrity was.
Obama notes in his memoirs that he’s got this document, so I agree with you that he’s a jerk for not releasing it to the American people. Obama stepped up to the presidency. he owes us a hell of a lot more than some general private citizen does. The laws don’t really matter that much… Obama needs to be completely forthright in all ways. I know the meme is that Obama is playing the birthers for fools, but he’s never been that clever and this is still making him look evasive. I think he’s hiding something, too.
Regardless, most of us have issues that we get carried away with. If we don’t we’re not passionate enough. I do wish the people thinking no one should promote this issue, out of some sense this is embarassing, wouls accept that it’s just too late to stop this movement. The tone I see here (and I’m guilty too) represents a desperation that doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 10:48 pm
I don’t think this is true. Something like a quarter of the GOP believe Obama is ineligible for the office, presumably because he is hiding foreign birth. Another quarter aren’t sure. By comparison, alleging that Bush planned 9/11 gets an automatic ban at Daily Kos.
I’d guess there are 5 to 10 Republican Birthers for every one Democratic 9/11 Truther.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 8/5/2009 @ 10:53 pm
Obama notes in his memoirs that he’s got this document
How many paper “vault” birth certificate copies can there be? One in Hawaii, which the Hawaiian health director says is there but won’t tell us what’s on it, and one in Obama’s safe deposit box? Or can there only be one, in the state of Hawaii’s possession, from which an unlimited number of Certifications may be issued?
Or is there an original one and an amended one?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 10:54 pm
POA,
I think the issue is whether a court has appellate jurisdiction or original jurisdiction. If a court has original jurisdiction, it is the trial court where the judge or jury listens to testimony, views other evidence and determines the facts of the case. Thus, in a court of original jurisdiction, the jury (or the judge in a non-jury trial) is the trier of fact.
If a court has appellate jurisdiction, it reviews the transcript and record for legal errors but, with rare exception, it does not listen to new testimony or consider evidence that was not offered at trial. (This Law.com article sets forth the legal standards for appellate review.) Thus, an appellate court is not the trier of fact, but it does consider the law and the facts as determined by the trial court in deciding whether there were any legal errors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some limited areas so it is possible to have a case in which the Supreme Court hears live testimony and functions as the trier of fact. These cases are very rare. In general, appellate courts like the U.S. Supreme Court are reviewing cases for errors and are not the triers of fact.
Comment by DRJ — 8/5/2009 @ 10:55 pm
AJL, the source for that 25% statistic also asked democrats about their 9/11 views.
You could not possibly be aware of one without being aware of the other, could you? I guess it’s possible, but if you assert the former as a fact, then you are already granting that the poll is valid and that far more democrats think Bush let 9/11 happen than republicans think Obama isn’t eligible.
It doesn’t matter if Kos bans people. Kos is totally irrelevant and most of his bloggers probably do think 9/11 was an inside job… which is why Kos had to institute whatever policy you’re describing (assuming you aren’t wrong about that as well).
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 10:55 pm
OIDO, I thought the state of Hawaii claimed they did not have any paper copies, and that they were contradicting whoever said they had seen the original article.
This is why I hate getting into the gritty details of this debate. We just don’t know anything. Too many conflicting stories defending Obama on this. We already know he’s a liar who has hidden as much of his history as possible. we know state government bureaucrats have already brokent he law defending Obama, for example in the Joe the Plumber case.
Obama wants a banana republic style system, and the doubt about the basic reliability of our government’s assertions and documents is the natural result.
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 10:58 pm
These cases are very rare. In general, appellate courts like the U.S. Supreme Court are reviewing cases for errors and are not the triers of fact.
Of course, DRJ, this particular case, if it ever did get to the Supreme Court, would be an exceptional case. No one can predict what would be the process with absolute certainty.
I should add that ‘natural born citizen’ is a silly requirement and the court would probably find a way to include Obama regardless of what was on his certificate (I just can’t believe he wasn’t born in Hawaii and the dems let this slide).
Comment by Juan — 8/5/2009 @ 11:01 pm
“. . .alleging that Bush planned 9/11 gets an automatic ban at Daily Kos.”
And you know this–how?
But I bet you still enjoyed Fahrenheit 911, right?
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/5/2009 @ 11:04 pm
aphraelIt could be coterminous with the “all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language used in the fourteenth amendment, but that seems unlikely, as the term predates the fourteenth amendment by eighty or so years
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment defines Natural Born Citizenship. That’s what it does and that’s all it does.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/5/2009 @ 11:31 pm
You won’t find constitutionally useful definitions for any of these words in the statutes.
Right. Which means the definitions must come from outside the Constitution.
Usually such words are based on the commonly understood meaning of the term when the law was adopted.
So how was ‘natural born citizen’ defined in English political theory in the eighteenth century?
My bet is that it was based on some set of rules laid down by a statute adopted by Parliament, probably around 1688.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2009 @ 11:52 pm
Um, Amendment XIV doesn’t exactly do that:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It says that if you’re born in the US, you’re a citizen, but also that people naturalized are citizens, too. As for natural-born citizen as understood 80 years prior, see the proceedings of the First Congress, and Blackstone’s.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 12:15 am
309
I mean, that is where you’ll find the definition of natural born once you remove the extraneous language about nationalized citizens.
I think that is the only place scotus would look if asked for a clear definition. The fight would happen over “subject to the jurisdiction” with the liberals wrongly evoking Wong Kim Ark and conservatives looking to Jacob Howard’s intentions.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/6/2009 @ 12:38 am
310
I have no idea what you are talking about. You are saying the Constitution is the last place to look for constitutional meaning and something about England in 1600. I would have guessed you posted in the wrong thread but you quoted something I wrote in this thread.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/6/2009 @ 1:01 am
JCurtis: the phrase “natural born citizen” is not defined in the constitution, right?
Now, some are arguing that it was defined eighty years later by a piece of language which doesn’t say it defines it.
I’m saying the normal way to construe undefined language is to look at the way the words would have been understood by the people who wrote and signed the document, and speculating – since I don’t know – that this term was probably defined by Parliamentary statute.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 1:45 am
The Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress provided:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
It was superseded in 1795 and “natural born” was removed, but that some insight to the thinking of the time.
Comment by Bob Loblaw — 8/6/2009 @ 2:25 am
314
The 39th Congress knew what natural born meant. Everyone around at the time knew what it was and they were happy with the way they were defining it. If there had been any question about that, it would have surfaced during the debate on this amendment.
Everyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. The debate on the amendment clarifies who isn’t a citizen at birth of people born in the US.
The question of the citizen status of people who are born abroad to Americans was clarified in the Naturalization Act of 1795. The words “natural born” removed under the watchful eye of the Jay Court.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/6/2009 @ 7:58 am
Bob Loblaw, thank you.
JCurtis: Everyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.
OK. I can go with that. Under current law, someone born overseas to an American citizen mother is automatically a citizen at birth. It seems to me that such a person is a natural born citizen under the definition you just put forth.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 11:44 am
aprael
no they’re not see the State Department definitions of Citizenship
If the Child has a french father no matter WHERE the child is born it is a french citizen and cannot be revolked same for MOST countries. Its unfrotunately all about the men.
The mom, except in the USA has few rights in other “enlightened” countries…
Its a real heartache when an American woman marries an Atrab even in America and the Children are born in America, as soon as they leave the shores, even under an American Passport the authorities in any country can and do seize them and return them to their fathers in the middle east.
Heart breaking – just was a case in Pakistan where the Embassy snatched the kid in London and sent her to her Father in Karachi.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/6/2009 @ 11:52 am
someone born overseas to an American citizen mother is automatically a citizen at birth.
That would still be a horrendous violation of our democracy for Obama to lie about this. He’s goen on and on and on about being born in the USA, and his goons (separated to some degree from him) sued Mccain over this crap.
Sorry, but if Obama was not born inside the USA, he is a horrible fraud.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 12:07 pm
EricPWJohnson, I don’t care what the Dept. of State says. 8 USC 1401, the governing statute, says:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: …
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:
8 USC 1409 says that this applies to children born out of wedlock if their mother was US citizen, or if their father was a US citizen and certain other conditions are met.
There was a Supreme Court case a few years ago in which the difference between the treatment of the mother and the treatment of the father was challenged on equal protection grounds; the challenge lost.
Juan, That would still be a horrendous violation of our democracy for Obama to lie about this
On this I agree with you.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 12:23 pm
aphrael, I think Obama’s handling of this is suspicious. Perhaps he’s gaming and ginning up this issue for political advantage, or perhaps he’s hiding something odd.
Regardless, finding out of a horrible fraud, albeit legal, has been perpetrated on the people, is worth looking into. How many lies did Obama tell in his memoirs? He says, in his book, he has the original birth certificate, a document that is 48 years old. I want to see it because I want to know everything there is to know about my president.
Getting into a legal discussion about the potentialities makes less sense to me. It might be an argument that this is irrelevant no matter what’s on the document, except that the people had a right to know what was on them no matter what the legal consequences are. I think this is a source of tension on the right. One side wants us to all move on because Obama isn’t going to be ousted over this and is likely eligible in some way. the other side thinks that’s a red herring.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 12:29 pm
Under current law, someone born overseas to an American citizen mother is automatically a citizen at birth
Well, not necessarily. It depends.
On the one hand, I’m not convinced that a “citizen at birth,” as described in 8 USC 1401, is a Section II “natural-born citizen.”
But even if I agreed that it was the same thing, I still don’t think Obama qualifies under 8 USC 1401(g) if born outside the US, because when he was allegedly born his mother didn’t satisfy all its requirements. The law was updated and made retroactive in 1986, but you can’t suddenly be a citizen from birth 15 years after you were born, can you? I don’t think so.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 1:11 pm
peedoffamerican, I’ve been attempting to treat you politely. Evidently that was a mistake that I shall not repeat.
“But, I will bet you a dollar to a donghnut, that if the birth certificate issue makes it to any trial, the USSC will assert its original jurisdiction so fast it will make your head spin. Notice how the USSC asserted its jurisdiction in Bush v Gore.”
The USSCt was exercising appellate jurisdiction ( from the Florida state supreme court ) in Bush v. Gore. You are confused.
“After all, who would have the original jurisdiction to overturn an election of a US President if it turns out that he is actually unqualified as per the US Constitution. Who else but the highest court in the land.”
You are confused. As the annotations from Findlaw that I linked to above explain, the USSCt’s original jurisdiction is very narrow, and is narrowed further by statute.
“SPQR, I hereby submit that it is you that are not arguing in good faith.”
And with that, the last of my patience with you is ended.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 1:26 pm
I find it typical of AJL’s inversion of logic that he would assert that Daily Kos’ ban of 9/11 Truthers is evidence that there are few Democrat Truthers ( in contrast to GOP Nirthers ). If there was a necessity for the ban, then obviously there were enough 9/11 Truther Kos kiddies to require it.
Amusingly, I still hear from the occasional Hillary Clinton Nirther.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 1:28 pm
On the one hand, I’m not convinced that a “citizen at birth,” as described in 8 USC 1401, is a Section II “natural-born citizen.”
Understood. But what’s your source for an alternative definition? I think “automatically a citizen at birth” and “natural-born citizen” mean the same thing.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 1:30 pm
The law was updated and made retroactive in 1986, but you can’t suddenly be a citizen from birth 15 years after you were born.
I actually agree with you on this. But the Senate is on the record as disagreeing: it issued a resolution last year declaring that Sen. McCain was a natural-born citizen, despite the fact that the law did not grant citizenship to children (of US citizen parents) born in the canal zone until almost a year after his birth (at which point citizenship was automatically retroactively granted to everyone who met those criteria).
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 1:34 pm
One reason is that section 1 of Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
. . . doesn’t use the phrase “natural-born citizen,” while the Constitution does. To me, this implies a distinction.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 1:38 pm
The Senate passed a resolution about McCain with no force in law–not a law. In any case, I don’t think McCain was eligible, either.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 1:42 pm
Lordy, the framers of the constitution were idiots.
How many aspects of the constitution were written terribly? Almost all of them? How many places does it self contradict?
They could have made a constitution that was easy and simple to read, but that would have meant eliminating vagueness. They couldn’t sell that to all the states. And so we had a civil war and many rights have been trampled over the years, and the supreme court was instantly able to horrendously exceed its mandate and short circuit the amendment process.
This natural born citizen crap wouldn’t be that hard to define if the framers had some sense. “People who are born citizens” or “People who, when born, have a citizen parent”. Or better: ” ” since this is a stupid thing to include in the constitution.
But it’s beside the point when the real question is Obama’s character.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 1:42 pm
Well, we’re talking about people who were not born in the US or subject to the jurisdiction thereof at the time of birth, but who nonetheless were automatically citizens, so i’m not entirely sure why the 14th amendment is even relevant to the question.
Unless you want to say that the point of the 14th amendment was to define ‘natural born citizen’, in which case I would have expected it to use the phrase ‘natural born citizen’.
My impression is that there were two points to section 1 of the fourteenth amendment: to say that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen, and to say that anyone who is a US citizen is automatically a citizen of the state in which he resides … ie, to undo the penumbras of Dred Scott.
It wasn’t intended in any way to address the question of natural born citizenship under Article 2; if it had been, it would have said so.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 1:43 pm
Lordy, the framers of the constitution were idiots.
I disagree. They were very smart, and very successful.
We’ve got the oldest written constitution in the world. That says something.
Comment by aphrael — 8/6/2009 @ 1:45 pm
Juan #307:
The fact that this would be a rare case doesn’t give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction. The procedural laws regarding jurisdiction determine which court has original jurisdiction and I don’t think this would be one of those cases. In other words, I don’t think the Supreme Court has original (i.e., trial court) jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an elected American official’s eligibility to hold office. At most, it might have appellate jurisdiction.
BTW, despite what someone said above, the Supreme Court didn’t have original jurisdiction in Bush v Gore either. The Supreme Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction in that case.
Comment by DRJ — 8/6/2009 @ 1:50 pm
of course we’ve been told that and a lot of people buy it. We’re supposed to believe these men were awesome people when they weren’t screwing their slaves and writing them up as a little more than half a person.
but it’s a load of crap. Read the damn thing. It’s inferior to other writings of its era. I could have been written much better, but the men were too weak to stand up for what they claimed to believe in.
We had a civil war directly as a result of this document. Federalism died as a result. We still use the same text, but it’s lost its basic federalist meaning and is a failure.
It doesn’t mean anything that it’s old. Almost all the important parts of it have been completely ignored or misread. That wasn’t necessary, and you or I could do a better job writing a constitution.
A constitution has to be amended to be changed… or it’s so impossible to read that it can be amended by misreading it.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 1:51 pm
DRJ, exception doesn’t mean rare. It means an exception.
I think it’s likely this case would never be heard anyway, but it’s impossible to predict how it would be handled. Who ousts a president for something like this? I don’t think anyone knows exactly how it would happen. Does that mean I’m saying the Supreme Court would be a trier of fact? Of course now… that’s why I never said that. I said we just don’t know what would happen.
I suspect greatly that, no matter what was on his birth certificate (almost certainly honolulu), the court would find a way to avoid a disaster by lying about the meaning of legal terms. They’ve been doing that 100% of the time the supreme court has existed. See Marbury v Madison.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 1:53 pm
It wasn’t intended in any way to address the question of natural born citizenship under Article 2
Exactly. So there’s one group of people born in the USA called citizens, while Article II calls for a natural-born citizen. Just saying.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 1:53 pm
Maybe they were banning C section babies after reading too much Shakespeare.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 1:57 pm
Juan,
I’m sorry. I was initially discussing this with POA and I guess I pulled you into our discussion, too. I’ll try not to do that again.
Comment by DRJ — 8/6/2009 @ 1:59 pm
In any event, Juan, while it’s hard to predict eventual outcomes, I think it’s much easier to predict how the jurisdictional rules would apply.
Comment by DRJ — 8/6/2009 @ 2:00 pm
America is a great nation despite its government.
That’s always been the point.
Democracy (representative or otherwise) is the worst form of government except for all the other forms. Our heroic leaders were playing games when they wrote this document. We praise it, I swore to defend it a long time ago when I enlisted, and everyone pretends it’s a great model.
but it’s not imitated. We don’t even imitate it when we build a new republic. We know better.
We can and should do better, and hold a constitutional convention to start over. What we have right now simply isn’t working or sustainable. Everything great about America is despite the ‘federal’ government. I take tremendous pride in being an American, but I really am ashamed of our constitution.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 2:03 pm
DRJ, I think you’ve got a great point of view and are an extremely intelligent commentator (that sounds patronizing but isn’t meant that way). I just think this is such a silly way to argue about whether or not we should see whatever we want to of Obama’s.
Why does it matter what Natural Born Citizen means? It doesn’t. We should see this information regardless of if it’s likely to oust the guy (which it simply won’t, even if it says Obama was born in hell and is the spawn of the devil).
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 2:05 pm
I tried reading all of this earlier and it gave me a headache. They want you folks to argue about this. Or mobs. Or swastikas. I put on some Josh Groban, and this was easier to read.
Comment by JD — 8/6/2009 @ 3:02 pm
HAHAHA, JD
You’re right… I’m sure the left loves that folks like me and folks like SPQR are spending their time thinking about this and not directing their energies in some politically productive way.
Personally, I don’t care what they like. They can pretend this is a game, but in the long run, people who sincerely care about being informed and expect transparency, and aren’t afraid to get into sticky debates, will come out ahead.
After all, Obama’s popularity wanes because he’s produces poor results. he’s played the game very well and the media has smeared his opponents beautifully, but who cares?
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 4:24 pm
You have been reported to flag@whitehouse.gov
Comment by JD — 8/6/2009 @ 4:29 pm
#309
You have made a common error interpreting the 14th amnedment. All people born in the US are not citizens. The key phrase is children whose parents are under the jurisdiction of the US government. For this reason many categories of people are excluded. As the drafter of the 14th amendment pointed out the amendment never intended or said that anyone born in the US was entitled to citizenship. This is why crewmen, diplomats, and others are not eligible for citizenship based on birth.
Article I also defines native born as opposed to citizen which may assist you against the uber troll SQPR and the others who cannot grasp the distinction between citizenship and native born.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/6/2009 @ 4:40 pm
Can anything demonstrate better the idiocy of SPQR than his claim there is no legal requirement to demonstrate native birth? Why bother to have such a requirement in the Constitution then?
To people with the IQ of SPQR the Constitution remains a mere obstacle, to be observed when he feels like it.
But so many readers here are just so stupid compared to his towering ego.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/6/2009 @ 4:44 pm
JCurtis: Everyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.
OK. I can go with that. Under current law
Your legislative statutes can’t determine natural born status. If they could, they could be revoked. Do you think natural born citizen status is revokable?
Persons who are born to American parents abroad are instantly naturalized at birth but not natural born ( 1795 Naturalization Act ).
Those who are born to non American parents on US soil aren’t any kind of citizen until the parents become naturalized. ( 1795 Naturalization Act ). Regardless of whether they brought the kids with them or created them once they got here. ( Had there been any confusion about the latter, the 14th Amendment took care of that…)
The 14th Amendment says the same thing and clarifies in the debate that the person must be “full and complete” jurisdiction to be born American. That is, both parents must be US citizens and the person born on US soil for that person to be natural born.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/6/2009 @ 5:23 pm
“Those who are born to non American parents on US soil aren’t any kind of citizen until the parents become naturalized. . .
What about United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
“In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 5:47 pm
No, jcurtis, the 14th amendment does not “clarify” anything with respect to the term “natural-born citizen”. It does not address the subject at all.
Ah, I see Thomas Jackson has abandoned his references to the First Amendment for references to the Article I. Unfortunately, Jackson the constitutional expert is still lost. Article I does not reference the qualifications for President.
Thomas, a hint: if you want to sling insults at me, you’ll look much more impressive as a constitutional scholar if you actually … you know … learned something about where in the US Constitution you are referencing. You have not got it right to date.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 7:42 pm
SPQR again demonstrates how ignorant he is. He cannot understand nor grasp the clear definition of who becomes a citizen by virtue of birth in the USA. If you therefore adopt SPQR’s viewpoint you know the Constitution was referring to the Roman Empire and not the USA.
The key phrase is jurisdiction as OID in comment 349 points out.
But despite all the evidence, despite Article I which also defines native birth, we get the same moonbattery that distinguishes the truly ignorant or truly deluded.
Everyone here is out of step except for SPQR and his new found allies, the tinhat brigade.
Its amazing that someone continues to bray so loudly and pull nons4nse out of his ass.
Cmon SPQR we’re all waiting for you to support your bombast with something other than third grade braying?
One grows bored of SPQR’s spittle. I understand a poll conducted by the NY Times found most people believe in the following before anyone could take SPQR’s ranting seriously:
A Cosmic Donut
B Obama’s kevorkianhealthcare plan
C Dancing Monkeys singing “We’re off to see the Wizard”
D Bill Clinton visiting a home for unwed mothers to pay his respects
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 8/6/2009 @ 8:40 pm
Still can’t get it right, Thomas? You refer to spittle but that is obviously projection. Article I does not define “native birth”. No more than the First Amendment did.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 8:44 pm
Juan,
I think we’re talking apples and oranges. To me, whether Obama is a citizen is separate from the jurisdictional issue I addressed.
Comment by DRJ — 8/6/2009 @ 8:45 pm
Here’s a hint, Thomas. It is Article II that defines the qualifications for President. The closest Article I gets to the issue is to assign the power of legislation on the topic to Congress.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 8:47 pm
SPQR – I admire your patience.
Comment by JD — 8/6/2009 @ 8:56 pm
JD, I’m just about to bust a rib laughing at Thomas Jackson’s incompetence while trying and failing to insult me.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 8:59 pm
To me, whether Obama is a citizen is separate from the issue of whether or not the birth certificate should be explored.
And therefore, any argument saying that Obama’s citizenship doesn’t require this document is irrelevant. And the pedantic discussions about the laws on Hawaii, the jurisdictional issues, the standing, the mootness, the definition of natural born citizen versus citizen, the clauses and laws and all that…it’s all a red herring. we should see the document because it matters. Even if Obama can legally live with the truth.
But regardless, I think there’s a possibility the surpreme court would analyze facts in this case in the unlikely event this came to a trial at all.
Comment by Juan — 8/6/2009 @ 9:15 pm
Juan, just as a hypothetical, why do you think the certificate matters? If it came to trial ( something that simply will not happen ), and for reasons that I do not believe are true either Obama has to prove birth in Hawaii, then why can’t Obama show up with a witness – just for giggles say a nurse from the delivery room – to testify that she saw Obama’s mother in Hawaii on his birthdate, and saw Obama pop out.
Comment by SPQR — 8/6/2009 @ 9:20 pm
I’d like to see the birth certificate because Obama won’t release it, plus it’s the kind of personal document other Presidential candidates typically release when the contents are called into question. That makes it politically relevant, but its political relevance is separate from its “pedantic” jurisdictional relevance. However, I don’t see why it’s a bad thing to be simultaneously interested in political and pedantic issues.
Comment by DRJ — 8/6/2009 @ 9:33 pm
Jeez, Louise. 357 comments?
Let this pig go. I really don’t care about Obama’s birth certificate.
This ain’t the battle — or the war.
Comment by Ag80 — 8/6/2009 @ 9:46 pm
But wait, there’s more!
“Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state’s lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate. . . .his bill is aimed at “givng citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. “
(snip)
“. . .the Hawaiian Department of Health declined to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form “Certification of Live Birth,” posted online – one image produced by the Obama campaign and the other produced by FactCheck.org.
Okubu also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release in her position as chief of the health department last October and subsequent press release on July 27 avoided declaring the posted images to be authentic documents.”
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/6/2009 @ 11:24 pm
347
Ark, Elg, and whatever followed the 14th Amendment and chose to disregard its meaning, is a whole nother story.
If Scotus can totally disregard the Constitution, it becomes worse than worthless because we can’t change it and are forced to live with rulings that are designed to destroy the country.
What is the point of a new amendment if that is the case? Would we just state the Citizenship Clause again followed by the words “and this time we mean it!”?
When they say the Constitution is flexible and rulings that totally disregard the meaning of the words in the Constitution should be maintained as some principle of not disturbing precedent, it’s time to set the evil piece of paper on fire.
Comment by jcurtis — 8/7/2009 @ 9:54 am
I guess it’s not a problem! But it certainly is pedantic. Look at SPQR’s recent comment about a witness at a trial.
He’s trying to carry on the debate in a polite manner, but the trial is completely irrelevant to me. Obama is hiding the document… that’s why it matters. It doesn’t matter that Obama obviously could get a million people to say they were in the room and saw him born in any city Obama wanted them to say he was born in.
It’s pedantic in the extreme, and it has overwhelmed a very simple point. These threads are so full of outrage and ugliness and people trying to prove the other side is wrong by arguing about things that appear to be irrelevant.
Some people are way too touchy about the legal issues. There is no law when it comes to a matter like this. I wish there was, but Mccain and Obama are above the law.
Comment by Juan — 8/7/2009 @ 3:56 pm
In other words, we should all just get along and this discussion of legal issues should not be ‘you’re an idiot who knows nothing because subsection 2342341234 says this and constitutional scholars thing this jurisdictional whosiwhatsit bla bla bla’
It’s the tone that has permeated this topic that I’m complaining about. Both sides. And probably deliberately by people who want this topic to become unpleasant. If everyone were as nice as DRJ if would be fun to delve into the pedantic. But instead… see this thread.
Comment by Juan — 8/7/2009 @ 4:06 pm
Heh.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/9/2009 @ 9:30 pm
Frankly, that just proves to me that his Hawaiian BC is legit.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/9/2009 @ 9:32 pm
And we all know the National Enquirer couldn’t be believed when it did the original reporting on John Edwards’ love child. . . oh, wait.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/9/2009 @ 10:07 pm
And if that image was of the Enquirer, you’d have a shot there…
Sadly, it’s the Globe, genius. And as far as the NE goes, even a broke watch is right twice a day…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/9/2009 @ 10:20 pm
Scott,
So why doesn’t he show it? Make it available to ten Republican Lawmakers – leaders in congress for privste examination?
Yes he has a foriegn father, not since the civil war has this occured –
Or do we just not collectively care because its awkward
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 8/10/2009 @ 6:06 am
Are you saying the story would be legitimate only if and when it appears, above the fold, on the front page of a well-respected, authoritative newspaper like the Los Angeles Times? . . oh, wait.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 8/10/2009 @ 7:18 am
Wow. That’s a lot of comments.
It would seem to me that, since the Constitution forbids any ex-post-facto laws, that such a law would hardly provide grounds for impeachment, but would perhaps pose an obstacle in a re-election bid.
I’ve quoted you and [object].
[note: fished from spam filter]
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 8/30/2009 @ 1:06 pm