The Jury Talks Back

12/8/2008

I Hope It’s Not Inflammatory Even to Ask …

Filed under: Uncategorized — Not Rhetorical @ 12:32 am

I know the Obama birth certificate outcry hasn’t gotten traction here. And obviously the Palin pregnancy conspiracy theory hasn’t gotten traction, coming as it does from the other side (and from Sullivan, of course).

But for those of you who *do* think either issue is at least semi-legitimate (a la the argument “If there’s nothing to these rumors, why doesn’t he/she just produce the records already and squelch them?”): What is the difference, if any? Besides the fact that Obama is going to be president, I mean. Do you see a difference, other than that? Or do you think both of them should turn over the documents to put the questions to rest?

12 Comments

  1. Andi is the other side. As much as I wished Barry would lose, he didn’t and we need to accept that. Drop the conspiracy stuff please guys!

    Comment by Dawnsblood — 12/8/2008 @ 1:18 am

  2. To the best of my knowledge, Governor Palin did produce the medical records as well as giving permission to the attending doctors to speak to the press. Also, other people have testified about the facts and circumstances. Finally, the fact that her daughter, who the theorists think is the child’s real mother, is pregnant and was pregnant prior to the child’s birth is proof positive that the child is not the daughter’s.

    In the case of President-Elect Obama, the Certificate of Live Birth, which is the only document that has been released to the public, is not the birth certificate and can be and has been issued to individuals born elsewhere.

    What I can’t understand is why the President-Elect has not settled this matter. The simple release of his birth certificate should end all disputes.

    Comment by longwalker — 12/8/2008 @ 4:02 am

  3. In the case of President-Elect Obama, the Certificate of Live Birth, which is the only document that has been released to the public, is not the birth certificate and can be and has been issued to individuals born elsewhere.

    Here’s my take…

    The Certificate of Live Birth is on it’s own enough proof. It states that it is prima facie evidence of birth where the document lists. End of story. It becomes the other side’s problem to prove that the document is not genuine. They could prove it is a forgery, or as I suspect will be the case, contact every delivery room on the island of Oahu and then show that none of them have a record of the mother giving birth there.

    From there, the document could be called into question.

    For the most part, however, I don’t think it will happen, and Sen Obama will on the 20th of January become President Obama.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 12/8/2008 @ 7:35 am

  4. I agree with longwalker.

    As to Gov. Palin being the birth-mother of Trig, which I never doubted, the very question itself is irrelevant to whether Gov. Palin would be Constitutionally qualified to be Vice President.

    As for the President-Elect, however, his birth certificate is relevant whether he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. I have seen conflicting stories whether the COLB is a forgery. Thus, I think it is a fair issue that could be settled once and for all by releasing a valid Birth Certificate.

    That said, I’m not necessarily convinced that he wasn’t born in this country. But the absolute evasiveness of the incoming President-Elect makes me suspicious. I’m a federal employee, and citizenship was something I was required to prove to obtain my job. I find it rather odd that someone seeking the highest executive position in the USG isn’t required to make such a simple disclosure.

    Comment by 509th Bob — 12/8/2008 @ 8:14 am

  5. I think the constitutional question of ‘What is a natural-born citizen’ is an interesting one.

    And, as several people have shown, the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ document can perfectly legally have different information on it than the long-form Birth Certificate. Such as in the case of an adoption, which we know Obama to have had. Even if the document is genuine according to all pertinent laws (and I assume it is), the long-form Birth Certificate could have different information on it.

    The two of them together make for the perfect opportunity for the Supremes to weigh in on an otherwise rarely-touched clause.

    Comment by luagha — 12/8/2008 @ 10:08 am

  6. I think that 509th Bob hit the nail on the head, in that one issue impacts the job saught, while the other does not. Given the contemporaneous birth announcement in the Honolulu papers, I don’t think there is an issue here, except that of transparency as 509th Bob also brings up.

    Remember, McCain and Palin both released full medical records, while neither Obama nor Bill Clinton ever released theirs; they each released only a one-page statement saying they were “healthy”. And Kerry, though promising to do so, never released his military records.

    Compare and contrast.

    Comment by Sparrow — 12/8/2008 @ 1:03 pm

  7. Sorry, “sought”. I should have proofed before I posted!

    Comment by Sparrow — 12/8/2008 @ 1:04 pm

  8. I may be covering some of the same ground covered above.
    The differences between the Palin/Trig birth issue and the Obama birth issue are HUGE.

    The only thing that the Palin/Trig birth issue may reflect on is Palin’s character. Assuming only for the sake of argument that Palin is not Trig’s birth mother, some people may think that speaks favorably of her character, and others may think the opposite. But, nothing about Trig’s birth would LEGALLY disqualify Palin from being president.

    Obama’s birth issue may reflect on his character AND on whether he is LEGALLY disqualified from being president. Assuming only for the sake of argument that Obama were born in Kenya, and assuming that Obama has knowingly suppressed or lied about this information, then that would likely reflect badly on his character. (Lying about or suppressing this information would certainly not reflect positively on his character.) And, if he were born in Kenya (or almost anywhere else outside of the USA), Obama might or might not be LEGALLY disqualified from being president.

    So, digging into the Palin/Trig birth issue could not lead to a conclusive result on the issue of whether or not Palin could serve as president, while the Obama birth issue could lead to a conclusive result regarding whether or not he could serve as president.

    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution sets forth the following:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    In our hypothetical, Obama is assumed to have been born in Kenya. Yet, he still may be a “natural born citizen.”

    Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth the following (pay attention to the bolded words):

    NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
    SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    (g) 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

    So, if Obama were born in Kenya, his being LEGALLY qualified to be president would depend on (i) his mother’s being a USA citizen, and (ii) her having been physically present in the USA a sufficient period of time prior to Obama’s birth. If she was a USA citizen, which no one seems to dispute, and if she had been in the USA the required amount of time before Obama’s birth, which also seems to be disputed by no one, Obama is a citizen of the USA “at birth” even if he were born in Kenya.

    As far as I can tell (though I am open to being corrected), being a citizen “of the United States at birth” is the same thing as being a “natural born citizen” and Obama would not be LEGALLY disqualified from being president.

    Comment by Ira — 12/8/2008 @ 1:25 pm

  9. The issue of whether or not being a citizen “of the United States at birth” is the same as “natural born citizen” under the Constitution is briefly discussed in this article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

    Comment by Ira — 12/8/2008 @ 1:51 pm

  10. Even if they show the full birth certificate, someone will claim it’s faked, or that it doesn’t mean what it says, or that they need the footprints released (and/or that those are faked, too) or that the President-elect isn’t really Barack Obama or that he needs to prove he’s not a space alien, or….

    This kind of conspiracy fetish knows no bounds.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 12/9/2008 @ 8:37 am

  11. The birth certificate should be as, if not more scrutinized than the TANG memos.

    As for conspiracy theorist, they, like the poor, shall always be among us. However, there are also among us, those who would like to see that the Constitution is respected and followed by the man soon to be sworn to uphold it. We deserve respect from that man, as much as he deserves respect as our President.

    Right now, that respect is only going one way, as long as the birth certificate is not only, not released, but actively blocked by a very highly paid flock of legal eagles.

    Same for his college records, scholarship, articles written, interviews, naming his ghost author, medical records – is he cocaine free? we don’t know – all we can do is hope, investments & financial records, tax shelters in the Grand Caymans, rent controlled apartments while living in NY, passports he traveled under, persons in countries hostile to the United States that he visited, clients lists, foreign donors, et cetera.

    In other words, all the stuff that any other politician would be required to release for proper vetting. Heck, it’s nothing more than the same kind of information that the Obama transition team is asking everyone coming to them for a job, to hand over.

    Rules for thee, but not for me.

    Comment by Adriane — 12/9/2008 @ 1:12 pm

  12. Obama has not done one thing to prove he is a natural born citizen. Someone may say – he put his COLB on the internet. Not good enough. He needs to present it to a court, the higher the better, to prove that his COLB is legitimate. He’s never done that. If the court says they want the original long form – all the better. But we could at least start with the COLB. So far, Obama will not do that.

    Why?

    Comment by Colorado — 12/9/2008 @ 1:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.