Why is Obama objecting to proving that he was a natural born American citizen? It's a specific constitutional requirement to serve a president.

I assume that he has a passport of some kind - tourist, official duty or diplomatic. The first passport issued requires primary or secondary evidence of citizenship.

Sorry,

I meant "as" president

Apparently, the copy of his Certificate of Live Birth that he has made public, as well as other evidence, is evidence enough for the SCOTUS to decline to hear the case in question. Keep in mind that it would only require four Justices to decide to hear the case. Obviously, not all four of the conservative Justices agreed to proceed with this case.

This article on Fox News settles it for me:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/08/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-obamas-citienship/

In my opinion, if there were even a hint of truth to these allegations that Obama isn't a natural borm citizen, surely the Republican National Committee would have brought this to light well before the election. In fact, I'm quite sure that they DID investigate this matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen of the USA.

In other words, if they had any evidence at all that he isn't a natural born citizen and did not bring that evidence forward before the election, that would imply a conspiracy at the highest levels of the leadership of the Republican Party as participants in the largest campaign fraud in American History.

I simply can not imagine that the Republican Party and its leadership, knowing full well that ALL of the major polls showed that Obama was likely to win this election, would have swept under the rug any evidence that would have disqualified him from actually becoming president under the provisions set forth in the Constitution. It just ain't logical that the Republicans would have been part of a conspiracy to help a Democrat get elected who wasn't qualified. Think about that for a moment.

Furthermore, I have yet to hear of even ONE Republican Congressman, Senator, or candidate for federal office question the status of Obama's citizenship, much less provide one shred of evidence that he is anything other than a ....natural born citizen of the United States of America.

From what I understand from various legal sources, including my brother who is a very conservative federal criminal defense attorney, The SCOTUS has never actually ruled on what it means to be a natural born citizen. Many of us, myself included, have always interpreted that to mean that a person is actually born in the United States or one of its territories.

Article II, Section 1 says in part:

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.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never ruled on what that actually MEANS. Just because you or I THINK that it means a particular thing doesn't make it so. Under our system the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means.

I wish that the Court would rule on this question, the definition of "natural born citizen" and settle it once and for all.

Respectfully,

Dude

I agree with most of what you post Dude, but why do you think Obama does not clear the matter?

PS: I think you give the Republicans too much credit. They gave Obama the biggest pass in political history by not using the Rev Wright issue. Why would you then expect them to go after Obama's birth location?

There's a big difference between the Wright issue and the citizenship issue. Whatever his association with Wright was, that would not Constitutionally disqualify him from the office of the Presidency. In fact, many Republicans did use Wright against him. But, they weren't able to convince enough voters that it mattered.

On the other hand, if the Republican Leadership had any evidence at all that Obama's legal status as a natural born US citizen was in question, surely they would have pursued that. As I stated earlier, I imagine that they did do so and came to the conclusion that these rumors were just that, rumors.

I think that Obama HAS cleared the matter. I think that he has provided all the documents that the law requires and that most reasonable people would expect. Thus far, the courts seem to be satisfied that he's a natural born citizen.

Irregardless of what other evidence that he or his campaign might produce in the future, there will still be people who won't believe it.

If I were him I wouldn't produce any further evidence either, unless the courts ruled otherwise. If anyone has credible evidence showing that he's not a natural born citizen, they can certainly pursue in the courts. In fact, they should.

Question for Smarty: What evidence do you have that Obama is a Marxist? The man became a millionaire by being a Capitalist! He wrote two books that sold very well. That ain't Marxism.

Dude

"If I were him I wouldn't produce any further evidence either, unless the courts ruled otherwise"

I disagree. If there is any question as to his eligibility he owes it to the country to come forth with the proof. Otherwise the appearance smells as if there is something to hide. It's certainly not too much to ask of any candidate.

"I disagree. If there is any question as to his eligibility he owes it to the country to come forth with the proof. Otherwise the appearance smells as if there is something to hide. It's certainly not too much to ask of any candidate."

That's my point. The question has been answered. He has come forth with the proof to satisfy the SCOTUS. The burden of proof is now on anyone who claims to have evidence to the contrary.

There's another case coming up dealing with this same issue, soon. It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out.

Dude, he has not come forth with proof to satisfy SCOTUS. SCOTUS has not decided on that, only that they would not review the case. If I'm incorrect, please explain.

Thanks

I can see a few reasons for Obama to let this fester. One, he doesn't think it's worth the time to address. Two, he knows it will drive the conspiracy theorists even crazier, and all opposition to him can be tarred with that brush. Third, there is some detail in the actual certificate that might be personally embarrassing to him, the two that occur to me being his birth name is something mundane like "Barry" or his mother's status is single.

Myself, I like the third reason the best. Obama is a self made man - his entire public persona has been carefully crafted to project the image he wants us to see. His kind of narcissism can't permit any contrary evidence.

Forget the birth certificate - I'd like to know more about his college years. How he can have slipped through Columbia and Harvard without leaving any trace baffles me. Where did he live, what did he do, who did he hang out with - hell, after eight years of the media digging up everybody who sat near Bush 43 in college, why isn't there any interest in this impenetrable smoke screen Obama's shrouded his early years in?

Dude Carl Marx wrote a book too!

Let me see. The new leader doesn't have to meet the same requirements that I did to get the clearances that I have for my job, oookay. And lots of folks are good with that.

Thank you for this, the silliest post I have read today.

Do you really think the "conspiracy theorists" who contemplate what you accuse them of contemplating, will be rendered intelligent and sane by the release of a birth certificate?

Can you not possibly imagine what their reaction to that would be? Does it not occur to you that, being consipiracy theorists, lunatics, "nut-barz," maniacs, Wing Nutz (tm), right-wing cranks, and insane persons, they will find--in half a second--reasons for rejecting the legitimacy of any proof Obama or anyone else they decide they "fear" would offer?

Does it never occur to you that any conspiracy theorist worthy of the name would instantly attribute the "proof" you demand, and those involved in providing it, to their involvement in an even greater and more heinous conspiracy?

Don't you and your supporters know anything about the real world?

Have you ever argued with a mentally ill individual? As Tommy Lee Jones says in Men in Black: "Try it."

emdfl, it's not that we're okay with it, at least not in my case (I can't speak for anyone else)... it's just that there are a lot more substantive grounds to challenge Obama on.

To be blunt, tilting at this particular windmill makes people look a lot like the "9/11 truthers" or the Ross Perot followers who feared "Black Helicopters." And, as was mentioned earlier, one possible reason Obama is letting it stay alive is because he can thus paint any opposition to him as the same sort of nincompoop conspiracy theories.

To put it another way, for the last 8 years the lefties have been floating every sort of cockamamie theory about Bush... do we really wanna follow their way of doing things?

You can if you want, but I'll take another path, thanks.

Let's set some givens:

I do not like Barrack Obama.

I am sorry that he has apparently won the election.

I think the world will be a very dangerous if the Electoral College fails to elect him President.

I do not think it matters now what facts come to light, thje troofers will not be convinced, so we need to learn to treat them the way we treat the Dec. 7, 9/11, and JFK troofers. My selection is to ignore them as best I can.

Heh. See how good at them I am getting? I didn't even think to mention Timmy Egan and Andrew the drooler.

Now. My question is this:

About the "vault copy". I tought that by definition almost that could not be released by anybody. I know I can't get mine from Los Angeles County.

All I can get is a Certificate of Live Birth which, my understanding is, attests to the fact that some important person went to "the vault", read the thing, copied some information from it, and then swore that the information was a true copy.

Even if it turns out that Obama's birth certificate is legitimate, he shouldn't be president as he's going to do away with the 2nd amendment. Until he can prove that he isn't, by resigning the office, patriots will be fervently opposed to his administration and will withdraw from the union, posthaste. No real constituent of the Heartland can acknowledge a Marxist as our president as it is anathema to the very ideals of the USA of America.

Unfortunately, Rugged, he can't be legally disqualified for that. But I really doubt he'll be re-elected... he simply can't live up to his campaign hype.

"Rugged in Montana" is actually "Effete in Honolulu."

Please ignore the troll.

What you're saying is that Obama should kowtow to every demand made by the lunatic fringe right because not doing so increases the chance that said fringe will try to assassinate him? That's disgusting.

It's very simple: Obama has proven his US citizenship several times over. His Hawaiian birth has been corroborated by multiple sources. This controversy exists only in the fevered imaginations of the insane, and no amount of evidence will ever satisfy them.

I'm not saying you should stop your heroic investigations though, Owens. It's a pleasure to watch the right-wing work themselves into a frenzy over this. It keeps you scamps out of any real mischief.

Wrong again, Bob. I'm Effete in Honolulu, and I've never even been to Montana.

Jrod, you do know that the core that have been pushing this from teh very beginning are from the lunatic fringe Left, don't you?

Larry Johnson and TexasDarlin at No Quarter have been to prime pushers behind this and other Obama conspriacy theories (Michelle Obama's nonexistent "Whitey tape," the Selective Service Registration, etc), and Berg, one of the Truthers pushing the case dumped today, held office as a Democrat.

This is a PUMA story, SadlyNauts, coming from your side of the aisle. Some far right truthers have embraced it, but it is certainly yours.

By all means, embrace the crazy that emerged from your eight years of BDS.

Barack Obama should respect those serving in his White House and those charged with guarding his life enough to sign the release form and make the vault copy of his birth certificate public.

This is about as lame as such arguments can possibly get.

Put the conspiracy theorists out of business, Mr. Obama.

Right! And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you! Nothing will put wingnut conspiracists out of business--at least not until we start herding them into the re-education camps.

I'd like to see Obama forced to release his birth certificate if only because I think he's an arrogant jack*** and I'd like to see him taken down a notch.
That being said I wish this whole thing would go away. It's like the saying about trying to get a pig to sing. You will wear yourself out without accomplishing anything and you'll just annoy the pig.

Jrod, you do know that the core that have been pushing this from teh very beginning are from the lunatic fringe Left, don't you?

This is a PUMA story, SadlyNauts, coming from your side of the aisle. Some far right truthers have embraced it, but it is certainly yours.

By all means, embrace the crazy that emerged from your eight years of BDS.

Yet you embrace it yourself and actually give arguments in favor of it. You wholeheartedly support the notion and, in the same thread, ridicule it as "crazy" and the result of BDS.

Which is it?

Rick: I don't know enough about the law to really answer your question in regards to what the SCOTUS actually decided today, other than that they decided not to hear the case. It's my understanding that only 4 of the 9 Justices would have had to agree to proceed with the case. They declined without comment.

Steve Skubinna: I haven't given much thought to Obama's college years. However, I wouldn't say that he "slipped through Columbia and Harvard without leaving any trace". He was, afterall, the editor of the Harvard Law Review. One doesn't "slip through" Harvard and become the editor of the Law Review.

Rich in KC: Ahhhhhhh, how could I have missed that connection?! Karl Marx wrote a book. Obama and a gazillion other people have written books. Now, I got it. They're all Marxists!

Conservative-Wanderer: Agreed. If you don't like him or don't trust him (or both), challenge him on more substantive grounds. The folks who are beating this citizenship issue to death remind me of some of my fellow liberal friends (a bit more to the left than I), mind you. I have to remind them that Michael Moore isn't a journalist!

Whomever you are: Do you actually understand what would be required "to do away with the 2nd amendment?" You make it sound as if amending the Constitution is an easy thing to do.

Johnson and the PUMAs are not on my side, Owens. They may call themselves liberals or Democrats, but that doesn't mean they are my allies. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to blame someone else for pushing this story when you yourself are pushing it, right here in this very post?

Also, you ignored the main thrust of my comment. It was an honest mistake, no doubt, so I'll repeat the question for you:

What you're saying is that Obama should kowtow to every demand made by the lunatic fringe right because not doing so increases the chance that said fringe will try to assassinate him?

So you guys are jousting at windmills again I see. Apparently none of you realize that it would not matter what Obama's birth certificate says. If you are born on American soil, you are a natural born American. It makes absolutely no legal difference whether the parents are American or not.
The case before the Supreme Court is challenging Obama's citizenship, but does not deny he was born in Hawaii. That makes him a citizen so clearly that the court would not hear it. Case closed. It was a nonsense case, and asking for his birth certificate is laughable. Don't you bother to check this stuff before you go on a rant?

Jrod, I don't think that asking for someone's birth certificate when citizenship is part of the job requirement is a "lunatic demand," even if it is repetitious considering the COLB release, etc.

When the painless process of producing a source document from an easily accessible and know location would tamp down a great deal of outrage and suspicion from the far left and right, and perhaps prevent a great deal of the insanity we saw from your liberal peers over the last eight years, it seems incumbent on a President who touts himself as "post-partisan" to help put to rest these suspicions.

I think smell thecoffee is right: showing his birth certificate won't change his status. What is will do is marginalize the fringe elements, and lessen hysteria in what has become known as the paranoid style of American politics.

What I cant' quite grasp is why people such as yourself seem so adverse to full disclosure of his records when it would quell most uncertainties and further undermine any other remaining conspiracy theories out there.

Bob

Honest question: since your work gets such prominent coverage at sadlyno, do you sometimes write with an eye towards getting a response from them?

i'm willing to bet you enjoy it. i bet you laugh.

Owens, Obama has fully disclosed his birth records. That's what the certificate of life birth is: a birth certificate. It contains all the pertinent information from the "vault copy." It has been confirmed as accurate by the state of Hawaii and factcheck.org. Hawaii does not make copies of the "vault" certificate, and they obviously aren't going to give out the actual piece of paper they have for their records. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the state, because that wasn't Obama's doing. Obama's birth was announced in a local Honolulu paper. He was born in Hawaii to an American woman. He is an American citizen. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

For the nutters who refuse to accept what has already been released, nothing will ever prove Obama's citizenship. If Hawaii gives in to their demands and copies the long-form certificate, something they have never done before, the nuts will complain that they haven't personally seen the original. If the original is toured around the country for them to see, they'll fall back on the idea that it's fraudulent. They'll demand DNA analysis for the entire Obama clan. When that checks out, they'll demand something else. Your claim that Obama need only release this document (which he's not actually hiding) to "marginalize the fringe elements, and lessen hysteria" is laughable. Those fringe elements are already marginalized, and absolutely nothing will lessen their hysteria.

I ask you again: should Obama do everything these fringe whackjobs demand of him, and if he doesn't, is he responsible for increasing the chance that he will be assassinated? Note that "but but but BDS!" is not an acceptable answer.

Okay, Dude, show us Obama's transcripts. Then tell me he didn't "slip through." A fish moves through water leaving more trace than Obama did through Columbia and Harvard.

When the painless process of producing a source document from an easily accessible and know location would tamp down a great deal of outrage and suspicion from the far left and right, and perhaps prevent a great deal of the insanity we saw from your liberal peers over the last eight years, it seems incumbent on a President who touts himself as "post-partisan" to help put to rest these suspicions.

Sounds good to me. By the above logic, President Bush should have pulled out of Iraq to prevent "insanity" from the left. I don't remember too many calls from the left for the president to get the U. S. out of Iraq because he's ticking us off & putting the Secret Service (& everyone else nearby) in danger.

And surely you understand about the admittedly over-used concept of "projection." This is a transparent, classic case thereof. As well as being on the level of "Nyah, nyah, you did it first!!" But that's forgetting 16 yrs. of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, not to mention Blame Clinton Syndrome, which has been the operating public relations policy of the Bush Admin. for the last eight yrs.

Completely on topic, you might want to suggest to your "far right" friends (we know you're a sensible middle-of-the-roader, you're not threatening anyone, just pointing a few things out) that they inquire into immigration records. After his indoctrination at the Indonesian madrassa, how did Obama get into (or back into, if you insist) the United States? He would have needed a passport, or, if he weren't a citizen, a visa or green card. I'm sure all your crack researchers can get going on that immediately. Maybe you can build a model of the plane or boat in which the messiah came to America, play around w/ it & take pictures to illustrate how he could have sneaked into Honolulu or wherever.

To the archives!!

Sigh.

Obama HAS NOT FOUGHT the releasing of his birth certificate.

He has received and shown his short-form birth certificate, which has been seen and touched in physical reality by factcheck.org and politifact.com, and which has been fully vouched for by the State of Hawaii.

The long-form birth certificate CAN NOT be viewed OR copied for Obama. The State of Hawaii does not make copies of the long-form birth certificates FOR ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON. They do not even have a process in place for it.

This is all in the public record.

This is a filthy post. You should be ashamed of yourself. Paranoia and stupidity are not valid excuses for this garbage. It is time to quit begging for free barbecues and get yourself a decent job.

Ah, the sweet smell of wingnuts burning in the morning.

Please continue to pursue this non-existent issue, it fits you all so well.

More windmills please.

-GSD

I think all rational Republicans should continue to pursue this matter, using every penny and every minute they can drum up for support. This is the most important issue EVAH! And if Republicans succeed, there will be ponies for all!

Meanwhile, us adults will fix health care, the recession, the wars, wages, the credit crunch, and, you know, other not-so-important stuff.

If the result of a successful challenge would be to make Slow Joe Biden president, I say stop the inquiry NOW.

I don,t think the Democrats are that stupid to not have made sure their candidate qualified for the office. Therefore I believe Obama was been born in the USA. However, I also feel if there is any question as to his birth location it should be answered in such a way that will eliminate any doubt. I feel EVERY candidate should PROVE their qualifications and I do not feel that is unreasonable. If the candidate thinks it unreasonable, or cannot prove it, then they should not occupy the office.

I doubt releasing the vault copy will satisfy anyone who is not satisfied with the response of the State of Hawaii at this time. The truthers would then charge that it is a forged birth certificate. There is no way that the allegations can be answered because there is always a new twist to the allegations.

Those who are levelling these allegations ought to be the ones who should be forced to come up with the proof supporting what they allege; Mr. Obama should be under no obligation to respond. Otherwise any nut can raise any allegation and force Mr. Obama to continuously have to prove that the allegations are false.

and that task is impossible when faced with a truther.

So I understand why he doesn't just release the birth certificate - will it end this? No. Then why indulge these paranoids? Why waste the time and energy and money indulging them?

Mikey NTH, there is not much time, money and energy to be wasted in complying with this very reasonable request. In fact, this minor piece of work would be done by others. If it does not end it, at least he can affirm he did it.

So let me get this straight. Because there are racists who want to kill Obama for not being their idea of American, Obama should prove he is their idea of American?

Nice one. Make the president-elect of your country dance to the tune of racists. Now that's going to happen!

Mikey NTH: 'So I understand why he doesn't just release the birth certificate - will it end this? No. Then why indulge these paranoids? Why waste the time and energy and money indulging them?'

well, he has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably some time in NOT indulging them - it would seem cheaper at this point - your metric, cost - to divulge rather than stonewall.

Dude:'Rich in KC: Ahhhhhhh, how could I have missed that connection?! Karl Marx wrote a book. Obama and a gazillion other people have written books. Now, I got it. They're all Marxists!'

Now I know you're just being all sensational and stuff. The proper conclusion from his statement is 'Writing a book does not disqualify one from being Marxist'.. And your rejoinder looks really weak at this point. Perhaps you should have asked for points proving his Marxism, but no, you went for the cheap laugh. Great debate technique.

Rick: 'there is not much time, money and energy to be wasted in complying with this very reasonable request. In fact, this minor piece of work would be done by others. If it does not end it, at least he can affirm he did it.'

If you'll check the comments above, as well as a gadzillion others all over the web, you'll discover that there is NO PROCESS by which Obama can release any birth certificate other than that which he has already released.

So, I guess since there's no way he could make it happen, that your statement about not much time/money/energy wasted getting the document is technically true. If there is zero chance of success, then any time/money/energy expended can't be considered to be expended against that effort.

Unless, of course, you're clinically insane.

Bill and Rick:

I think you may have misread what I wrote. Let me try again: there is nothing Mr. Obama can do satisfy these truthers. Even if he could and did have the vault copy of the certificate brought out for viewing, the next allegation would be that the vault copy was a forgery and that Mr. Obama must prove the authenticity of it.

And if that is done, then on to the next "reasonable request to answer these allegations". There is no answer that can be given to satisfy a truther, ever. There is always a new twist to the allegations, or a new allegation.

I have an idea - why shouldn't those who bring the allegations be the ones to prove that their allegations are correct? They don't believe he was born in Hawaii? Then they should prove that.

So let's see the proof of these allegations, let's see the accuser put up or shut-up.

Wow. It looks like the Liberals/Truthers love to invert the burden of proof. So let me get this right; because they claim that fire can't melt steel, it proves that Obama must never produce his birth certificate?

Non-sequitor in the house.

Did someone eariler demand that CY should sometime "try" to argue with someone who is insane? Um. Have you read any of the Liberal commenters here in the last year? Oh sweet irony.

sjohntucson, so I guess you want me to accept all things posted on the net as fact?

jrod

you are wrong What obamas web site posted was a certification of live birth not a certificate of live birth

It does not have witness or doctors signature. name of hospital, address of parents etc. what was on his website just proves he was born period nothing else.

Mickey NTH, I understand exactly what you mean. Even if your prediction would come true it is not an unreasonable request to see the Vault Copy as this is an important consitutional issue.

Regards to proving the allegations, my understanding is that the ones bringing suit have found no hospital records or witnesses, and the rumor that a birth notice appeared in local paper was not found.

I must say if this regarded George W. Bush the press would be relentless. Dan Rather would probably produce a forged birth certificate from some place like Turkey.

(1) I am not a liberal.

(2) The one's bringing suit have an obligation to provide the evidence. In the event of all evidence being in the hands of a third party, they can subpoena that third party to provide evidence. The third party, Hawaii, has provided the evidence. A state official has provided testimony in written form, attesting that the document exists, it has been seen, and this is the information we release according to state law.

That is sufficient for the courts, under (IIRC) the FRE and state evidence rules. They only way to get past that would be to impeach the state official's testimony. Some evidence would have to be presented to do that, to say that the state official is lying, and I haven't seen any evidence to that. And I wouldn't expect there would be many witnesses about who could testify about a birth that happened in 1961. No reasonable person would expect that testimony, just as no reasonable person would pursue this beyond what the State of Hawaii is legally permitted or required to prove.

(3) Of course if it was G.W. Bush the press would be all over it. With the same results and the same 'dark suspicions'. And? Just because the press went crazy does it mean that crazy is now the standard everyone should have to meet? Is Mary Mapes looking for documentary evidence to support rumors and allegations the new standard?

There are better things to pursue than this.

Mikey NTH, "The third party, Hawaii, has provided the evidence. A state official provided testimony in written form, attesting the document exists, it has been seen, and this is the information we release according to state law"

One question, and I'm out of here. Did the State of Hawaii official testify that a certification of live birth or a certificate of live birth exists?

All I know is that, if somebody came to me for a job and he promised that he was qualified for the job (U.S. citizen and such), but that he didn't have the paperwork on him, I would tell him to bring it when he showed up for his first day of work (if I hired him). If he didn't show up with the proof on his first day of work, I would send him home to get it. I simply wouldn't allow him to work (as by law I cannot) until he provides his Social Security Card and proof of citizenship.

It's that simple. I just want to see his birth certificate in order to know that he is qualified to be President. That's all. The vast majority of candidates (especially if there is _any_ doubt) release such information very early in the campaign. The fact that he hasn't released the information makes me skeptical. However, my skepticism and doubts can simply be laid to rest with the appropriate release of the Birth Certificate. I am sure that there are a lot of other people like myself who simply want the applicant for the job to prove that he is eligible to hold it and, once that is shown, we will be satisfied.