July 31, 2009

HuffPo: Silence the Birthers, By Releasing The Long-Form Original

As time goes on, I'm starting to adopt this position myself.

The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate.

The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it.

So what's the problem here? Release the original and let's be done with this madness.

I truly believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. All available evidence points to this, and there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else. But as time goes on, I'm increasingly amazed that not only is the call to release Obama's original birth certificate being sustained, the cry actually seems to be gaining momentum.

I believe it was wise for the President to ignore the movement when it started because it simply marginalized the Democrats that created the rumor (yes folks, the story originated and was first propagated by Clinton-supporting blogs), and then various Republicans that jumped on board and then took over the fruitless pursuit. But now the controversy—for reasons I simply cannot fathom—has expanded to alarming proportions.

I have to think that it reached—or will soon reach—a state where it becomes more of a problem to ignore those calling to see the document than it is to ignore them.

Officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the original, long-form paper birth certificate filled out at the time of President Obama's birth exists. The President can easily ask them to release a copy of the document to the media to be photographed at high resolution, where it can be posted on news web sites and blogs around the word and debated and parsed, ultimately shutting down all but the most fringe elements of the debate, those that still believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that Ron Paul would have made a good President.

It only takes a phone call. Do this, Mr. President.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 31, 2009 09:53 AM

Look, I think Obama is a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii. What has kept some folks like myself and others interested (as opposed to the kooks who will never be satisfied) is why Obama and the Dems would rather spend tons of money fighting off lawsuits than paying $10 to release the thing. More than likely, it will show his birth at the hospital, but, there will be something embarrassing on it. But, fighting lawsuits does make some folks wonder.

Consider, though: the media and the left clamored for every single document of Bush's. They clamored for every single tiny document relating to McCain's health. And, for his BC. Why should Obama be any different?

Posted by: William Teach at July 31, 2009 10:16 AM

WT, I couldn't agree more. I'm still waiting for John Kerry to come through on his promise to release his full military file.

Tarheel Repub Out!

Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 31, 2009 10:35 AM

I think he was probably born in HI, but I'm still not sure whether that makes him a Natural Born Citizen.

His (claimed) father was a Kenyan citizen, not American. As a result, Obama had British and Kenyan citizenship at birth. Is someone born in those circumstances a natural born citizen? I don't know, and I doubt if anyone else does. I don't think it has been legally defined.

He was adopted by an Indonesian father and claimed Indonesian citizenship on a school record. Does that effect his US citizenship status? I don't know. It would be nice for the courts to clarify.

Apparently, he has been a citizen of (at least) 4 countries. Talk about divided loyalties... Exactly the situation the natural born requirement was intended to prevent.

Interpretation of the Constitution is the purview of the courts. Right now, I think there is no foundation for anyone to claim that he is or is not a natural born citizen, although in the absence of proof to the contrary, we have to assume he is.

Releasing the birth certificate would be a start, but the courts really need to answer these other questions too. The courts need to put this to bed. The president can't.

Posted by: scp at July 31, 2009 10:38 AM

Look, The constitution makes it very clear. release the document. What has everyone upset is he is trying to hide something that is tied to a constitutional requirement to hold office. The choice is simple release the document or leave office. You can't have it both ways. Even our president is not above the law! Almost every day he is cramming down changes that threaten the continue existence of this nation and he won't even answer to the people for a requirement to hold office! This is above arrogance!

Posted by: ken at July 31, 2009 11:13 AM

I'd say he's likely born in HI, however the issue is that other Presidents and candidates have been called on to release personal documents and have done so. Obama however has spent almost $1 million and very likely flexed some political muscle to keep his records sealed. This is what captures the attention and curiosity of the average person.

Combine this with ACORN's voter fraud on behalf of Democrats, suspicious campaign contributions, his associations with unrepentant terrorists & Nazis, unconstitutional acts, the Supreme Court and Congress' abdication of responsibility, attacks on his opponents (Palin) & those that make him look bad (Joe the Plumber), and you've got some very worrisome possibilities.

Posted by: Scott at July 31, 2009 11:19 AM

The same "unbiased" liberals that demanded anything and everything about Bush's documents are now appalled and outraged that ordinary Americans have the gall to question the authenticity of THE GREAT ONE!! Remember not too long ago, the liberal creed was "Due to the seriousness of the charge, we must investigate"???? Remember that liberal circus?? What can be more serious than have a Kenya citizen as President of the United States? I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!

Posted by: Henry at July 31, 2009 11:44 AM

Releasing the birth certificate would go a long way to defusing the situation - "See! The BC says he was born in Hawaii. Therefore he is a citizen."

Then accuse detractors of 'moving goalposts' when they question if he is a Natural Born Citizen.

I do not care.

This is elementary civics - if they taught it in the last twenty years that is

Many knew before / during the primaries that neither McCain nor Obama met the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. McCain addressed the grumblings and Congress formally made their opinion known. Obama kept a low profile and his adoring press obliged.

Too late to do anything about it now.

There is little doubt that one born in the US to (both) citizen parents would be 'natural born', and no one seems to argue (right now) that one born in the US to two alien parents in not. The issue is whether one born in the US to one US citizen parent is 'natural born'.

The real problem is that too many pointy-headed types actually believe this issue falls under the 14th Amendment (1868), search the books for related SCOTUS cases, find one, and use a sledge hammer to force this issue comply with that "precedent". Ta-da!

Remembering American history, it was common for the wife and children to derive citizenship from the husband/father - women rarely would be naturalized they would show their marriage license and husband's BC to prove citizenship. This worked both ways - a US woman would loose her citizenship if she married an immigrant.

So, in historical times, neither of Obama's parents would have been US citizens.

However, that history ended with the 19th Amendment (1920) - to track a woman's right to vote as a right independent from her husband's her citizenship had to be tracked independently as well. By about 1922 women were no longer presumed to derive the same citizenship as the husband. (it wasn't until 1940 that a US woman who lost citizenship by marrying an alien could get it back)

Well, 1940 is not that long ago... just long enough for our grandfathers memories to fade.

Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 11:57 AM

One thing to add, if he was born in Hawaii, everything I have read, case law, law, court rulings, etc, state that he would be a natural born citizen, regardless of his fathers nationality. All that is necessary is to be born in a US State or approved area, such as most US territories. An exeption would be if one or both of the parents were foreign diplomats.

This is why so many illegals cross the border to have the baby in the US. That child, with 2 foreign parents who are breaking US law, is now a natural born US citizen.

Posted by: William Teach at July 31, 2009 11:59 AM

Yes, I do believe he was born in Hawaii, but I also believe there is something on that certificate that he does not want shown...perhaps the name of his real father, or perhaps his race is listed as "white".

What I'd like to see are his college records and who paid for his Ivy-league education.

He certainly has a paper trail that he keeps very well hidden. My question is why?

Posted by: lulu at July 31, 2009 12:10 PM

"One thing to add, if he was born in Hawaii, everything I have read, case law, law, court rulings, etc, state that he would be a natural born citizen, regardless of his fathers nationality."

Everything you have read? Really???

This has been going on for over a year now and I have yet to see a single cite which uses the exact phrase "natural born citizen" is anyone born in the US - it does not appear in USC, CFR, or State's FAM.

One would think with all these cite's you have that maybe, just maybe, someone could reference / link it?

Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 12:13 PM

Hussein won't release the birth record because he is scared for people to see what's on it.

Just ask yourself this question, Would you be ashamed to release your birth record if you were President?

He and his criminal cronies in the rat party are destroying America with corruption.

Posted by: John Steinbeck at July 31, 2009 12:19 PM

The only way Obama could be a Natural Born Citizen, as defined by the writers of the US Constitution, is if Barack Obama Sr. is not his father. Then, he might be eligible, based on who is father is, but he would also be guilty of a huge fraud and civilly liable - the book, all those campaign contributions. Pretty ugly for a Prez, no?

If what is on the cert. does not fit the narrative they've created, it would be very embarrassing and an outright fraud could lead to impeachment. They'll spend millions fighting it. But he won't be able to run in 2012 without producing it. Make sure your state is one of the states that passes a bill demanding all Presidential candidates prove eligibility.

Posted by: gopmom at July 31, 2009 12:27 PM

Perhaps, as some have hinted at, it is not the question of his citizenship that is causing Obama to hide his birth certificate.

It may be something as simple as the fact that when asked who the father was his mother said "unknown".

Posted by: Wolfman George at July 31, 2009 12:36 PM

I am very happy American soldiers are dying again. Afghanistan is a agood place to bury killers of natives.

Posted by: Antonio at July 31, 2009 12:48 PM

Actually, there is another possibility why Barry wouldn't want his BC released.

It sets a precedent.

If you stop and think about it, this whole exercise (withholding personal documents) is a self-inflicted wound. What may have seemed like a good idea early in the game, could turn into a major source of distraction, embarrassment, or worse.

Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.

It's almost like grassroots investigative journalism is taking place. All the dots need to line up. If you get stuck at a dot, start asking questions and making information requests. No answers? Just keep asking. There's more people asking questions now (and probably more on the way), than answering.

The fuel for this fire will always be, "Why do you need to hide records that everybody else has to show? What makes you special?"

As the "Squirm" factor starts to climb, this could become rather humorous.

Posted by: Honda at July 31, 2009 01:07 PM

I have to say I've never been interested in this controversy. Though, now I have some interest because I saw this article at Redstate:
OK, that article suggests that the birth certificate is lost. Doesn't that put the lie to all those folks who've told us they've seen it?
I think birthers need to realize there is not a good ending to this. If BHO wasn't born in HI, then we get Biden (oh joy!) and probably an entire pissed off electorate who are mad at conservatives for pointing out they are dimwits for not listening. No one likes to be proven wrong in public. I'm truly curious about the truth here, but I have no illusions about the damage it would do to find it.

Posted by: Carolynp at July 31, 2009 01:34 PM

Antonio has serious self hate issues and is projecting them upon America. It is only a matter of time until he kills himself. Sad but true.

Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2009 01:40 PM

Birther Movement = BOO HOO

The document our President has produced is the same any of would produce to claim licenses and offices. That birthers require "more" exposes the weakness of the argument.

Because 28% of the country would not believe it if jeebus hisself delivered it to them etched in holy golden tablets.

44 presidents come and go no problem. 45 arrives and it's where are your papers, boy? It's why the GOP enjoys

I suggest you get a Grip. There are much bigger fish to fry. The continuence of illegal Bush-era programs, for example...sending MORE troops to Afghanistan for another...

And you want to choke yourselves on a VALID and LEGAL birth certificate? "Mental Illness" is where this is headed.

Posted by: James at July 31, 2009 01:43 PM

Malkin? Was she elected to something recently?

Buzz off.

The point about multiple citizenships is valid, including the questions about what sort of passport made it possible for his travels to Pakistan when it was forbidden to US citizens.

Answer the questions, Barry.

Posted by: Cindi at July 31, 2009 01:58 PM

Antonio...It is only a matter of time until he kills himself. Sad but true.

You say that as if it is a bad thing, Jeff!

Hopefully, it will be sooner than later and he won't take any innocent bystanders with him.

BTW, Antonio, those 77 virgins are all jewish and they are pissed!

Posted by: Wolfman George at July 31, 2009 02:00 PM

Why release it? Certainly our state-run media would find a way to get a copy of it if a GOP POTUS had done something this opaque. Same with the Columbia records and Obama's health records.

Barry sure likes to hide information that has been demanded of other candidates. It probably is just Barry's nature to hide inconvenient facts that don't jibe with the narrative, since he is so famously thin-skinned. All the more reason to pay people to get that information and release it regardless of Barry's desires.

Time to start paying hardball with these Dim's. It isn't like they are playing under Queensbury rules--more like knife fight rules.

Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 02:01 PM

"All available evidence points to this, and there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else."
Not True! Obama's aunt as well as many others in Kenya insist they were there - in Kenya - when he was born.

"The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama's having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won't allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it."

The state official says she has seen the original certificate and I don't doubt that. I don't believe she said she saw the original Long Form certificate - the one that you HAD to be born in Hawaii to get. Obama's Kenyan born sister has the same certificate that he's trying to pass off as his birth certificate from 1970.

Posted by: eliot at July 31, 2009 02:03 PM

ignore the more profane trolls folks.

I'm slapping the ban hammer on them, and their posts will be gone soon enough.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 31, 2009 02:11 PM

"The roastchilds out of 'the city' in london. you are a stupid american."

I assume you mean "Rothschilds" who are of German, not British heritage you liberal 'tard. As is typical of your ilk you can't argue the facts (you don't know them) so dust off the typical "Trilateral Commission" nonsense about the Jewish Bankers who are behind it all. If that's the best distraction you can muster against the fact that Obama has now spent $1,000,000 not to release a $10 document then the liberals better send someone else.

Posted by: allen99 at July 31, 2009 02:12 PM

Obama has gone to great lengths to sequester most of his past records. That, in addition to falsehoods in his books indicate Obama is a phony, a manufactured person. The mainstream media has gone out of its way to obscure and lay a blanket over Obama’s past. Yet, we know even the most intimate details of Sarah Palin. Does anyone else see anything odd here?

Obama is a manufactured president. Manufactured by the left, sold to the press and adopted by the Democrat party. Obama has lied about who he was and continues to lie about who he is. He states blatant lies about his legislation. One only has to listen to what he says about the current Health Care Bill to realize that.

More and more American people are seeing they have been sold a bill of false goods. There are many things people should know about who this Hope ‘n Change figurine is besides, with certainty, where he was born. Had the Media been doing its job, we would have had an actual informed and open election in 2008.

Posted by: GrayRider at July 31, 2009 02:21 PM

I just went through this birther thing in a separate thread. I'm posting in this thread in response to Druid who asked for some links that define "natural born citizen". Here ya go Druid. Sit back and get ready to do some serious reading. I'll warn you, it's quite the task to read through all of this. Enjoy!

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

The link below will take you directly to the SCOTUS ruling, called the opinion:

This ruling set the precedent, which stands to this day, the conditions that have to be met to be a natural born citizen. Though the Constitution uses the term natural born citizen in describing the qualifications for POTUS, it does not define the term. As another poster mentioned, that has been defined by the Courts.

In summary, NEITHER parent has to be a US citizen in order for their child, born on American soil, to be a natural born citizen.

From the above page you will be able to also view separate links to both the Syllabus and the Dissent of the case.

Unfortunately, I can't find the two cases below on the Cornell Law School's website. So, if you wish to read those cases you'll have labor through the task of reading through The Syllabus, The Opinion and the Dissent of each case. The SCOTUS cases below rely, in part, on the precedence of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in reaching their decisions on these cases, also relevant to this discussion since they ruled that a natural born citizen doesn't lose their citizenship involuntarily.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

In summary, a minor child does not lose their US citizenship when their parents move themselves and the child to a foreign country.

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

SCOTUS ruled that a US citizen's citizenship, even a naturalized citizen, could not be revoked if the citizen held dual citizenship and voted in an election of a foreign country. This decision overruled a previous SCOTUS, Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), ruling that did allow Congress to strip a person of their US citizenship if they had voted in the voted in a foreign election.

In summary, this decision rules that under most circumstances Congress does not the right to strip a person of their US citizenship if they have not voluntarily renounced their citizenship. It eventually led the State Department, begrudgingly, to accept dual and multiple citizenship status of US citizens.

One can, of course, voluntarily renounce their citzenship. One way that they can do so is by taking an oath of citizenship in a foreign nation that requires them to renounce their citizenship in their former country. Another way is to serve in the armed forces of a foreign nation. To the best of my knowledge, President Obama has done neither of those.

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 02:36 PM

He certainly has a paper trail that he keeps very well hidden. My question is why?

Most legends won't stand up to very close scrutiny

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2009 02:39 PM

Nothing the man could do will satisfy the haters and complainers. The birthing issue is rooted in race. Some folks just can't accept a mixed race President of brown color.
Where was all this phony 'socialist' outrage during Bush's reign, and the creation of DHS, TSA, and wiretapping powers, and a bamboozling of 9/11?
Phony outrage by the right wing, built on phony or no polices...

Like Gibbs said, anyone can buy a 15 buck website and spout lies...this is a great article today..,0,622151.story

Posted by: Jonesy at July 31, 2009 02:41 PM

Jonesy - good typical liberal people names (isn't this profiling?) and blame it on Bush.. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!! Let's be really honest here and point a finger where it should be pointed!! If George Washington had done his job we would never have come to this situation!!! Washington should have gotten this straight. He had 8 years. What was he doing??

Posted by: Henry at July 31, 2009 03:10 PM

And anyone born in this country SHOULD be able to produce their $10 original birth certificate when asked.

What the Director of Health said in Hawaii was that she's "reviewed Obama's original birth records in accordance with Hawaii's regulations" (meaning electronically) and assures us he was born in Hawaii.

Being born in Hawaii to one US Citizen parent and one foreign national parent does NOT make Obama a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of the law. He CANNOT fall under the influence of any foreign power.

Posted by: rotarymunkey at July 31, 2009 03:19 PM

It's not hard to fathom why the increase. People are getting desperate to throw this bum out of office before he permanently damages this country. They are literally seeing this country disappear before their eyes.

Myself, I am a lukewarm birther. If I was to bet a months paycheck, I would bet Obama was born in Hawaii. Still, there is a level of curiosity. A what if...?

I think the reason he is hiding it is that something else on the certificate would be embarrassing and possibly incendiary, diluting his political capital and railroading his agenda.

Posted by: Gerald at July 31, 2009 03:30 PM

Say what you will, if he were a NBC, he'd have put it out there by now and it would be over. What else is there to hide, that his real name isn't B.H.O.?

"Every day he allows this circus to continue is another day that he behaves less like the President of the United States facing weird accusations from fringe groups"

Why they're they weird or fringe I have no clue. If had been released a year ago, the whole issue would have been dead a year ago, but he didn't and so it isn't. What else is there to say?

Posted by: xerocky at July 31, 2009 03:30 PM

Henry, In a sense I do agree with you on one thing: I wish that the founders who wrote and the states that ratified the Constitution had indeed defined the term "natural born citizen"! They should have insisted that it be clear. We all know, of course, they they didn't do that, even though they used the term IN the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment made a huge leap in defining the term. Later, SCOTUS opinions have further refined the definition so that now there is no question in the minds of rational, literate people who can read and understand the SCOTUS rulings on the matter.

Still, there's a lot of misinformation and/or deceit on the part of some people. I think that some of it is willful ignorance and some of it is simply good people who don't understand what it means to be a natural born citizen.

For example, many people mistakenly think that one or both parents of a child born on US soil must be US citizens in order for that child to be a natural born citizen. Those folks will still not accept that Obama is a natural born citizen, even if the so called long form BC is released to the public, because they don't understand the definition of the term.

What do you think is the correct definition of the term "natural born citizen"?

Why do you not believe the Republican Governor and the Hawaii Department of Health's public statements that Obama was born in Hawaii?

If this long form BC is released to the public, showing that he was born on August 4, 1961 in the state of Hawaii, will you then accept that President Obama meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen to be POTUS?

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 03:45 PM

rotarymunkey, you keep saying that both parents have to be citizens in order for the child to be a natural born citizen, though that is not the truth.

Can you please provide us with some support to your false claim? Can you show to me SCOTUS rulings that support your opinion? Can you provide us with even one piece of legal evidence supports your false statement, thus, proving me to be wrong.

Remember, name calling and slurs don't count.

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 03:54 PM
I think the reason he is hiding it is that something else on the certificate would be embarrassing and possibly incendiary, diluting his political capital and railroading his agenda.

Or it is only humiliating to Barry and is something the rest of us would yawn over. Fervently ideological people of all stripes are almost Talmudic in how they obsess over minor details and examples of ideological purity.

In a way, I suspect it is something meaningless. Which would be even more revealing of Barry's personality (not that much more is needed).

Who knows though. Speculating is fun.

Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 04:04 PM
Can you please provide us with some support to your false claim? Can you show to me SCOTUS rulings that support your opinion? Can you provide us with even one piece of legal evidence supports your false statement, thus, proving me to be wrong.

facts? you want facts from a conspiracy nut? You dreamer you.

But at least Barry is keeping this alive by refusing to release the long form, so for that I thank rotarymonkey and others of his tribe....

Posted by: iconoclast at July 31, 2009 04:07 PM

My guess is that his birth certificate lists his religion as "Islam",or "none", and that is the reason for the reluctance.

Posted by: Booster at July 31, 2009 04:33 PM

The whole birth certificate thing is puzzling. Presuming he was born in Hawaii, he has nothing to lose by releasing his birth certificate. On the other hand, the birth certificate issue keeps a lot of people distracted from what's going on in Washington. So there is benefit in withholding it. Still, his refusal to release such basic information undercuts his legitimacy as President and certainly gives lie to his promise of openness.

Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at July 31, 2009 04:45 PM

Didn't read the comments, so I don't know if this has been pointed out:

Check out the National Review Online for a post from yesterday that tackles this issue.

It focuses on how the refusal to give access to the full document relates to Obama's history of telling lies about his past and/or burying it - in part by refusing to release documents.

It is a long, 4 page post with some good nuggets.

In relation to the birth certificate itself, it suggests that one possible reason he won't grant full access is that it might contain later information about his status and dual citizenship(s) in Kenya and Indonesia.

Posted by: usinkorea at July 31, 2009 04:46 PM


It's best that you wrote that post behind the safety of your own monitor. If you had said this in my presence? Let's just say you would have had two new nostrils culminating into an instantaneous meeting with God that I would have personally arranged for you.

Posted by: Badgerbite at July 31, 2009 05:25 PM

Thanks Dude,

but I was afraid that all you had was Wong Kim Ark (other points regarding citizenship & minors doesn't concern me).

I have seen too many claim that Wong Kim Ark define a citizen under the 14th as being the same as a natural-born citizen.

"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"


"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Interestingly it cites Dred Scott v. Sandford, but left out this one,

"The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 05:27 PM

He is NOT natural born. The constitutional definition of "natural born" consists of BOTH parents being US citizens not one.

Posted by: Kevin at July 31, 2009 05:35 PM

One other point to note is the document he posted that he claims is his birth certicate is fake. In the period of time it was originally created they would have listed the father's race as negro, not african.

Posted by: Kevin at July 31, 2009 05:37 PM

What would ironic, no, laugh out loud funny, is if he does finally relent and release the 'long form' and it turns out that 'Dad' was a no-show for the delivery, Mom got P.O.'d, and put down father as "unknown"... Mom and Dad made up real good later and had the BC amended to rename him JR and put Dad on it as the father.

Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 05:47 PM

Uh, Kevin, please provide a link to the version of the Constitution that contains the definition of "natural born citizen." Here is all I can find:

"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."

As for why Obama won't release the original form? He wants the birthers running around with their wild theories. He can use them to discredit all opposition.

Posted by: George Bruce at July 31, 2009 06:12 PM


Thank you. As you correctly quoted the Wong Kim Ark opinion....."The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution," .........

"For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Affirmative, in this ruling, means that a person becomes becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth. That means that they ARE a natural born citizen.

Yes, they did quote Dred Scott in their opinion. They said"

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The clincher in Wong Kim Ark is the portion of the opinion that reads:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

The portion of Dred Scott that you mentioned, and that was not quoted in Wong Kim Ark, was overruled by the 14th Amendment, as the court later ruled in The Slaughter-House cases (1873):

"The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States."

The other cases that I mentioned, which you said are of no concern to you, further refine the definition of natural born citizen, building upon the Wong Kim Ark case. In doing so they also address other issues that have been put forth by the birthers, such as the false claim that even if Obama were a natural born citizen he lost his citizenship when he moved out of America as a child.

Wong Kim Ark is all that one needs to establish what it means to be a natural born citizen. As you quoted, the Court stated the question before the court and they answered in the affirmative.

Thank you!

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 06:38 PM

George, I'm afraid that Kevin won't be able to find that version of the Constitution to which he refers.

Kevin, you have to remember that Hawaii in 1961, even though a state already, didn't have the racial baggage that the mainland states had at that time. Hawaii had been a multi-racial US Territory for generations prior to its statehood. It would NOT have been uncommon at all for a black man from Africa, who was in Hawaii, to refer to his race as African. Nor would it have been uncommon for the state officials in Hawaii to list a black man's race as African on a birth certificate, especially if that man was, well, African.

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 06:57 PM

The constitutional definition of "natural born" consists of BOTH parents being US citizens not one.

Are you at liberty to reveal the gate coordinates of this alternate reality to which you refer?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2009 07:16 PM


"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ..., becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,"

The question was not if he becomes a "natural born citizen", nor was that question answered.

Another difficulty:

"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

is not the same as

"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is a natural born citizen"

I have seen arguments such as this dozens of times before, yet no one seems to be able to find where that is implemented (USC, CFR, FAM, whatever) using the phrase "natural born citizen".

Sorry to have bothered you, just hoping to see a cite which does not rely upon reading more into it than what the words say.

Posted by: Druid at July 31, 2009 08:51 PM

dude, seriously, you must be anticipating the Oba-messiah going in front of the Supreme Court to defend his "presidency" or you wouldn't be risking all this carpal tunnel damage to yourself.

Its quite laughable really., read some more interesting tid-bits about your fraters & soeurs on the left-wing:

Also, here is another juicy poll on American's perception of the Oba-messiah.

...none of it bodes well for your cause, but hey, you make a living off of all this excitement & I JUST LOVE having Huff Post ON MY SIDE for once.

...cheers & drink up bud, better get used to being a dud....HAH! gotcha! .

..oh lighten up dude...

..."Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest". ~Shakespeare~

cheers & good nite. ;)

Posted by: lu-ee at July 31, 2009 11:15 PM


No bother at all. I find this to be a very interesting topic.

I do understand where you're coming from on this. I think we that we need to refine the question.

Are we seeking to define what we, as individuals, think that the legal definition of natural born citizen SHOULD be or, are we seeking to define the legal definition of natural born citizen? Those are two entirely different questions.

So, we still don't have, to my knowledge, a definition that would satisfy you and many others. No offense intended at all.

I'm satisfied that the phrase: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."......infers that the child born to an alien, if born in the country, IS a natural born citizen. To me the words "is as much a citizen" means "the same as".

In reality, what I think or what you think has no legal standing. So, that leaves us to rely on the SCOTUS rulings, how they have been applied over the years and how other rulings build on precedent. That's exactly what our whole legal system does.

Legally, to the best of my knowledge, there are only two types of US citizenship: natural born citizen (some people refer to this as native citizen) and naturalized citizen. Those are the only types of citizens that I know of.

I don't know of a single case of an American born citizen having to go through a naturalization process, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Do you?

All of the court's rulings since Wong Kim Ark, in regards to citizenship, to my knowledge, have supported the view that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen at birth, even though the rulings don't use that very term.

The only other suggestion that I have for people who aren't satisfied with this explanation is for them to hire the services of a competent immigration attorney, pay for an hour of their time and get a legal opinion from a professional in that area of the law.

Best Wishes,

Posted by: Dude at July 31, 2009 11:25 PM

Suborned in the U.S.A.
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.

Posted by: Georeg at August 1, 2009 12:11 AM

Even if he did release his long form BC. The other issues about virtually all of his past he has sealed to prevent access is not gonna go away.

Then there is the bigger issue of his stolen Social Security numbers. In particular the one he used while at Harvard that belonged to a CT man who would be 119 years old now..

Posted by: expatMD at August 1, 2009 12:19 AM

OK I say he was born in Hawaii end of story. On the other hand he protesteth too much and has spent oodles of money. Why?

I'll venture there will be some clue on the long form that could reveal that the Kenyan is not his real father. Gee his half brother lives in a hut and his auntie lives in public housing a nearly got deported. So much for family love.

I think a good case has been made at the American Thinker that his books were extensively ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Since his grandparents were Communists and his associates Obama has tried to distance himself from are Communists and/or leftist, his stand in father, Frank Marshall Davis, could very well be his real father. Both the Kenyan and Davis were hanging around Obama's mother. It could be a matter of convenience that the Kenyan was named as the father instead of Davis who would have been very problematic.

As I said from the very beginning we may have just elected a Manchurian Candidate. I'm disgusted with the MSM for not ferreting this out. I know more about Joe the Plummer and Sara Palin than I do about Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry:-)

Posted by: rocketsbrain at August 1, 2009 01:59 AM

He's never going to release the birth certificate. It costs him nothing and serves as a useful distraction.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at August 1, 2009 07:28 AM

Andy McCarthy has an interesting article in which he notes that Barry/Barack constantly lies about the little things. Is he Muslim? Did he meddle in Kenyan politics for a Marxist? Did he have an Indonesian passport? What is his middle name? Where did he meet Michelle? Where did he work just out of college?

Ultimately, the long form birth record is just another piece of Barry's pathological need to deceive. And Barry needs ALL of those lies to remain hidden; otherwise once the edifice starts to crack who knows what will come out. At the very least, general repugnance toward a man that cannot be trusted to even speak honestly about his own life.

Marvelously entertaining article, well worth reading.

Posted by: iconoclast at August 1, 2009 12:12 PM

It isn't only Obama's birth information that is open to question. Note that documention not yet available for Obama includes: His kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. Where, oh where is that honesty and "transparency" Obama is so fond of demanding from everyone else?

Posted by: Kathy at August 1, 2009 01:58 PM

iconoclast: You're right. That was a very good article. I hardly ever read the National Review. I'm glad that I followed your recommendation. Thanks for sharing.

Kathy: His baptismal record is no one's business. However, if you search on Fox news you should be able to find something. I remember that they reported extensively on that topic during the campaign.

As for all of the other information about President Obama that you state is open to question, could you please provide this forum with all of the records from your private, personal and professional life? Thank you.

Posted by: Dude at August 1, 2009 06:36 PM


Kathy isn't running for President. If she were, then it would seem odd that those records were hidden.

It is just too weird that Obama is such a cipher. Deplorable that the media allowed it too.

Posted by: iconoclast at August 1, 2009 07:44 PM


Here's one that you might find interesting. It was written in 1990, shortly after Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review:

It too is an interesting read.

I can see where people would have a legitimate interest in his citizenship status. That's fair. In fact, in my opinion, we have a right to know that because it IS a constitutional requirement. That issue has been addressed to the satisfaction to all but a fringe minority.

It also wouldn't be unfair of the American people to ask if his health is sound. A simple statement from a doctor affirming that he is in good health should suffice.

His religion, his passport, his adoption records, (if any) and his scholastic records from kindergarten through all of his college years are not public record. Neither are mine, yours nor any public servant. While it's natural for people to be curious about those records, he has no responsibility to disclose them, even though he's the President of the United States.

As for the public records of his public service years, that information should be available to anyone who's curious and determined enough to pursue it. It's public record.


Posted by: Dude at August 1, 2009 10:55 PM

Frank Warner has a good poll question for "non-birthers."
Do you believe Obama has released his original 1961 birth certificate?

Posted by: George at August 2, 2009 12:48 AM

His religion, his passport, his adoption records, (if any) and his scholastic records from kindergarten through all of his college years are not public record. Neither are mine, yours nor any public servant.

It has been quite common, though perhaps regrettable, for presidential candidates to release this sort of documentation to inquiring reporters. When they do not, institutional moles will often do it for them (as was done with the college transcripts of Mr. Kerry, Mr. Gore, and the younger Mr. Bush). Given that Mr. Bush felt compelled to obtain and make public microfiche images of his National Guard pay stubs, the free ride others have been given is somewhat...instructive. BTW, your religion is a public affiliation and indicative to some degree of your understanding of and approach to the world. Questions are perfectly appropriate.

Barry may be in the unenviable position that as soon as the BC is released, someone else will want to start looking at other records, which haven't been released either.

I had not thought of that, but that is the only explanation of his behavior in this regard that makes much sense. The information on the long form certificate is quite banal and it is difficult to imagine what there might be anything embarrassing there. If his name is 'Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.' (as listed in the newspaper and implicitly confirmed by Hawaii officials) it seems unlikely that there would be any other name but Barack, Sr. in the field on paternity, even if Ann Dunham were genuinely unsure of the father's identity. If the recording standards at Kapiolani Medical Center (or was it Queens Hospital?) were the same as where I once worked, any uncertainty with regard to paternity would have been reflected in a disjunction between the face sheet recording the baby's admission to the hospital at birth (on the one hand) and copies in the file of the certificate or of forms from which the certificate was derived (on the other), not on the certificate itself.

Posted by: Art Deco at August 2, 2009 03:02 PM

There has been another birth certificate surface. They are going to submit it to court I think next week. I'm hoping that it is not another forgery.

Here is the Link:

Papa Ray
West Texas

Posted by: Papa Ray at August 2, 2009 04:44 PM


While I would be happy to spend a few bucks more on an immigration attorney, already been there which is why I call out the lack of references in USC, CFR, and FAM. Any other significant court cases where critical terminology used in the Constitution fails to appear in a single law, code, or regulation? (rhetorical)

Folks state that Ark calls out two types of citizenship, "born" (not 'natural') and "naturalized", and provides several examples of "naturalized" - including (if I recollect correct) those derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty. Again, oddly, citizenship derived from marriage and acts of sovereignty do not always require active efforts of an individual at "naturalization", just documentation that one meets the criteria of government dictate, not unlike those "born".

Being "native born" establishes ties to the land, historically (2000 years+, your geographic preference may vary), and is the premise behind the 14th A, but is also implicit in citizenship from acts of sovereignty, which SCOTUS in Ark says is "naturalized" - so as I try to map the logic in Ark, SCOTUS is busted - unless all that commentary is just that, and the decision is simply that

EVEN a chinaman is a citizen under the 14th A as the plain language of the 14th A says

and all the rest is hot air.

NONETHELESS, had Obama gone through the mill as McCain did, and got some resolution (ya or nay) through the Legislature, I am sure they would have said, like McCain, Yes. Because, well, this has only come up a couple of score times in US history, at most ...

The issue is whether by "natural born citizen" it did not mean to exclude one that is born in the US to non-citizen parents, maintains several citizenship of other states, hostile to the US (even at war), spends all years outside the US proper, and returns to the US to run for President with foreign interest financing the effort?

Obama is not even close to that scenario, just the predominant opinion supports that this was the Founders intent -

and while I understand a legal perspective, convenient at times, that it is not the intent, but, just my opinion, the words used that matter, an interpretation which leaves the words meaningless or incomprehensible with regard to purpose is probably not rational

- should the definition of 'natural born citizen' for President (and VP) be tightened up a bit, or is that the MAXIMUM requirement that can be required under the Constitution?

Posted by: Druid at August 2, 2009 10:00 PM


In short, I wish that the definition of "natural born citizen" would indeed be made absolutely clear enough that even the most uneducated and most uniformed people would have no doubt of the definition.

Regardless of what we think about a SCOTUS decision, agree with it or disagree with it, it IS the law of the land unless and until a future court overrules a decision or a Constitutional Amendment overrules it.

There are several SCOTUS decisions that I personally disagree with and, like you, believe that they are hot air. Nevertheles, under our system, their decisions are the Law of the Land.

I know of no case that has overturned Ark's legally accepted definition of natural born citizen. As mentioned in earlier posts, later rulings have even further refined and enhanced the Ark Opinion.

As I see it there are only two possible avenues to achieve this "perfectly clear" definition that you and I both seek (not that we seek the same definition, rather, that it be perfectly clear).

One would be a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining the term. The other would be yet another SCOTUS decision that even more clearly than Ark defines the term.

My preference would be a Constitutional Amendment. However, I consider that to be highly unlikely.

Posted by: Dude at August 2, 2009 11:56 PM

If I may.

Posit, for a moment, what happens if the Birthers are proven correct, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barak Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya.

Ok, what's next? Only the Senate can remove him from office (for a disability to serve, not being a native-born citizen). Takes a two-thirds vote, that is, 67 votes.

Anyone see 27 Democrats willing to vote to remove him from office? Of course, that assumes Susan Collins, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, among others, vote to do so.

And were such lightning to strike, than what?

Joe Biden gets a promotion.

That's an improvement?

Posted by: Wil Golden at August 3, 2009 09:30 AM

Good question, Wil. I'm not sure how it would play out if it were proven that Obama was born in Kenya.

We know for a fact that if he was born in Hawaii that he meets the qualification for "natural born citizen". It's also possible that he may meet the qualification even if her were proven to be born in Kenya by virtue of his mother's American citizenship. I don't know that for a fact. There's lots of research yet to be done for me to comment one way or the other on that issue.

You ask a very good question! How WOULD it play it out. You make a very good point about the Congressional 2/3 majority. I don't see that happening even it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a natural born citizen, though morally and legally it should.

Two possible scenarios that I can think of:

1. He resigns

2. A suit is filed that makes it way to the Supreme Court and they settle the issue.

I, of course, believe that he was born in Hawaii and therefore is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Posted by: Dude at August 3, 2009 10:51 PM

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I've made a practice of reading detailed articles on the Moon Landing, 9-11, U.S.S. Liberty, etc. I even have books from Daniel Pipes on the nature of conspiracy theories and their origin.

Now, a conspiracy theory thrive on people with a conspiracy mentality. When a conspiracy theory spreads beyond the usual suspects, then you have something else. The birthers are different - it is not some kind of grand plot, it's more akin to seizing on an inconsistency.

Obama is most likely eligible for president. If that is the case, why hasn't he released a simple document?

1 - The LFBC is embarrassing to him. This would have to be pretty bad to justify the money.
2 - The LFBC matter is something Obama won't release on a mater of principle. It is not right to question the One and all that. This could also be a Saddam issue: he can't allow this shame to come upon him, so he denies the critics to preserve his honor regardless of cost.
3 - The LFBC is a distraction or trap he's using to catch the Birthers with. Alinsky rides again.

Posted by: OmegaPaladin at August 6, 2009 03:36 AM