Is Obama a U.S. Citizen? Sounds like a stupid question, doesn't it?

Then why is he unwilling to verify that, in the name of transparency?

What do you mean 'unwilling to verify it in the name of transparency?'

He released a scanned image of a Hawaii State document (which is more than he was ever required to do). The department that releases these documents has verified they have his information on file with all rules and procedures in Hawaiian law and the Department of Health (and you assume they'd call it out if there were a visible and fraudulent imitation with falsified information in public). The Full Faith and Credit clause has every other state acknowledge the validity of the Hawaiian documents regarding birth. He complied with the application process to become a presidential candidate, and has been sworn in.

That he may fight against court cases that seek to access documents that are sealed from all those without a tangible interest by Hawaiian law is a surprise?

I hear the 'why doesn't he just do it' question enough, but nobody ever answers why he should bow to the requests of his detractors.

Tom, all anyone is required to produce to prove their citizenship is the same document Obama released.

First, I am not a detractor,

A detractor would be one who doubts the documentation he has provided.

and second, I am not sure that that is an orginal birth certificate.

It is clearly not an 'original.' It is a reprint according to the guidelines set forth by the Hawaiian Department of Health and the Hawaiian Revised Code of law. It carries by Hawaiian law all the same validity and proof of birth that any 'original' document does.

What is the doctor's name? Why is it not listed,

What does it matter?

And it isn't listed because Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" documents don't have it.

I have a Missouri "Certificate of Live Birth" that I used for my drivers license, that my mother used when I was only 1 to get my first passport. It has no doctor's name.

and why is the Certificate number not listed?

The blackened out area? The last I read, the office of Obama's Campaign removed it because they weren't sure what it was used for and didn't want important numbers being released like a social security number.

SO let me get this straight, yall want to undo the will of the people.. due to the rule of law(if he is guilty) and make biden president.. or peloci if you think the whole thing gets thrown out.. which i doubt.. but a long protractive battle in the supreme court would be for sure... all to setttle soem technicallity of a person the majority of american citizens voted for in the second largest election since reagan..all cause of the rule of law.. RIGHT?

no one is above the law?

well except chenney, bush, the interogators etc?

just interesting many of the same people and not accusing you directly, but many of the same people that scream rule of law at obama based on a fantacy of a crazy man, say we should let bush go, FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY when we have concreate evidence agsint him.

you do know who started this birth cert thing

you did a lot of leg work into it.. why not do some leg work where all this started and about who started it

If it is a question of a President are the United States Constitution I will stick with the constitution.

Let me get this straight though, if I find enough people to say it is alright for me to take everything Joulesbeef owns for myself it does not matter what the law is?

Obama's citizenship was verified as valid by the State of Hawaii.

See:

Apologies for preceeding omission of information.

I intended to write "See: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html"

So what does not happen again? So wing-nuts don't stir up BS again?

Shall we move on to establishing an agency so this does not happen again?

So, what kind of solution are you looking for?

Set a certain set of requirements for the birth records themselves and amend that to the constitution?

Remove the recording of births from the states altogether and give it to the Department of Health and Human Services?

Add a section to the library of congress where people can go to see birth documents for all presidential and vice presidential candidates?

Tom-

Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenburg Foundation. William Ayers and President Obama were co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Senator Obama in 2005 requested a 3.5 million dollar earmark for this foundation.

aj-968100,

In an earlier post I provided information from factcheck.org regarding the qualification of Obama to be POTUS. That information source was challenged for it's reliability. THIS IS ADDITIONAL CORRABORATING INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER, SEPARATE SOURCE:

[excerpt] The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in Article II of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

These qualifications aren't quite so straightforward as they might seem, however. For example, what does the phrase "fourteen years a resident within the United States" mean? Can those fourteen years be cumulative, or do they have to be consecutive? Do the fourteen years of U.S. residency have to

immediately precede the presidential election, or can they have occurred at any period in a candidate's life? These were issues that confronted Herbert Hoover, who, because of his work (first for a British mining firm, and later for the U.S. government during World War I), had spent a good deal of time abroad and returned to the U.S. less than fourteen years prior to his election to the presidency in 1928.

Likewise, the "natural-born citizen" requirement is not so straightforward either, because the Constitution didn't define what a natural-born citizen was. (The definition of "natural-born citizen" was left up to individual states to decide until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, but even that amendment has been subject to further interpretation.) What qualifies a person for natural-born citizenship status under U.S. law can be quite complicated, depending on factors such as where the person was born, when he was born, where he and his parents lived, and the nationalities of his parents.

Some of these factors might seemingly come into play in the case of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Although his mother was herself a natural-born U.S. citizen, his father was a Kenyan national, and his parents may or may not have been legally married in the eyes of U.S. law. Moreover, his parents split up when he was but a toddler, and his mother soon afterwards married another foreign national and moved with Barack to Indonesia.

The item quoted above posits that Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because the law in effect at the time he was born specified that "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Since Barack Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother), and his mother had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time), then he's not a natural-born citizen.

A few facets of this claim immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sitting U.S. Senator who has already spent a good deal of time and money securing his party's nomination for the presidency would suddenly be discovered as ineligible due to an obscure provision of U.S. law; and second, that U.S. law would essentially penalize someone who would otherwise qualify for natural-born citizenship status simply because his mother was too young. The fact is, the qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there (21 August 1959 for statehood vs. 4 August 1961 for Obama's birthdate).

Some outdated versions of this item conclude by stating that "It should be demanded that Obama produce his 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate," but in fact his campaign made an image of that document available on the Internet back in mid-2008.

In August 2008, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in Kenya (not Hawaii) and/or subsequently gave up his U.S. citizenship and thus does not qualify as a native-born citizen of the U.S. Lawsuits over candidates' eligibility are not uncommon: similar lawsuits (none of them successful), for example, have been filed challenging the citizenship status of John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone), challenging the Wyoming residency status of Dick Cheney (who was born in Wyoming but moved to Texas), and challenging the citizenship status of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (who was born in Arizona before that territory was admitted as a state).

CONCLUSION, based on this information from snopes.com: Obama is qualified to be POTUS.

SOURCE: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Ok guess I'm a believer but in what I haven't a clue? Dah, you are confusing me.

Is snopes like the 100 percent gospel truth on the web now or something? Heh.

They're non-partisan dispellers of urban myths, hoaxes and lies that the more gullible fall for and the less than virtuous propagate.

Your teacher is a boob...

The real way that goes is: "The only stupid question is the question you don't ask..."

A funny thing happened to me yesterday in California. I had to give up possession of my drivers license just to deliver a load of ice cream to a warehouse. I also have to fill out a log book putting in detail every place I stop durning the day whether it is job related are simply getting a bite to eat. Even stopping at a rest area to pee. This all goes with the responsibility of my job and yet many people on this site don't feel Obama should be obligated to release his private information for qualifications of being a president. I fill out logs full of private information everyday of the year just doing my job as a truckdriver.

The "copy" of the birth certificate on LA Times site does not even have a doctor's signature, nor does it have a certificate number.

Birth records don't 'always' have doctor's signatures. Different states keep different kinds of records, issue different types of copies with different layouts/sets of information.

And I DID call the state of Hawaii. You get redirected to one of two different phone numbers, each of which rang for a full 5 minutes before I hung up the phone.

The department of health, last year, released a statement that they had his birth records on file in accordance with all rules and procedures. They released this statement specifically in response to the inundation of calls they recieved from private citizens asking for access to another person's private birth records. By Hawaiian law, an unrelated party that has not been legally allowed access must have a court decide they have a tangible interest in the records to get access.

Yep, birth certificates are medical records and as such confidential. After all, you wouldn't want someone snooping around your birth certificate, would you?

No they don't lose privacy rights. You cannot see the original birth certificate, nor do you have any rights to see it. He has provided the legally accepted document proving he was born in Hawaii. Nuff said.

When you do that, certain rights (like the right of privacy) sort of go out the window.

Go ask for any President's birth records (psst - they aren't kept anywhere in particular).

Regardless of the issue, I have ALWAYS had trouble believing what someone tells me without verification.

The document is valid for the state of Hawaii.

The Hawaiian DOH has verified they have the documentation on file.

Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution - Article 4, section 1 - means that every other state takes the documentation issued by Hawaii as valid.

That's the verification.

I just want to SEE an ORIGINAL Birth Certificate.

Then you'll probably want to petition for new legislation setting a standard for the kind of documentation required of every presidential and vice presidential candidate.

You'll also want to include an around-the-country parade of the documentation. Is hitting each state capital okay, or is that not enough access for every citizen to see it in person?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97493

"The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin

Because information regarding birth records, according to Hawaiian state law, are private records. Those requesting access to the records or access within do not fit the standards according to HRS-338-18

Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

How does one register an out-of-country birth in such a way that the end product says "Location of Birth: Honolulu" and is reprinted in such a way that is legal proof of the act of birth?

Tom

First this is misslabled it's not an event, it's opinion, yours.

I'm not questioning his citizenship

Yes you are. "I'm not sure that's an orginal Birth Certificate". Of course you are just like the other people who have tried to make something out of this before. You guys will be trying to bring this up in 2100 because you don't have anything else.

I have ALWAYS had trouble believing what someone tells me without verification.

Can I handle that, NO. You've been given plenty of proof. Yet you went to see it with your own eyes.

I wouldn't show you mine and he showed you his and I've been in a government position probably longer than you've been in long pants.

You don't have the right or the need. Those that do the vetting were satisfied, ergo you should be to. Or not and really who cares if it's not.

So if a school ask for a childs birth certificate it should not have to be shown? And if he showed the actual birth certificate why does the state of Hawaii say he has not authorized it to be shown? Who did the vetting? I think that is what Tom is trying to say. The only people I know that do the vetting according to my Secretary of State would be the party itself. Can we trust either party to police themselves?

And if he showed the actual birth certificate why does the state of Hawaii say he has not authorized it to be shown?

Because one would think, when the law is involved, the state's Department of Health would need a very specific, "I allow you to release further information regarding my vital records."

The only people I know that do the vetting according to my Secretary of State would be the party itself. Can we trust either party to police themselves?

That's the way it was. If you'd like there to be more restrictions or definitions, petition for legislation to change the system. Otherwise the rquest has no legal standing.

Forgive me, but am I not in the first stages of that?

Forgive me, but was that quote not in response to riskybusiness?

I do not fully understand why he has allegedly spent close to $800,000.00 in court cost, not his own money, PAC contributions, to make certain the "original" is not made public. There have been numerous cases brought to the Supreme court. Can someone explain why you would continue defending your position NOT to provide the actual Birth Certificate. If it was you, would you provide it or go to court?

I'd go to court. The onus is on the one's fighting to get it released to indicate reasonable justification for demanding it be released. So far they have failed to do so.

aj

When you can provide some proof of that 800k you might have some credibility.

jaywow67-
Key word..allegedly. There are numerous amounts speculated on court cost to date. The PAC has not released their own numbers.

I've seen nothing that even reports costs to date have you, other than some right outfit?

The present administration? I wasn't aware the Obama administration had anything to do with Hawaiian state law.

spiffie-
Good Post-induced with logic, thanks.

Thank-you spiffie.

Indeed thank you

ESPECIALLY DELL,

you hung up after 5 min, try waiting on hold for nearly an hour waiting for service.

Because questions have been raised concerning the actual eligibility. So therefore, special exception should be made.

Because questions have been raised that ignore Article 4, section 1 of the constitution, the full faith and credit clause, and people want to doubt the official documentation of a state?

great answer

really this is swinging wildily and blind.

his mother was an american citizen.. no one denys that.. so sooooomehow he had to have lost his citizenship through choice of his parrents or himself, as a nation can not just steal your right to be an american citizen by decree.

so this whole thing depends on something happening that is recognised by this country that caused obama to lose his natural born citizenship,

what does ccorsi say? well his mother.. the citizen of the worlds most powerful and opportunity filled country, decided to renouce his citzenship and rather than give her son hope, to make him the citzen of a poor african nation.

a nation with a life expectancy over 20 years less than ours.

and where the us has an adverage median uincoem of 50k a year, kenya has an adverage of 1500 a year.

they really havent given a moticve for this... maybe they wanted the free corn that comes fromt eh us.

I'm kind of surprised that Tom hasn't commented on my answer.

Tom, I'm not trying to pick on you, but to date there has been no valid compelling evidence presented which would lead to superceeding full faith and credit. So I have to ask....why should Barak Obama be held to a different standard than any other presidential candidate? Why is it that this President has to go above and beyond what other presidential hopefulls have had to provide for people accept that he is a natural born US citizen?

I was extremely bothered by what I found, in the end.

I still don't understand what's bother[ed/ing] you. It bothers you that Barack Obama didn't have to submit citizenship documents to the federal government? The problem is that, of course, he has, just not in the context of an election. He holds a US passport, so his citizenship documents, including birth certificate, have been vetted by the State Department and/or FBI at least once.

Beyond that, he's followed the rules and laws of the various states. Let me repeat that: he's followed the rules and laws of the various states. He's actually done more than that, since I certainly don't recall any of the last several presidential candidates releasing their birth certificates. And even beyond that, the state of Hawaii has affirmed that their records show him being born there.

"Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it does not resonate within you as truth."

So your continued skepticism seems to indicate that you don't think any of this is true? Am I reading this right? What's the basis for that feeling?

Tom:

I didn't mean to hassle you. It's just I saw responses from you everywhere else and was wondering if I was catching a cold shoulder. God knows I understand family emergencies.

Anyway, the only way to crack this is to split its base which is Hawaii's claim that Obama was born there. That means there'd have to be strong documented proof and even then I don't know if that would overcome the Full Faith and Credit clause. You face the same issue every day with drivers from different states... what if other states don't test the eyesight of 90+ year old drivers and they end up killing you on the road? It's a civil case, not a governmental case because the states have the prerogative to issue identification as they see fit and all other states are forced to accept that identification regardless of how shoddy it is.

Tom:

Let's talk intuition and gut feelings for a moment, if you don't mind.

I'm a campaign manager, so I've got a decent "bullsh*t detector" if you will. Know where this questioning of Obama's origin started? Alan Keyes' senatorial campaign. His premise was to argue that since Obama was Kenyan, he was a carpetbagger that shouldn't be elected. Never mind the fact that Keyes hails from Maryland. Keyes got his ass kicked. Enter lull for Keyes. Obama files to run for President with the FEC. Keyes brings this up again, pushing harder because he knows of the Constitutional requirements. A few Democrats pick it up because they don't want Obama for a nominee. Move to the general election and every Obama opponent except those directly associated with the campaign fold this grievance in with the other things: "This guy is a Muslim Socialist African immigrant that should never be elected to the Presidency, period!" Obama releases a copy of his birth certificate to the media. Now, I ask you, would it be fair for me to champion the cause of someone that hates you and demand you show ever-increasing proof that you are actually the father of your baby? Your wife's word isn't good enough. Your enemy says that your baby's birth certificate is a doctored piece of BS. He demands the real McCoy: a cheek swab and $2,000 DNA test. He maintains that you are not the father even though you are the one that has and is caring quite well for you and your wife's baby. Should I allow this guy that hates you and is nobody official or important to keep impeaching your credibility and harrassing you to no end, demanding ever-increasing amounts of proof? What if after the DNA test he says "It was switched at the DNA testing center by Scott! We all know he's one of Tom's cronies!"? Are you going to take endless DNA tests? Have computer generation of your baby's face aged to show your enemy how the baby will look like you when a teenager? An adult? What if I suggested that your two enemies sit on the Child Welfare Board that will decide if that baby is your's and that they have equal standing with the other members? Is that due diligence or encouraged harrassment, because we all know that there's a .00001% chance that might not be your baby... what are you hiding by trying to block all their attempts to obtain irrefutable proof that you are the baby daddy?

Starting to see how long this goes on? I call bullsh*t on Alan Keyes and all of Obama's political enemies that spread this and belabor the point. I don't have my original birth certificate. My mom might. All I have is my original SS card. I'm a white male whose family is from Owsley County, KY and has lived in Hamilton, Ohio his entire life. Are you going to lay that much scrutiny on me if I run for President?

BTW, I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I'm trying to put you in Obama's shoes. Would you cooperate with these bastards further? I damn sure wouldn't.

Tom:

I want to use a 9/11 analogy but I need to know where you stand on it. Do you believe it was a govt conspiracy or al Qaeda that perpetrated it?

With regards to e-mail, sure. Shoot me one and we'll talk. Sound good?

Tom:

Well, my point was this, I'll try to leave 9/11 out of it.

I believe you are one of the few well-meaning people questioning this. The whole issue revolves around the legitimacy of evidence. IMHO, even if the original from Hawaii's archives was produced (instead of copied, which was what happened and which Hawaii says carries the weight of the original legally) I am certain most people questioning Obama would insist that it was dummied up. The Brits managed to print billions of reichmarks that were so legitimate looking they were spent and drove up major inflation in the Nazi economy. It's all a question of how far a person wants to go to insist that the evidence presented is not enough.

There is an original on file with Hawaii. Publicize it. Put it out there with a panel of experts, and put the footage on the net. Then be done. We'll either call for impeachment, or we'll go on with life. Plain and simple.

The problem with this is that there's nothing substantial enough to put serious doubt into the situation. Show a compelling something that shows his mother left the country / state of Hawaii in '61.

What I haven't seen you do Tom, is respond as to why an 'original' should matter.

Nor have I seen you respond to the idea of Article 4, Section 1 - the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. You seem to want to place full doubt in a state (extending doubt to the operations of every state).

Like I said, something just doesn't FEEL right about the situation.

Then push for a legislative change to the system. Insittute some kind of requirement standard of documentation and when he runs for re-election he'll have to abide by it.

Excellent reponses Scott and Lopes.

Can you dig it?

Frankly, no I cannot dig it for the reasons I have stated and for the reasons that many others have stated. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here when asking for something that isn't typical and as had been pointed out will not be accepted even if it is produced. The document that has been produced states he was born in Hawaii, and has been validated as a true and accruate representation of the vault document.

If you aren't happy with your vote now because of his policies, then fine, write letters, participate in tea parties and the 9/12 thingy. Going after the BC issue isn't going to get you where you want to be. Remember, Biden is next in line. Would it make you feel better to have Biden as POTUS?

This document that was released by the Obama camp is NOT an original, and as such should not be considered proper documentation, especially with some of the questions that have popped up.

Nobody gets an original of their birth certificate. Every certified document issued to you by the state is a certified copy. The original always stays on record with the state. That's how the state maintains the integrity of their records. Obama released a signed, stamped, and certified copy, which is all he was entitled to under Hawaii law. That copy is good enough to enlist in the military, to get a passport, or to apply for any federal benefits which require proof of citizenship. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that this document is suddenly not "good enough" when it's good enough for literally every single other purpose. It's even more ludicrous given that the state of Hawaii went to the extraordinary step of publicly asserting its authenticity.

That's it, game over. It's a signed, sealed, certified, and fully authenticated copy which the state of Hawaii is standing behind. There's quite literally not a leg, not a toe, to stand on in questioning the birth certificate, except by the most paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing, and seriously mentally ill, Alex-Jones-acolyte nutjobs.

Earlier, someone posted a link to FactCheck's vetting of this copy, and I felt better...up until someone pointed out that FactCheck is run by the Annenburg Foundation. Obama has sat on the board of this foundation, and has secured MILLIONS in governmental funds for the organization over the years.

Which is false. Obama did not serve on the board of the Annenberg Foundation. He sat on one local board of one instance of one sub-group within the Anneberg Foundation: the Annenberg Challenge of Chicago (or the Chicago Annenberg Challenge). This is like claiming a conflict of interest for the governor of a state over the state's education budget because he once sat on a local school board. It should also be noted that the Annenberg Foundation was founded by a Republican, Walter Annenberg, ambassador under Ronald Reagan, and is now run by his widow, who endorsed John McCain for president. How, exactly, is it that an organization founded and run by partisan Republicans supposed to be part of this "conspiracy" again?

Good rebuttal Spiffie and thanks for that information!!

And yet you ignore the first part about certified copies. You don't want truth, you want to stir the pot with bs.

Are you serious? That article goes throws out the same bs even to the point of trying to make an issue of the title of the document as being a certificate of live birth instead of a birth certificate.

Tom:

The problem is this: the certification of Obama's birth does not belong to an original document. The sole authority to declare him a natural citizen rests with the Hawaiian state govt. If they wanted to print Obama's birth certificate on the blank side of a cereal box, it would be ridiculed but legal. There's literally no legal ground to demand to see the original because the original only carries weight because the state govt says it is the original.

Let's put it this way: it's reasonable to take the position that perhaps we should federalize and standardize ballot access for federal elections, as long as you can justify why we should encroach further on a state's right to manage their own elections. Even if you were to take that position, though, it wouldn't have mattered for this last election, because a birth certificate of the form Obama presented and has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii, is a universally accepted proof of natural born citizenship at the federal level.

It's unreasonable to suggest that Obama did anything wrong, that he didn't follow the system as it existed when he was elected, in fact that he didn't go above and beyond any prior presidential candidate, or that he has any special power over the officials in Hawaii to make them break state law to release the long-form certificate.

It has been brought before the Supreme Court at least 5 times. Each time it was dismissed. You have no legs to stand on.

It was never dismissed because the issue wasn't true, but because the person bringing the suit 'has no standing'. Meaning that we, the American citizens, are apparently not damaged in any way if the President of the United States is not legally qualified to accept the job.

Does that sound good to you? Because I think it sucks. And in the last election there was one individual who was obviously not electable, yet was on the ballot in 5 states. So why should we rely upon the states to determine this for a federal office exactly?

I personally think that Obama met the legal requirements, but the notion that we are not allowed to 'question' the legality of a running or sitting president through the court system is un-American, IMO.

The solution is to pressure your own state legislatures to pass laws regarding eligibility for office. Many of the lawsuits were brought under the wrong statutes and were correctly dismissed. The timing was also off on many of the lawsuits.

There is an article in the Michigan Law Review entitled The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 31 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.pdf. It is a PDF, but not very big. It reads in part:

Under current case law, plaintiffs in the cases challenging the presidential
candidates’ eligibility probably lack standing. In fact, it is questionable
whether anyone would have standing to challenge a presidential candidate’s
eligibility in federal court as an initial matter, due to the prudential limitations
on standing. There is also a serious question about whether the suits
should be deemed nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine.

I would recommend reading it. The article makes very good points. The time to challenge is before the election and in state courts, not federal. A person will want to question (challenge) the candidates ballot access.

Many of these lawsuits were rightly dismissed under standing and judiciability.

Tom:

I'm saying that might be something of a problem, Scott. Am I really that far off the mark?

About the system? No, not really. I can see a system like this being scammed by illegal workers and terrorists to gain access to our country and do it harm.

However, when it comes to about how Obama fits into the system, this is the end of the line for that discussion because he doesn't fit into that system. The fact that it's a bad system if a state can just speak someone into legal natural citizenship has nothing to do with Obama existing as a natural born citizen legally. The discussion by necessity of what can currently be done about the sorry system by its very existence confirms that Obama is legally who he says he is and that changes have to start from the present because challenging anything prior to this would be an ex-post-facto law altering the state of Hawaii's 10th amendment right to name their citizens however they wish to.

P.S. - Did you ever get my reply e-mail? I was wondering what things were getting to you about our mutual acquaintance?

Obviously you didn't read the Secretary of States reply I posted. Also I would suggest you contact all of the Secretary of States and ask how many verified it other than through the DNC. I bet they give the same reply my SOS gave to me.

Get one then. And have it certified true by the chief of that department in Hawaii. Prove it. Or admit you're just full of hot air and nothing short of your sky fairy coming down and dictating the truth of it will suffice.

I don't like Obama, but I like paranoid, conspiracy theory lies even less. There is always enough to dislike someone for without resorting to lies, unless that is all you have the capability for.

prove it... prove it... bologny...

You prove you can't...

California you can get any document you want... Hawaii you can do the same...

Fake driver's licenses, fake birth certificates, fake credit cards,

Ever heard of identity theft? You need to prove it can't be done. Besides its my opinion it can be done and you can't change that...

Like I started my comment with "it is worth as much as the paper they print those certificates on..." Its only a validation someone else saw his certificate... it is not "THE Certificate..."

Your opinion is I am lying ... prove it!

Dang

He didn't make the assertion, you did. You made a statement of fact you can't back up and he called you on it and like most righties you resort to trying to wiggle your way out of it.

The old attage--> put up or shut up

Like I started my comment with "it is worth as much as the paper they print those certificates on..." Its only a validation someone else saw his certificate... it is not "THE Certificate..."

Your opinion is I am lying ... prove it!

My opinion is you're off your rocker to believe this crap. Proof? Res ipsa loquitur

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Get called on your hot air and you twist away into the wind.

Congratulations, you've become irrelevant.

Ok, even if you can get a fake document, what SOS and State Registrar will validate the authenticity of the fake document? NONE...nada...zilch....zero. They would not stake their career on a fake document.

Except that the Secretary of States are not required nor are they authorized to check on such documents. So if the party placing the persons on the ticket say they are valid they just take their word for it.

Good point Risky, but in this case, since the conspiracy theorists have been making a stink about this for half a year plus, it was certified as authentic by officials in HI, both the Health Department Director and The Registrar of Vital Statistics.

Yes, a thread about "the will of the People"! The will of the People ELECTED him President!

It was not certified by HI. It was only certified that they have a birth certificate on file for Obama. The problem being with this is that in Hawaii at the time you could be born somewhere else and still have a birth certificate from Hawaii but not actually stating you were born in Hawaii. The other problem is still the possiblility of him traveling on an Indonesian passport instead of a United States passport and if he obtained foreign aid for going to college in CA. All of these records remain sealed and he refuses to allow them to be released. The question then becomes why?

And GH, that would be fine if the "will of the people" had first changed the constitution undoing the qualifications for President.

The problem being with this is that in Hawaii at the time you could be born somewhere else and still have a birth certificate from Hawaii but not actually stating you were born in Hawaii.

Not unless he was born after 1982, when that law was passed. Last I checked, Obama was born two decades before.

His COLB is certified by Hawaii. Look at the pictures on Fact Check. You can see the seal, and Onaka's stamped signature. And his birth certificate is sealed by Hawaiian privacy laws, just like every birth record that is in Hawaii.

His college records are covered by a Federal law called FERPA. It privatises all college records. If you have kid in college and are paying for their entire education, even you would not be able to get those records. Why? Because they are private and available only to the student.

Besides, have you seen the cost of being a foreign student and attending college in the US? It is outrageously expensive. There are also very few scholarships for foreign students at any US College. And please don't tell me you believe the whole Fullbright scholarship thing? Fullbrights are awarded to people that are pursuing Masters and Doctorates, not undergraduate degrees. And US Students go to a foreign county, foreign students come to the US. It's like an exchange program for graduate students.

So far, every objection you have has a logical answer, at least I think so. I don't know of anything else that I can tell you that would satisfy your fears.

My point is not so much about Obama but like Tom's it is about the system. Like you I contacted my SOS and got a reply I did not expect saying they were neither obligated nor authorized to verify a presidential candidates eligibility. The biggest problem I have with the Obama thing itself is why not simply provide the courts that have these cases in them with the documents themselves so they would be on public record instead of continuing to allow all these cases to clog up the system. Hell, for all I know when Reagan granted the other illegal aliens citizenship that could have made Obama a citizen then if he wasn't already. As far as a birth certificate I keep mine in my photo album where my mother put it long ago. What is the big deal about birth certificates? I would much rather have my birth certificate shown than my social security card.

What I stated above were just items picked up from the Rollye James show one night will she was interviewing Orly Taitz. That lady has even went back as far as checking on credit reports for Barrack Hussein Obama and according to her she found many that had different social security numbers as well as fake address's. One address she claimed was 123 Whitehouse road. Maybe she is a nut, maybe she isn't. Who can say other than their personal opinion of either person. The point being as Tom is saying there seem to be many unanswered questions.

Regardless of any issues about Obama the Congress should come up with a system to insure voter rights by electronic machines that provide paper trails and eligibility requirements to be fulfilled by certification of something other than the political party they are representing. And the Supreme Court should issue a ruling defining a Natural born citizen.

Let's leave Obama be unless someone proves he is not eligible for certain but let's take the issues that have come up out of this and be constructive with them.

Orly (or someone working with her) did an online search using a people finder. She found names and addresses of people with similar or the same name and decided that they were all the same person.

And yes, Orly is nuts. Go read her blog sometime.

wasted time... ;-)

rational conversation can never be achieved with the irrational.

Points for unintentional irony.

ThinkingIsGood,

Do you realize that Roger Calero, running for the Socialist Workers Party, was on the ballot in 5 states and not on the ballot in 5 others (substituted by another person) even though he is quite clearly not legally allowed to be president?

That's the real issue, how was he on those 5 ballots? Why was he given access in those states when it is clear he is not legally allowed to obtain the presidency?

Do you see now how stupid the 'well, Hawaii allowed him on the ballot' argument is? He most likely is a naturally born citizen, but the next president may not be, we need to have an organization whos responsibility it is to be the arbiter of this.

I spoke about this on this site in November:

http://rhinehold.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/29/2053484-whos-job-is-it-anyway

Rhinehold

Your point is well taken. If the question is 'should we be concerned that a POTUS could be sworn in without having met qualifications for the office?' my answer is absolutely yes.

Your post is certainly a cause for alarm that there is no authorized agent to certify that a candidate for POTUS meets the qualifications. Prior to taking the oath of office and certainly prior to the election such a concern is critical.

But the concern was raised. Many times. The GOP certainly was motivated to disqualify Obama as a candidate. They may still have such motivation. So why did they fail?

My post was intentionally categorical in nature. With all the money and motivation to disqualify Obama, it did not happen. He won the primary, it did not happen. He won the election, it still did not happen. He was sworn into office with no clear dispute of his qualifications. He has been in office since Jan 20, 2009 and still no clear dispute is underway.

Obama is the POTUS. Categorically, no matter how persuasive one argues on Newsvine, this is a done deal. Raising this issue simply harms credibility of those who do not agree with Obama. And to what end?

So while I respect your points and your logic, Obama's natural-born status is no longer under any serious public challenge and has not been for quite a while.

Obama is ipso facto POTUS.

HOWEVER

If it turns out that the entire opposition to Obama is unable to voice a major FACTUAL violation of law dealing with the POTUS. Especially if the opposition is silenced to the point that we do not even hear about formal charges, then we are truly in deep trouble.

Rhinehold

Eerily coincidental, this was just seeded.

A Mac

It only stands to reason that such an article would rise through opposition channels. Certainly it would not be found on MoveOn.org.

After your research, are you comfortable that there is no conflict of interest in Factcheck.org and the whole thing with Annenburg/Obama?

Her point was that even if you don't want to trust FactCheck, another non-partisan group, Politifact, which is completely and wholly unaffiliated with the Annenberg Foundation in any way, concurs completely with their conclusions.

Tom -

I am completely and fully comfortable that there is no conflict of interest. The Annenburg Foundation gives out thousands of grants a year. Their main focus is, and always has been, the promotion of education and communication.

Think of it like this: You have a large company that owns several separate brands. It's not a fact, but for ease of using names, let's say that Giganto Hotel Corp owns the brands Ritz, La Quinta, Motel 6, Candlewood Extended Stay. Even though there is one company that owns the brands, any the business of any of the brands would be considered wholly separate as far as policies, procedures, and amenities offered. Payroll would be separate, A/R and A/P would be separate. Everything is considered separate and distinct in their own right. Each brand is treated as it's own company, and each one is an LLP. The only time the overall picture of all those brands come together is on the annual company report. And even then, the numbers are reported separately with a grand total given.

So yes. I am confortable that the Annenburg Challenge that Obama worked on and the Annenburg FactCheck are entirely separate with a virtual wall between them. The twain do not meet until the year end statement for the entire foundation comes out, and operationally, they are two separate entities with no interaction or influence on each other.

I hope you do get a chance to read a few of the articles I highlighted. I would also recommend poking around on the Annenburg Foundation website. That will help familiarize yourself with what the foundation does, and give you a bigger picture of how everything works.