What’s going to happen if he can’t prove his eligibility to be President? Would he be out of luck then?

What conspiracy is this, Think|?

President-elect Obama won not only more than a majority of the electoral votes, as required, but also won the popular vote, which is not required.

The Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen. CHECK.
Further, that he be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. CHECK.
And, be at least 35 years of age. CHECK.

Those 3 requirements and the votes of the electoral college are the only requirements to attain election as the President. Come January 20th, Obama is the duly elected President.

So will we be applying affirmative action here, i.e. white men need not apply?

Think| also consider this: Obama doesn’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the accusers in our legal system. However, I do believe that his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, and she was residing in the US at the time..unless Hawaii was NOT a state in 1961. Even then, I think it would have counted.

hs and Travis,

Tell, which hospital was he born in? Hmm.. the official birth certificate would tell us that if he would just release it.

This is not conspiracy. This is simple rule of law. He must be a natural born citizen. This is before the Supreme Court and Obama will be required to submit his official birth certificate by Dec. 1st. Jake Wagman — please correct these two folks on this issue. Surely there is a Post story that you could reference that gives the background on the case and the Constitutional questions that are being raised.

First, if you wanted the birth certificate, you need only make application for a copy from that state’s Department of Health (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html).

But more to the conspiracy theory of President-elect Obama’s citizenship, the following press release was issued by Philip Berg:

“Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of ‘qualifications’ to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008…. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.”

The press release goes on to state that, “Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court … for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction.”

Both About.com and Factcheck.org have copious articles on the validity of President-elect Obama’s legitimacy on this issue and many other conspiracy theories surrounding the issue.

The following is from Factcheck.org:

“In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is ‘fake.’

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as ’supporting documents’ to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

It is clear not only from Factcheck.org’s independent review of the original documents, but also from the actions of both the US District Court of Pennsylvania and the US Supreme Court, that this claim of illegitimacy is false and an exercise of futility, but requires those bodies to go through the motions to ensure that a democratic election was held.

What we have here is a matter of those unhappy with the election results attempting to cast aspersions on the President-elect and cast doubt on his legitimacy to run the country. This type of behavior can only serve to strengthen those forces world-wide committed to disrupt the American way of life.

For over 200 years, the United States has proudly laid claim to 43 transitions of government without a drop of blood being shed. It is exactly because of the engineering by our forefathers in drafting our constitution that we can have such peaceful succession of government. Any attempt to thwart this process is a direct attack on American democracy.

Travis,

BUT that was not the original was it? The original certificate will have the hospital of birth on it. The one factcheck (which is a pro-Obama site) reviewed was an unofficial copy. That copy also does not indicate whether it was a foreign birth registered to a Hawaiian citizen, or if it was a live birth in Hawaii. There is a big difference as it relates to the Constitution.

Take a closer look at the documents submitted by Mr. Berg. There are sworn affidavits that tell a pretty interesting and compelling story.

So you are saying that by seeking the truth and requiring verification of his Constitutional eligibility, that we are seeking a non-peaceful transition of power? That is just a plain ignorant statement. The simple fact is that if he gets into office without being a natural born citizen, then we have a Constitutional violation.

All Obama needs to do is release that original certificate and the issue is over with.

Now Travis, answer my question. Which hospital was he born in?

A writ of certiorari (did I spell that right)? is a REQUEST for the Supreme Court to hear a case. The Court can do three things with a Certiorari request:

The Justice who has jurisdiction over the particular Federal District that it originates from can refuse to grant it on it’s merits (which happened in this case).

The Justices in Conference can examine the request and refuse to grant it, only if it passes the first check point.

The Justices in Conference can grant the request and set in motion the apparatus for a full hearing with written opinion on the case in question.

By the way, ORIGINAL birth certificates are never released from county records, at least not in my experience. You can request to SEE one, under the right conditions, but no one has originals in their hands. There is only one original document, and it is in the files at the appropriate county courthouse. Signed and sealed copies are sufficient for every purpose I know of.

By the way, I looked at the official copy of my birth certificate, and the copies I have of my Children’s. None of them list the “hospital of birth”. They list the city, state, mother’s maiden name, and attending physician’s name.

hs — his birth certificate would look like this:

http://newmediajournal.us/images/obama_bc.gif

Notice the line that says “Name of Hospital or Institution”. That is what we need to see.

There is a very simple solution to this discussion. Obama needs to release the document.

So — hs, Travis, Jake. Which hospital was he born in? Did you read the affidavits submitted by Mr. Berg to the Supreme Court?

Obviously, no answer will satisfy someone looking for a conspiracy….

Travis,

I’m not looking for conspiracy. Just looking for the facts. It is a simple thing really. The Presidency has a job requirement. I would like either: Barack to show us he is eligible OR the party that is responsible for ensuring he is eligible to say so. That has not happened.

Are you having trouble finding the answer? You say it is a closed case, prove it. (You might want to actually read the documents submitted to the Supreme Court before blurting out your links to left-wing “fact check” sites.

Think| It’s enough for me that the District court rejected the suit on it’s merits, and that Mr. Justice Souter refused “cert”, also on the merits of the case.

That’s how the system works. Now, if you want to get into the argument that the Supreme Court has determined this based on Political considerations, and that they installed Obama as President Elect by judicial fiat, then you are admitting that those who have a problem with the 2000 recount decision have a point, aren’t you?

The District court did not address the issue. It simply dismissed it due to the judge’s belief that Mr. Berg did not have standing.

You are also dodging the issue. This is really a very simple matter. Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen, and who certifies that this is the case? Unless Obama has something to hide, he is being really stupid by not releasing his official birth certificate.

And you may not believe this, but I am hoping that his birth certificate shows he was truly born in a hospital in Hawaii. If however, he was born in Kenya as his grandmother claims, then we have quite a situation. We both don’t want that, but this does not mean that we cover our eyes and pretend that we know the facts. You don’t know. Jake Wagman doesn’t know.

The best possible outcome of this is that Obama is verfied to be eligible, we get an unambiguous definition of natural born citizen and we get a clear definition of who is responsible for qualifying our Presidential candidates.

I’m going to post a link that explains this issue in a non-partisan way:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The important text is below:

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

The way I read this (and I’m NOT a lawyer), is that the question is moot.

No one is arguing that his MOTHER was not a citizen, and that SHE had not lived in the US all her life. There is an interesting argument that says that this is hazy because she was 18 at the time of his birth, and that one clause in the law talks about living in the US at least 5 years after the age of 16.

The way this reads above, his MOTHER was a citizen, and there is no argument that she hadn’t lived in the US for at least 5 years. That’s all it takes. The location of the birth, and the citizenship status of the father, has no bearing.

My point is that, under law, no one has to DISPROVE anything to anyone else. Now, one can make the argument that he should release it in paper form to silence the critics and conspiracy theorists. That, however, only acknowledges that the conspiracy theorists need to be listened to. Berg is a crackpot. A smart one, but a crackpot just the same.

hs,

You can’t call Berg a crackpot because you disagree with him, or wish this would go away. He is not a Republican, he is a Democrat. I admire that you are taking the time to look into the details, but you have to realize the precedence this would set if he is not eligible but he is allowed in. That outcome just is not acceptable.

You present the main point of this debate, but then dismiss it. It is the most critical part:

The laws on the books at the
time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. Citizen to
have resided in the Untied States for ten (10) years,
five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14).
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born
in Kenya.

We play by rules in sports. Obama has lengthy requirements of his potential staffers. He himself says that he is a man that follows the rule of law. Let’s see him do it. Instead of dodging and postponing like a guilty criminal, he should march up to the Supreme Court, slam down his original certificate and put an end to this. If he did that, I’ll shut up completely for these 4 years, because that would be leadership.

He said he was the candidate of change. The Democrats have spent the last 8 years obstructing and stalling progress. Let’s see some of this new politics. Let’s see a man of integrity step up to the plate.

Our Constitution is at stake. The people deserve to be heard on this issue. Journalists like Jake Wagman and Jo Mannies need to get off their butts and do their job. Get the facts out there. Stop surfing the LA Times blogs you two and start hitting the pavement. Your laziness has gotten us into this mess. When the people need the truth, the press is supposed to be our advocate.