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.