OK, OK already!
Anybody with a brain knows that Obama is a natural US-born Marxist.
Posted by: Weapons of Mass Distraction | August 5, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
Ok…we get it already. He was born in Kenya. Bush / Cheyne coordinated 9/11 and are in bed w/ OBL. Clinton did NOT have ‘sexual relations’ w/ that woman…MOVING ON…
Posted by: Hope | August 5, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
I actually have a “certification of live birth” form from Nebraska, and my mother was born in Canada. So I guess that disqualifies me, too. Good thing ignorance isn’t fatal (except to democracy).
Very amusing, Mr. Tapper.
Now can we get on with the serious stuff???
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | August 5, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
“give Ms. Taitz a true and unbiased interview and let the public decide for themselves.”
I think that last thing Taitz wants is anymore exposure beyond the flock of sheep that she fleeces for donations.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
facts of Presidential qualifications:
citizen does not equal ‘natural born citizen’
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:
SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
This is pretty funny!
Posted by: Obama, the Second Coming | August 5, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Be careful Jake, Obamabots are watching and listening for any suspicious information.
They will report to Dear Leader.
He is always watching to see if we are living according to his rules.
No longer the land of the free.
Posted by: max | August 5, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
“If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.”
They did so.
Wong Kim was about chellenging laws that did not allow the Chinese to become naturalized citizens.
The Supremes ruled that Wong Kim was a citizen by virtue of birth hence a natural born citizen.
“In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
“I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:”
Obama never had Indonesian citizenship that is yet another birther lie.
Under US law arents are not allowed to renounce the citizenship of their children and it defies belief that a 6 year old Obama renounced his citizenship or that it was accepted by US diplomats.
“1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President”
Nope because US citizenship law since that decision has allowed for both born on the soil and citizen parent(s) paths to citizenship at birth.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.
Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief. And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago. This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President. They can. But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.
If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us. And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.
We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.
I’m not worried about Obama as President. I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets. The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.
This is the issue before the nation – and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The framers wisely provided us with that check.
By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.
Posted by: Ann | August 5, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?
As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.
“I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:”
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
US law do not allow for parents to renounce a minor’s citizenship and Obama was 6 years old when he went to Indonesia.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Yes all of this looks fishy.
Someone needs to report this to Obama.
He wants to know if anything sounds fishy.
Posted by: larry | August 5, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
“By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.”
It has not been weakened.
Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.
8 Presidents have had a foreign parent.
The birthers are in reality more concerned with Obama’s skin color and religion than his paperwork.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
“Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?”
Not since privacy laws regarding schools records were tightened a few years ago.
Parents paying for college have trouble getting records of their own children.
“As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.”
Do right wingers understand what magna cum laude means?
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?
As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.”
–> He didn’t get the brain transmplant until Harvard.
Posted by: Bet Noir | August 5, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
US law do not allow for parents to renounce a minor’s citizenship and Obama was 6 years old when he went to Indonesia.
Ryan,
Correct Ryan, a parents actions can not be held against a child, however, the actions of the child when they become of age does and his travels to Pakistan, as Andrew McCarthy says, need to be investigated.
Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant US Attorney and he knows the law. He has confirmed that the only way Obama could have gone to school in Indonesia was for him to be a citizen.
The issue is not his birth certificate, though it would shut a lot of people up if he would just come forth with it like every president has before him.
The issue is his dual citizenship at birth and possibly later in life.
These are all legitimate questions we have a right to know.
There are Constitutional issues that must be addressed before 2012.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Just goes to show you can get a birth certificate from anywhere… ;-D
1. Was the Obama Live Birth Certificate applied for mother (and/or grandmother) after the baby was born? The baby could have been born in Washington state, or anywhere outside a hospital in Hawaii and then registered in the state of Hawaii.
Or was the Birth Certificate prepared via the hospital in Hawaii where Obama was born?
2. Has the birth certificate been modified/updated to show that Barrack´s last name was changed to Soetero after he was adopted. Soetero is his stepfather´s last name and Barrack never legally changed it back to Obama?
Reading the comments leaves me with only one conclusion…
Our public school system is a disgrace that no longet teaches true american history.
What a shame
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
“Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant US Attorney and he knows the law. He has confirmed that the only way Obama could have gone to school in Indonesia was for him to be a citizen.”
Except that is not true and it is yet another birther made up fact along with the concept of his parents renouncing his citizenship or a 6 year old Obama doing so himself.
The entire birther case is built on lies.
“The issue is not his birth certificate, though it would shut a lot of people up”
He posted what Hawaii issues as their birth certificate. It shut no one up as birthers invented new lies to keep the conspiracy going.
“if he would just come forth with it like every president has before him.”
Yet another birther lie.
When did Bush post his birth certificate? Or Clinton Or Bush;s father or Reagan etc etc.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
“Our public school system is a disgrace that no longet teaches true american history.”
True American history?
What by arguing a letter from John Jay is more significant than US Citizenship law and US Supreme Court case law?
ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
Ok so this ‘fake’ Kenyan birth certificate “maker” is supposed to convince us that President Obama does indeed have an “official” US certificate of live birth???
“Ok so this ‘fake’ Kenyan birth certificate “maker” is supposed to convince us that President Obama does indeed have an “official” US certificate of live birth???”
Doubtful as birthers are apparently mentally ill.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
who cares about the birth certificate? both sides need to stop trying to delegitimize presidents… birth certificate = selected not elected. plenty of real issues to deal with. stop with the crazy talk.
Posted by: andy | August 5, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Yikes. I guess you ought to step down and let the Vice Sr White House Correspondent step in to fulfill your duties and resign in disgrace.
Posted by: Ken | August 5, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
Jake, I thought birthers were nuts but you just showed how easy it was for Obama to conjure up a fake Hawaiian birth certificate.
Imagine what Obama can do with the help of the US government experts that print money and treasury bonds at his disposal.
Now, I think there might be something to this.
It is perfectly understandable for the Birthers to be all worked up into a crazed lather. After listening to a few of them being interviewed, they clearly don’t have the capacity to even understand that Hawaii is a state in the U.S.
Birthers are definitely fringe, but they are a convenient group for Democrats to use to try to paint opponents of Obama’s health care/insurance reform campaign as all equally kooky.
For the record, I am a Republican. I voted for John McCain. I am strongly opposed to Barack Obama’s plans for health care reform. I am not, nor have I ever, questioned President Obama’s citizenship, his place of birth, or his right to hold office. He won the election fair and square and he is our president. He deserves respect on that basis.
“Birthers” have been discredited and should move on. Unfortunately, they won’t, any more than “9/11 was an inside job” folks will shake their fringe beliefs about the previous administration. Both groups are offensive, not to mention frustrating, to me.
Oh, Ryan, by the way, while I have never got really exercised by the president’s college transcripts, either, I should point out that your dismissive “What part of magna cum laude don’t you understand” line of reasoning is not necessarily the final word on the matter you assume it to be. Obama graduated from law school magna, to be sure, but all we know of his academic achievement at Columbia as an undergrad is that he graduated without any particular honors. That’s the record folks who flog that line are actually interested in– and the reason it is not forthcoming is probably to avoid a nasty debate about affirmative action, etc. In other words, Obama excelled once he made it to the prestigious law school, but some question when the excellent grades kicked in and whether he was equally stellar as an undergrad. Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them. (nor do I myself much care)
Ryan C. you are trying to use the tools of logic.
Submissive tools are only capable of repeating what they have been told.
Their power of comprehension or ability to analyze or discern truth from fiction is non existant.
Listen when attempts are made to interview them or question their motives on TV. They are not even capable of adult conversation. All they can do is regurgitate what they have heard somebody else say.
I’m just waiting for one of the rent-a-mobbers to hold up a copy of Obama’s ‘Kenyan Birth Certificate’ in a little plastic baggie at one of these town hall meetings… and then force the entire meeting to sing ‘God Bless America’ followed by ‘Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye’.
Good times.
Posted by: Lisa | August 5, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
“Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them.”
___________________________________
You’re right, you don’t know.
Excellent! I think I’ll make myself one, then I’ll jump on the GOP bus and go to a town hall where I can be a member of an “Angry Mob”…
Posted by: PatF | August 5, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
“”By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.”
It has not been weakened.
Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.”
Posted by: Ryan C
GOD! HOW LONNNNNNG do we have to have this same sham run over and over!
Not one friggin principle as farrrr as the eye can seeeeee, from seeeea to shining seeeea.
Ryan,
1. My best bud drive a nuclear sub in the military. He is INELIGIBLE to be president.
2. Look no further than WIKI to see that the PARENTS have to both be citizens! This is all just an IDIOTIC deflection of that FACT.
TWO American parents used to be able to give the birth IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and still the baby would be called “Natural Born American Citizen”. They changed that. Made the conditions MORE constricive. Now he has to be born here, OF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS!!!!
HIS FATHER WAS A BRIT SUBJECT!!!
IT AIN’T COMPLICATED!!!
Posted by: zak | August 5, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
But thank you, Jake Tapper. That would frost them royally and MAYBE… JUST MAYBE.. we could dump that counterfeit Pres. and all start pledging allegiance to a CONSTIITUTIONAL Republic again. well.. so so… but at least not a mockery of everything we stand for!
Posted by: zak | August 5, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
I believe the Kenyan BC is a fake, however, this BC generator is NOT the template used to create the Obama Kenya BC.
This BC generator was created afterwards, and is from a different BC.
Notice the folds, and the signature
This is the model for the *create your own BC*
This BC generator did NOT create the Obama Kenyan BC.
Posted by: Steve | August 5, 2009, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
“2. Look no further than WIKI to see that the PARENTS have to both be citizens! This is all just an IDIOTIC deflection of that FACT.”
ROFLMAO!
Wiki edited by birthers does not make it true.
“TWO American parents used to be able to give the birth IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and still the baby would be called “Natural Born American Citizen”. They changed that. Made the conditions MORE constricive. Now he has to be born here, OF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS!!!!”
This is a new one and like most birther myths completely wrong.
Both US citizenship law and case law supports citizenship at birth by either location on US soil OR parentage with 1 parent (as an adult) being sufficient to pass on citizenship.
US citizenship law trumps all other countries laws when it comes to how we determine who is a citizen.
Now for a hypotheitical to illustrate the birther argument,
Ireland could decide that by kinship and history to designate every denizen of Boston an Irish citizen. According to birther logic that would then disqualify every denizen of Boston as a natural born citizen because they now had dual citizenship.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
Did they at least get your birthday right? If so – Happy Birthday! Lol!
“Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them.”
___________________________________
You’re right, you don’t know.
Posted by: danita | Aug 5, 2009 5:22:34 PM
That is because Obama had all his records sealed. How strange is that?
“That is because Obama had all his records sealed. How strange is that?”
_______________________________________
I think its quite common for politicians.
Danita, read my comment again before you selectively quote from it, please. I was explaining to Ryan-C why anyone would bring up the president’s college transcripts, reminding him that the president did indeed graduate with highest distinction from law school, which does not indicate anything about similar distinctions from his undergrad years (Columbia has no record of him earning honors at that level). I concluded “We don’t know if Obama is one of them.” [that is, a mediocre undergrad], which you quoted, and then went on to write a line you don’t bother to quote” “(nor do I myself much care)”
There was no reason to reflexively jump into defensive mode. I made clear that I was providing context for the remarks others had made about college transcripts. I personally do not give a fig if Obama made the dean’s list. I am not passing judgment on his college performance. Take a deep breathe and stop responding to every comment that comes down the pike. We are not all in attack mode every moment of the day– you need not be either.
Obama could lay this to rest instantly if he would simply produce the actual, original birth certificate from Hawaii. His failure to do it will only prolong the questions. He’s the only person who can access it in Hawaii according to their state rules. Why won’t he?
Posted by: T | August 5, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
They are not even capable of adult conversation. All they can do is regurgitate what they have heard somebody else say.
Posted by: Eileen | Aug 5, 2009 5:12:51 PM
========================
Now where have I heard that before??
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 4:07 am 4:07 am
“Obama could lay this to rest instantly if he would simply produce the actual, original birth certificate from Hawaii. His failure to do it will only prolong the questions. He’s the only person who can access it in Hawaii according to their state rules. Why won’t he?”
He won’t because as long as you morons keep talking about this, you lose rational thinking people, and you gain more morons like you. If it were me, I’d be laughing at you privately, stay silent publicy, and watch as the GOP self-destructs.
After all, it’s just proof of how weak the GOP is, and you are intent on screeching that fact louder every day. It’s why cons are known to the world as impotent.
Posted by: Bill C. | August 6, 2009, 5:41 am 5:41 am
This looks more like the Bomford South Australian birth certificate than the ‘Taitz’ Obama Kenyan birth certificate. So which one is supposed to be the fake?
Why doesn’t Obama just release his vital records?
Posted by: marylou | August 6, 2009, 5:48 am 5:48 am
Bill C, precisely! Why would the WH try to lay this to rest when it makes such a convenient target for scorn. The Birthers are fringe, but to hear the Dems in Washington tell it the last few days, they make it sound as if the Birthers are mainstream republicans supported by Michael Steele, Charles Kruthammer, John McCain, insert Republican of your choice here. So of course they are going to sit on the birth certificate and watch the loons foam on.
That is not a sign of weakness in the GOP, however. Was the persistence of “9/11 an inside job” a sign of the weakness of the Democratic party? Is it now? Nope.
Yes, I wish the birthers would move on. We moderates and conservatives in the REpublican party have important issues on which we want to be heard and taken seriously, including health insurance/ care reform. We are not well served by anyone providing ammunition for those who want to paint us as extremists when all we are is concerned citizens who have a different notion of what changes are and are not necessary to fix this problem.
Posted by: moderate | August 6, 2009, 8:37 am 8:37 am
A couple of other notes about this. Apparently “The birth-certificate business is not a uniquely conservative phenomenon; the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya seems to have originated with a Hillary Clinton supporter at a blog called The Blue State”
If I wasn’t clear enough before, the birth certificate controversy isn’t over where Obama was born anymore, its over his honesty.
Also note, on the ‘natural born’ aspect. Apparently about 8 years after the constitution was ratified a Supreme Court case held that IF one was born on US soil, AND BOTH parents were US Citizens, then you were clearly a natural born citizen meeting the Constitutional definition. But that the constitution did not address any other situation nor had the court and those situations would have to be later addressed. Apparently it never has been addressed. There may be issues with Dual citizenship also. Those are all things that would have to be determined by the Supreme Court, and for that to happen, they would have to be willing to take it up — and there is NOTHING that can force them to take up anything they don’t want to for whatever reason.
That said, if anyone is aware of newer relevant case law from the Supreme Court on the natural born issue, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
Bill C, precisely! Why would the WH try to lay this to rest when it makes such a convenient target for scorn.
—————————-
Hum…. let’s think about this. Well, maybe because he’s the uniter and not the divider? Because he’s post-partisan?
How about we go a little more basic? What’s the oath he swore to when he took office? Wait a minute, what’s the office he’s in? Does the President of the United States (re-read those last 5 words, or at the very least the last 2 – UNITED STATES), does the President of the United States represent only the Democratic Party, or does he represent the entire citizenry of the United States, including Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Birther’s, ALL CITIZENS??
If he’s sitting in the Oval office laughing about the ‘birthers’ while withholding his BC for political gain, then consider that perhaps he really doesn’t deserve the office at all. Ya think?
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Well, I don’t know why my first post on the issue got pulled. Short version. Ryan C noted that citizenship laws only required one adult citizen parent to confer citizenship on the child.
I noted that apparently the laws at the time Obama was born required not only one adult citizen parent, but that the parent have resided in the US for 5 continuous years after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born, and therefore she did not meet this requirement.
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Email
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
I knew it!
Posted by: gobot | August 5, 2009, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
OK, OK already!
Anybody with a brain knows that Obama is a natural US-born Marxist.
Posted by: Weapons of Mass Distraction | August 5, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
Ok…we get it already. He was born in Kenya. Bush / Cheyne coordinated 9/11 and are in bed w/ OBL. Clinton did NOT have ‘sexual relations’ w/ that woman…MOVING ON…
Posted by: Hope | August 5, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
I actually have a “certification of live birth” form from Nebraska, and my mother was born in Canada. So I guess that disqualifies me, too. Good thing ignorance isn’t fatal (except to democracy).
Posted by: Joyomama | August 5, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
Thats pretty good. But they need to make it in French. Isn’t French Kenyas national language? Too lazy to look up. Someone else do it.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
This BC says Jake was born in Kenya. It’s all starting to make sense… LOL
Posted by: Skipppy Gates | August 5, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
Very amusing, Mr. Tapper.
Now can we get on with the serious stuff???
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | August 5, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
“give Ms. Taitz a true and unbiased interview and let the public decide for themselves.”
I think that last thing Taitz wants is anymore exposure beyond the flock of sheep that she fleeces for donations.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
facts of Presidential qualifications:
citizen does not equal ‘natural born citizen’
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:
SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
This is pretty funny!
Posted by: Obama, the Second Coming | August 5, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Be careful Jake, Obamabots are watching and listening for any suspicious information.
They will report to Dear Leader.
He is always watching to see if we are living according to his rules.
No longer the land of the free.
Posted by: max | August 5, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
“If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.”
They did so.
Wong Kim was about chellenging laws that did not allow the Chinese to become naturalized citizens.
The Supremes ruled that Wong Kim was a citizen by virtue of birth hence a natural born citizen.
“In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
“I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:”
Obama never had Indonesian citizenship that is yet another birther lie.
Under US law arents are not allowed to renounce the citizenship of their children and it defies belief that a 6 year old Obama renounced his citizenship or that it was accepted by US diplomats.
“1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President”
Nope because US citizenship law since that decision has allowed for both born on the soil and citizen parent(s) paths to citizenship at birth.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.
Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief. And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago. This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President. They can. But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.
If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us. And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.
We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.
I’m not worried about Obama as President. I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets. The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.
This is the issue before the nation – and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The framers wisely provided us with that check.
By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.
Posted by: Ann | August 5, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?
As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.
Posted by: tyler | August 5, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
“I suggest a conversation with Andrew McCarthy at NRO as he touched ont his last week and says that there are questions that need to be answered, especially in the light of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship:”
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
US law do not allow for parents to renounce a minor’s citizenship and Obama was 6 years old when he went to Indonesia.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Yes all of this looks fishy.
Someone needs to report this to Obama.
He wants to know if anything sounds fishy.
Posted by: larry | August 5, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
“By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.”
It has not been weakened.
Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.
8 Presidents have had a foreign parent.
The birthers are in reality more concerned with Obama’s skin color and religion than his paperwork.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
“Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?”
Not since privacy laws regarding schools records were tightened a few years ago.
Parents paying for college have trouble getting records of their own children.
“As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.”
Do right wingers understand what magna cum laude means?
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“Jake can you get a copy of his college transcript?
As much as Obama loves to brag about himself it must be pretty bad.”
–> He didn’t get the brain transmplant until Harvard.
Posted by: Bet Noir | August 5, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
US law do not allow for parents to renounce a minor’s citizenship and Obama was 6 years old when he went to Indonesia.
Ryan,
Correct Ryan, a parents actions can not be held against a child, however, the actions of the child when they become of age does and his travels to Pakistan, as Andrew McCarthy says, need to be investigated.
Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant US Attorney and he knows the law. He has confirmed that the only way Obama could have gone to school in Indonesia was for him to be a citizen.
The issue is not his birth certificate, though it would shut a lot of people up if he would just come forth with it like every president has before him.
The issue is his dual citizenship at birth and possibly later in life.
These are all legitimate questions we have a right to know.
There are Constitutional issues that must be addressed before 2012.
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Just goes to show you can get a birth certificate from anywhere… ;-D
Posted by: samhiguchi | August 5, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
1. Was the Obama Live Birth Certificate applied for mother (and/or grandmother) after the baby was born? The baby could have been born in Washington state, or anywhere outside a hospital in Hawaii and then registered in the state of Hawaii.
Or was the Birth Certificate prepared via the hospital in Hawaii where Obama was born?
2. Has the birth certificate been modified/updated to show that Barrack´s last name was changed to Soetero after he was adopted. Soetero is his stepfather´s last name and Barrack never legally changed it back to Obama?
Posted by: sallyj | August 5, 2009, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
Reading the comments leaves me with only one conclusion…
Our public school system is a disgrace that no longet teaches true american history.
What a shame
Posted by: Linda | August 5, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
“Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant US Attorney and he knows the law. He has confirmed that the only way Obama could have gone to school in Indonesia was for him to be a citizen.”
Except that is not true and it is yet another birther made up fact along with the concept of his parents renouncing his citizenship or a 6 year old Obama doing so himself.
The entire birther case is built on lies.
“The issue is not his birth certificate, though it would shut a lot of people up”
He posted what Hawaii issues as their birth certificate. It shut no one up as birthers invented new lies to keep the conspiracy going.
“if he would just come forth with it like every president has before him.”
Yet another birther lie.
When did Bush post his birth certificate? Or Clinton Or Bush;s father or Reagan etc etc.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
“Our public school system is a disgrace that no longet teaches true american history.”
True American history?
What by arguing a letter from John Jay is more significant than US Citizenship law and US Supreme Court case law?
ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
Ok so this ‘fake’ Kenyan birth certificate “maker” is supposed to convince us that President Obama does indeed have an “official” US certificate of live birth???
Posted by: Valentina | August 5, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
“Ok so this ‘fake’ Kenyan birth certificate “maker” is supposed to convince us that President Obama does indeed have an “official” US certificate of live birth???”
Doubtful as birthers are apparently mentally ill.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
who cares about the birth certificate? both sides need to stop trying to delegitimize presidents… birth certificate = selected not elected. plenty of real issues to deal with. stop with the crazy talk.
Posted by: andy | August 5, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Yikes. I guess you ought to step down and let the Vice Sr White House Correspondent step in to fulfill your duties and resign in disgrace.
Posted by: Ken | August 5, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
Jake, I thought birthers were nuts but you just showed how easy it was for Obama to conjure up a fake Hawaiian birth certificate.
Imagine what Obama can do with the help of the US government experts that print money and treasury bonds at his disposal.
Now, I think there might be something to this.
Posted by: Uninformed voter | August 5, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
It is perfectly understandable for the Birthers to be all worked up into a crazed lather. After listening to a few of them being interviewed, they clearly don’t have the capacity to even understand that Hawaii is a state in the U.S.
Posted by: Eileen | August 5, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Birthers are definitely fringe, but they are a convenient group for Democrats to use to try to paint opponents of Obama’s health care/insurance reform campaign as all equally kooky.
For the record, I am a Republican. I voted for John McCain. I am strongly opposed to Barack Obama’s plans for health care reform. I am not, nor have I ever, questioned President Obama’s citizenship, his place of birth, or his right to hold office. He won the election fair and square and he is our president. He deserves respect on that basis.
“Birthers” have been discredited and should move on. Unfortunately, they won’t, any more than “9/11 was an inside job” folks will shake their fringe beliefs about the previous administration. Both groups are offensive, not to mention frustrating, to me.
Oh, Ryan, by the way, while I have never got really exercised by the president’s college transcripts, either, I should point out that your dismissive “What part of magna cum laude don’t you understand” line of reasoning is not necessarily the final word on the matter you assume it to be. Obama graduated from law school magna, to be sure, but all we know of his academic achievement at Columbia as an undergrad is that he graduated without any particular honors. That’s the record folks who flog that line are actually interested in– and the reason it is not forthcoming is probably to avoid a nasty debate about affirmative action, etc. In other words, Obama excelled once he made it to the prestigious law school, but some question when the excellent grades kicked in and whether he was equally stellar as an undergrad. Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them. (nor do I myself much care)
Posted by: moderate | August 5, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Ryan C. you are trying to use the tools of logic.
Submissive tools are only capable of repeating what they have been told.
Their power of comprehension or ability to analyze or discern truth from fiction is non existant.
Listen when attempts are made to interview them or question their motives on TV. They are not even capable of adult conversation. All they can do is regurgitate what they have heard somebody else say.
Posted by: Eileen | August 5, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
I’m just waiting for one of the rent-a-mobbers to hold up a copy of Obama’s ‘Kenyan Birth Certificate’ in a little plastic baggie at one of these town hall meetings… and then force the entire meeting to sing ‘God Bless America’ followed by ‘Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye’.
Good times.
Posted by: Lisa | August 5, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
“Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them.”
___________________________________
You’re right, you don’t know.
Posted by: danita | August 5, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
Excellent! I think I’ll make myself one, then I’ll jump on the GOP bus and go to a town hall where I can be a member of an “Angry Mob”…
Posted by: PatF | August 5, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
“”By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.”
It has not been weakened.
Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.”
Posted by: Ryan C
GOD! HOW LONNNNNNG do we have to have this same sham run over and over!
Not one friggin principle as farrrr as the eye can seeeeee, from seeeea to shining seeeea.
Ryan,
1. My best bud drive a nuclear sub in the military. He is INELIGIBLE to be president.
2. Look no further than WIKI to see that the PARENTS have to both be citizens! This is all just an IDIOTIC deflection of that FACT.
TWO American parents used to be able to give the birth IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and still the baby would be called “Natural Born American Citizen”. They changed that. Made the conditions MORE constricive. Now he has to be born here, OF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS!!!!
HIS FATHER WAS A BRIT SUBJECT!!!
IT AIN’T COMPLICATED!!!
Posted by: zak | August 5, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
But thank you, Jake Tapper. That would frost them royally and MAYBE… JUST MAYBE.. we could dump that counterfeit Pres. and all start pledging allegiance to a CONSTIITUTIONAL Republic again. well.. so so… but at least not a mockery of everything we stand for!
Posted by: zak | August 5, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
I believe the Kenyan BC is a fake, however, this BC generator is NOT the template used to create the Obama Kenya BC.
This BC generator was created afterwards, and is from a different BC.
Notice the folds, and the signature
This is the model for the *create your own BC*
This BC generator did NOT create the Obama Kenyan BC.
Posted by: sarainitaly | August 5, 2009, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
doh!
Posted by: zak | August 5, 2009, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm
Thanks Jake, this just made my day.
Posted by: Steve | August 5, 2009, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
“2. Look no further than WIKI to see that the PARENTS have to both be citizens! This is all just an IDIOTIC deflection of that FACT.”
ROFLMAO!
Wiki edited by birthers does not make it true.
“TWO American parents used to be able to give the birth IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and still the baby would be called “Natural Born American Citizen”. They changed that. Made the conditions MORE constricive. Now he has to be born here, OF TWO AMERICAN PARENTS!!!!”
This is a new one and like most birther myths completely wrong.
Both US citizenship law and case law supports citizenship at birth by either location on US soil OR parentage with 1 parent (as an adult) being sufficient to pass on citizenship.
US citizenship law trumps all other countries laws when it comes to how we determine who is a citizen.
Now for a hypotheitical to illustrate the birther argument,
Ireland could decide that by kinship and history to designate every denizen of Boston an Irish citizen. According to birther logic that would then disqualify every denizen of Boston as a natural born citizen because they now had dual citizenship.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
Did they at least get your birthday right? If so – Happy Birthday! Lol!
Posted by: Camille Howe | August 5, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
“Lots of grad students started out as mediocre undergrads. We don’t know if Obama is one of them.”
___________________________________
You’re right, you don’t know.
Posted by: danita | Aug 5, 2009 5:22:34 PM
That is because Obama had all his records sealed. How strange is that?
Posted by: Danilo | August 5, 2009, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
“That is because Obama had all his records sealed. How strange is that?”
_______________________________________
I think its quite common for politicians.
Posted by: danita | August 5, 2009, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
Danita, read my comment again before you selectively quote from it, please. I was explaining to Ryan-C why anyone would bring up the president’s college transcripts, reminding him that the president did indeed graduate with highest distinction from law school, which does not indicate anything about similar distinctions from his undergrad years (Columbia has no record of him earning honors at that level). I concluded “We don’t know if Obama is one of them.” [that is, a mediocre undergrad], which you quoted, and then went on to write a line you don’t bother to quote” “(nor do I myself much care)”
There was no reason to reflexively jump into defensive mode. I made clear that I was providing context for the remarks others had made about college transcripts. I personally do not give a fig if Obama made the dean’s list. I am not passing judgment on his college performance. Take a deep breathe and stop responding to every comment that comes down the pike. We are not all in attack mode every moment of the day– you need not be either.
Posted by: moderate | August 5, 2009, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm
Obama could lay this to rest instantly if he would simply produce the actual, original birth certificate from Hawaii. His failure to do it will only prolong the questions. He’s the only person who can access it in Hawaii according to their state rules. Why won’t he?
Posted by: T | August 5, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
They are not even capable of adult conversation. All they can do is regurgitate what they have heard somebody else say.
Posted by: Eileen | Aug 5, 2009 5:12:51 PM
========================
Now where have I heard that before??
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 4:07 am 4:07 am
“Obama could lay this to rest instantly if he would simply produce the actual, original birth certificate from Hawaii. His failure to do it will only prolong the questions. He’s the only person who can access it in Hawaii according to their state rules. Why won’t he?”
He won’t because as long as you morons keep talking about this, you lose rational thinking people, and you gain more morons like you. If it were me, I’d be laughing at you privately, stay silent publicy, and watch as the GOP self-destructs.
After all, it’s just proof of how weak the GOP is, and you are intent on screeching that fact louder every day. It’s why cons are known to the world as impotent.
Posted by: Bill C. | August 6, 2009, 5:41 am 5:41 am
This looks more like the Bomford South Australian birth certificate than the ‘Taitz’ Obama Kenyan birth certificate. So which one is supposed to be the fake?
Why doesn’t Obama just release his vital records?
Posted by: marylou | August 6, 2009, 5:48 am 5:48 am
Bill C, precisely! Why would the WH try to lay this to rest when it makes such a convenient target for scorn. The Birthers are fringe, but to hear the Dems in Washington tell it the last few days, they make it sound as if the Birthers are mainstream republicans supported by Michael Steele, Charles Kruthammer, John McCain, insert Republican of your choice here. So of course they are going to sit on the birth certificate and watch the loons foam on.
That is not a sign of weakness in the GOP, however. Was the persistence of “9/11 an inside job” a sign of the weakness of the Democratic party? Is it now? Nope.
Yes, I wish the birthers would move on. We moderates and conservatives in the REpublican party have important issues on which we want to be heard and taken seriously, including health insurance/ care reform. We are not well served by anyone providing ammunition for those who want to paint us as extremists when all we are is concerned citizens who have a different notion of what changes are and are not necessary to fix this problem.
Posted by: moderate | August 6, 2009, 8:37 am 8:37 am
A couple of other notes about this. Apparently “The birth-certificate business is not a uniquely conservative phenomenon; the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya seems to have originated with a Hillary Clinton supporter at a blog called The Blue State”
If I wasn’t clear enough before, the birth certificate controversy isn’t over where Obama was born anymore, its over his honesty.
Also note, on the ‘natural born’ aspect. Apparently about 8 years after the constitution was ratified a Supreme Court case held that IF one was born on US soil, AND BOTH parents were US Citizens, then you were clearly a natural born citizen meeting the Constitutional definition. But that the constitution did not address any other situation nor had the court and those situations would have to be later addressed. Apparently it never has been addressed. There may be issues with Dual citizenship also. Those are all things that would have to be determined by the Supreme Court, and for that to happen, they would have to be willing to take it up — and there is NOTHING that can force them to take up anything they don’t want to for whatever reason.
That said, if anyone is aware of newer relevant case law from the Supreme Court on the natural born issue, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
Bill C, precisely! Why would the WH try to lay this to rest when it makes such a convenient target for scorn.
—————————-
Hum…. let’s think about this. Well, maybe because he’s the uniter and not the divider? Because he’s post-partisan?
How about we go a little more basic? What’s the oath he swore to when he took office? Wait a minute, what’s the office he’s in? Does the President of the United States (re-read those last 5 words, or at the very least the last 2 – UNITED STATES), does the President of the United States represent only the Democratic Party, or does he represent the entire citizenry of the United States, including Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Birther’s, ALL CITIZENS??
If he’s sitting in the Oval office laughing about the ‘birthers’ while withholding his BC for political gain, then consider that perhaps he really doesn’t deserve the office at all. Ya think?
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Well, I don’t know why my first post on the issue got pulled. Short version. Ryan C noted that citizenship laws only required one adult citizen parent to confer citizenship on the child.
I noted that apparently the laws at the time Obama was born required not only one adult citizen parent, but that the parent have resided in the US for 5 continuous years after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born, and therefore she did not meet this requirement.
Posted by: And Atlas Shrugs Yet Again | August 6, 2009, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm