Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"

[jmichna]

"I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I would be the last person to ever begrudge anybody their ambition."
- Bill Clinton, when asked if Barack Obama is qualified to run for president.

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
- US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, excerpt

Bottom-line: Is there legitimate doubt that Barack Obama is "a natural born citizen" of the United States? Or, John McCain, for that matter?

McCain's legitimacy seems to be without question:

The Naturalization Act of 1790 states that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .''

From U.S. Constitution Online

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.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

What is the straight dope about Obama?

[amishclark]

my guess is that he was born inside the u.s. case closed. vote as you see fit.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

And I agree that everything you just said is something that's reasonable and honorable to discuss and dispute. Verifiable and dishonorable lies like "he's a muslim" and "he was sworn in on the Koran" have no place in our society. Debate the issues.

(Similarly, for McCain, let's stop hearing the "he wasn't tortured at the Hanoi Hilton" routine too. And as I heard on the radio this morning, rumors that he's not properly married since he received his marriage license to Cindy while still married to his first wife. It's all nonsense and has nothing to do with honest, Democratic debate.)

Seems some people are more interested in proving their obsessive interest in the "evils" of Obama than they are in presenting what their candidate is all about.

I find all the postings about Obama really quite humorous for the most part. Inaccurate, heresay, and myth perpetuating but humorous just the same. The flip side to this is the near total lack of info presented on McCain and why he would be the better choice.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Seems some people are more interested in proving their obsessive interest in the "evils" of Obama than they are in presenting what their candidate is all about.

I find all the postings about Obama really quite humorous for the most part. Inaccurate, heresay, and myth perpetuating but humorous just the same. The flip side to this is the near total lack of info presented on McCain and why he would be the better choice.

Check out the threads I've started for a few.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Check out the threads I've started for a few.

You are the exception and certainly not the rule. I also think you tend to stick to sustantive issue discussion as opossed to OOD ... Obama Obsessive Disorder.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

You are the exception and certainly not the rule. I also think you tend to stick to sustantive issue discussion as opossed to OOD ... Obama Obsessive Disorder.

Thanks. I do try to keep on topic, however skewed the original topic tends to get.

Is OOD anything like BAD (Bush Apologist Disorder)?

And to totally reverse my first sentence I'm going to go off track for a moment. Pelosi is on Larry King Live tonight at 9 E.S.T. It ought to be great fun to watch the Dancing Speaker!

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Thanks. I do try to keep on topic, however skewed the original topic tends to get.

Is OOD anything like BAD (Bush Apologist Disorder)?

And to totally reverse my first sentence I'm going to go off track for a moment. Pelosi is on Larry King Live tonight at 9 E.S.T. It ought to be great fun to watch the Dancing Speaker!

Fortunately I have been watching Olympics most of the evening. For me Pelosi is a most unappealing politician and in the most partisan of ways.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Seems some people are more interested in proving their obsessive interest in the "evils" of Obama than they are in presenting what their candidate is all about.

I find all the postings about Obama really quite humorous for the most part. Inaccurate, heresay, and myth perpetuating but humorous just the same. The flip side to this is the near total lack of info presented on McCain and why he would be the better choice.

Way to much Kool-Aid
Repeat it often enough isn't going to work here .... How about the 44 still unopposed LIES from your candidate ???
Are you just hoping those accusations will go away ??

What you call "obsessive interest in the "evils" of Obama", others call discussing and dissemination of information .... So ... Waahhh

If you want to talk about another candidate ... Do some research and start a thread.

You have started a few on McCain ... But don't seem to have the follow-up to keep them going ... Who's fault is that ???

Perhaps it's your topic choice that is the problem ... There are other candidates ... Try Barr, Nader or one of the drop-out/suspended candidacy people.

Hillary has always been good for a few posts ... But she's off the radar

Want to talk about the positives of a candidate ... Start a thread ... It's your right ... Just remember, most of the posters here IMO think all of these candidiates SUCK ... But if you can get a positive discussion going, and keep it going, about any of these idiots ... Do it!!!