Secrecy over birth certificate, demand for 'natural-born' citizenship cited
(http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66787)

Dscuss.

Bloggers are raising questions about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to be U.S. president, because of the secrecy over his birth certificate and the requirement presidents be "natural-born" U.S. citizens.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

I believe the obama camp was trying to do something the same with McCain since he was born on a US base in the Panama Canal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "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."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.



Ripped from the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen


Edit:
The actual 14th amendment:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So any law that says Obama is not a citizen is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "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."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.



Ripped from the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen


Edit:
The actual 14th amendment:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So any law that says Obama is not a citizen is unconstitutional.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The question is not whether or not Obama (and possibly McCain) is a US citizen. The question is whether or not he is considered a "natural-born" citizen as required by Article II of the Constitution.

It has everything to do with this. The 14th amendment is the basis of all discussions regarding citizenship, and 'natural born citizenship'. In general, the argument is over extending 'natural born citizenship' to those born on non-US soil to US citizen parents (like McCain, who is indeed a natural born US citizen despite being born in Panama). If someone is born on US soil, like Hawaii for instance, they are certainly and undoubtedly both a US citizen and a 'natural born US citizen'.

Another wikipedia page with some info about the standing legal definitions and all that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

It has everything to do with this. The 14th amendment is the basis of all discussions regarding citizenship, and 'natural born citizenship'. In general, the argument is over extending 'natural born citizenship' to those born on non-US soil to US citizen parents (like McCain, who is indeed a natural born US citizen despite being born in Panama). If someone is born on US soil, like Hawaii for instance, they are certainly and undoubtedly both a US citizen and a 'natural born US citizen'.

Another wikipedia page with some info about the standing legal definitions and all that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Are you saying that it's cool for an immigrant, after becoming a US citizen, to become the president?

It has everything to do with this. The 14th amendment is the basis of all discussions regarding citizenship, and 'natural born citizenship'. In general, the argument is over extending 'natural born citizenship' to those born on non-US soil to US citizen parents (like McCain, who is indeed a natural born US citizen despite being born in Panama). If someone is born on US soil, like Hawaii for instance, they are certainly and undoubtedly both a US citizen and a 'natural born US citizen'.

Another wikipedia page with some info about the standing legal definitions and all that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

I believe thats the problem here is the verification that Obama was actually born on US soil.

his campaign will not release a copy of the birth certificate to verify if he was or not.

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "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."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.



Ripped from the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen


Edit:
The actual 14th amendment:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So any law that says Obama is not a citizen is unconstitutional.

It has everything to do with this. The 14th amendment is the basis of all discussions regarding citizenship, and 'natural born citizenship'. In general, the argument is over extending 'natural born citizenship' to those born on non-US soil to US citizen parents (like McCain, who is indeed a natural born US citizen despite being born in Panama). If someone is born on US soil, like Hawaii for instance, they are certainly and undoubtedly both a US citizen and a 'natural born US citizen'.

Another wikipedia page with some info about the standing legal definitions and all that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen



Your own quote of the 14th amendment says nothing about "natural born citizen". That is why people are questioning this. Some may argue that it is semantics over terminology, but the wording regarding citizenship within the 14th amendment is not the same as the wording in Article II. The founding fathers never clearly laid out a definition of the term they inserted into Article II. At the time it was unnecessary and they never imagined a situation like the one both McCain and Obama are in.

Doesn't the government have this on file? Can't they just access the document to verify this? Federal interest in national security should override any Hawaii state law for privacy.

I wonder what happened to this proposed legislation from 2004? It seems like a good way (short of an amendment) to clear things up and prevent interpretation and debate.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php

Are you saying that it's cool for an immigrant, after becoming a US citizen, to become the president?

No. I'm saying ANYONE who is born on US soil should be eligible to be president.

I believe thats the problem here is the verification that Obama was actually born on US soil.

his campaign will not release a copy of the birth certificate to verify if he was or not.

I suppose that could be an issue, but I haven't heard anyone questioning weather he was born in Hawaii or not. I've just seen this garbage about his mom not having lived in the US for long enough, his dad being a foreigner, etc. None of which matters, since he was born on US soil.

The founding fathers never clearly laid out a definition of the term they inserted into Article II. At the time it was unnecessary and they never imagined a situation like the one both McCain and Obama are in.

Exactly. Because the founding fathers never imagined a group of people so illogical that would come up with the idea that someone born on US land of non-foreign-diplomat parents would ever in a million years be questioned as to weather or not they are a 'natural born US citizen'. Seriously, how more straight forward can it get. He was born in the United States. On US soil.

I wonder what happened to this proposed legislation from 2004? It seems like a good way (short of an amendment) to clear things up and prevent interpretation and debate.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php

I read that too. Again, I'd like to point out that the subject of that article is about INCLUDING people NOT born on US soil as 'natural born citizens'. It has nothing to do with EXCLUDING people who WERE born on US soil from being 'natural born citizens'.

I suppose that could be an issue, but I haven't heard anyone questioning weather he was born in Hawaii or not. I've just seen this garbage about his mom not having lived in the US for long enough, his dad being a foreigner, etc. None of which matters, since he was born on US soil.


Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.


:thumb:

Doesn't the government have this on file? Can't they just access the document to verify this? Federal interest in national security should override any Hawaii state law for privacy.

I would assume it would have been proven to those that actually need ot know the information when he put in his bid for presidency

If it was an issue for EITHER candidate, they wouldn't have made it this far into Presidential candidacy. Give the Republican/Democrat party leadership some credit.

File under non-issue.com