Cali Leading the Fight?Follow

Then where was he born, and where is your evidence?

Correct. In order to pass citizenship on to Barack at birth, she would have needed to have been a resident of the US for 5 years *after* the age of 14. Since she was 18 when she gave birth, she did not meet this requirement. Thus, Barack Obama is only a "natural born" citizen if he was physically born on US soil. If he was born abroad, he is not a natural born citizen and does not qualify for the office of President of the US.



It matters because he *must* have been born on American soil. This makes the matter of the full long form which would verify that kinda important. The electronically generated certification is a reproduction based on the current "official" birth certificate, which can have changed over time, especially in cases of adoption (which apparently his step father did). There is reasonable assumption that his original birth certificate is sealed and the information contained in the certification is based on a later adjusted form. Thus, we can't be certain what the original says without unsealing it and examining it.


It's also relevant (as I've pointed out several times) because the state of Hawaii had some very loose rules regarding the generation of birth records during that time period. Women were allowed to present a child some time after the birth and just declare that they were born in the state (actually that she was a resident of the state), and a certificate would be generated based solely on her claims. If Obama's original certificate contains a hospital and a doctor or midwife's signature attesting to the live birth at that location, then the entire debate is ended. But if it doesn't, then it opens up questions as to whether he was actually born there, or his mother just claimed he was sometime after the fact. Additional data, including the filing date of the certificate itself would help in this determination.


Look. I have no clue where he was born, and I don't particularly care one way or the other. I'm honestly not trying to "prove" that he was born elsewhere. I don't have a stake in this, and I'll be happy either way. But I do believe that there is sufficient doubt surrounding his birth circumstances to warrant further investigation. If there's nothing unusual or irregular about it, then there's zero harm in checking and verifying his status as a natural born citizen, right?


I just think that if there's any doubt at all, we ought to verify this. But what I've seen for the last year or so since this question came up is a whole lot of tap dancing by Obama and his supporters, and a whole lot of statements made about things related to the issue, but nothing to actually show that his original birth certificate shows with no doubt that he was born here. Heck. As I pointed out, the director didn't even go on record to say this. Instead, she made an incredibly vague statement which didn't clear up the question at hand at all.


This should not be about what you want to be true or not, or even what you believe to be true or not. It should be about recognizing the need to verify what is true. I think that every single person who runs for president should have to show an original birth certificate to prove his eligibility. It's not just about Obama. But it seems like most of you are opposing any check on this, not because a check is a bad idea, but because you don't want it in this particular case. IMO, that's a really poor reason to take a position on something like this. Our constitution sets this requirement, we ought to take due diligence to make sure it's met. I don't see how that's unreasonable at all.

Gbaji, your links stated that the certificate Obama provided is required to conform to your so called long form. So either theres a massive conspiracy, and you're accusing the state of fraud, or everything is as it seems. Even if the long form is vague, so what? It will say he was born in Hawaii.

It already is.

It's not not resolved just because you want it not to be.

Do we even know if Obama was born in a hospital? Maybe he's not fond of the fact that he was water-birthed at home.

EDIT - I assumed he was but I can think of any number of reasons to leave it sealed that are less crazy then he is not natural-born.

Edited, Jun 12th 2009 6:22pm by baelnic

I think perhaps you don't really understand the meaning of "resolved"? To resolve a question like this, you'd need to present evidence to answer the question to the satisfaction of those asking. Your "resolution" involves massive legal action designed to avoid answering the question. That's not the same thing...

Incorrect. If the original form was the result of an application for a certificate instead of a certificate filed by a doctor in a hospital, then the information is the result of claims made by his mother after the fact. Which does not prove he was born in Hawaii. It only proves that his mother claimed he was.



No. It's not. The certificate itself would indicate that it was the result of an application by the mother and not the result of a doctor or midwife filling out a form and witnessing the birth. One establishes the proof of birth in the state. The other simply establishes that an interested party wanted her son to have US citizenship after the fact.

This is why it's necessary to look at the original form.



This is what you aren't getting. There's no need to "convince the state to lie" needed here. At the time in question, you could walk up to the state office and swear that a child with you was your child and was born in the state, but you just didn't have documentation of this, and they would allow you to fill out a form, including all of the information contained on the electronic certificate we've all seen. Anyone could do this. It was state policy. The state doesn't lie. But it allowed pretty much anyone to do so if they wanted, and just accepted whatever claim they made.

It's a massive loophole that has since been closed. However, given that it was open at the time, it would seem prudent to check the original form to see what kind of form it is. The two forms are different. They have different data on them and different titles. One indicates that it's a birth certificate and contains a doctor signature and is filled by the hospital at the time of birth. The other clearly indicates that it's an "application for birth certificate", and includes the signature of whomever provided the data that is on the form.

The former would clearly prove natural born citizen status, the latter would indicate strongly that he wasn't a natural born citizen. If he'd been born in any of the hospitals in Hawaii or delivered by a midwife they would have filled out and signed the certificate. Presumably, the only reason why an Hawaii resident would use an application type form would be if for some reason she gave birth outside of Hawaii (or somewhere where there was no attending doctor to fill out and sign a regular form).


As I've said repeatedly. It's not just about the information on the form, but which type of form it is.



Yes. The truth of what is on his current official birth certificate. But it doesn't tell us which of the two types he had. Only by looking at the original form could someone determine that.

I just don't know how to make this any clearer for you. You assume that all birth certificates are the same. But they are not. Especially not in the case of Hawaiian certificates at the time in question.



Completely wrong. The only way to prove it is to look at the actual original form and determine what kind it is. If it doesn't have a doctor or midwife's signature attesting to the live birth occurring in Hawaii, then there's a real question as to the legitimacy of his natural born citizen status. Until someone looks at that form, we can't know for sure.


Also. I love how you get to decide which people matter for this. It's a constitutional requirement. I say we should make sure it's met.


Why oppose this? Because you think it'll just show what you already believe to be true? Then why oppose it? If you're so absolutely certain that there is nothing unusual or irregular about his original birth certificate, they why be so adamantly opposed to it being checked? I don't get it. I had to present an officially sealed copy of my original California Birth Certificate when I applied for a social security number and when I applied for my first drivers license. It contained a lot of information that isn't on the certification that Obama has presented, including details like the hospital, the attending physician, a couple signatures, etc. I don't ever recall thinking it was unusual or some invasion of my privacy to do so. I think that applying for the job of President of the US should at least be equivalent in terms of documentation of qualifications, right?


Why resist presenting this documentation? Really. Why?

Incorrect. They challenged his status as a "natural born citizen", which is not the same thing. Obama presented a document which does not prove his status as a natural born citizen. He may as well have presented us with a copy of a note from his 5th grade teacher saying what a good American he was and it would have been only slightly less relevant to the question being asked.




Cite? No one has officially accepted that as proof. Lots of pundits and bloggers have, but that's not the same thing. Congress has never held a single session or hearing on this matter. The Courts have never heard this particular argument in court. They have only heard briefs and most of the cases (all of them relevant to this particular charge) have been dismissed for lack of standing. That doesn't mean that the other side proved their case. It only means that the individual plaintiff can't show that they have a stake in the outcome (ie: that they have been harmed by the action they are challenging).

That's not the same thing. No one has proved that this document is sufficient to establish natural born citizenship. No one has even officially considered the matter. That's why I said that it's being tried in the court of public opinion, when it should be tried in the Supreme Court.

Aren't you guys usually the first to argue that a majority doesn't rule in cases where the constitution is involved? So, that applies to a woman getting an abortion, but not to the requirements for a president to serve the office? Why? They are both constitutional matters. We should not dismiss this just because it appears as though a majority of people believe a particular way.



Funny. I decide if things have merit based on an examination of the facts, not by whether or not I like the people involved or think they are a "fringe group".



Because it hasn't? What do you think the burden of proof for this should be? To prove it, shouldn't he have to present the most relevant documentation available? He presented an electronic copy of a document which contains some, but not all, and most importantly not the information relevant to determining natural born citizenship.

How does that prove anything? It doesn't. I've carefully and completely outlined why I believe that the document he presented isn't sufficient to prove his natural born citizenship. You're free to check on your own what the laws are and have been in Hawaii regarding different types of birth certificates if you want.



First off. I don't know what it will say. It could say that he was born somewhere else, and then have a notation that the birth location was amended sometime later. I don't know. That's why I'd like someone to look at it and tell us. Gee. Wouldn't that just clear things up?

If it does indicate as you said, then it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine if the burden of proof for qualification for President rests on the applicant, or burden of lack of proof rests on someone else. I suspect the former, because it's the only process that makes sense and can be enforced. At that point, it becomes a question as to whether or not said application constitutes sufficient proof of natural born citizenship.




It hasn't been proven. That's the problem. And yeah. People will mutter either way, but isn't it better to go through the process and make the determination instead of leaving the issue in limbo? You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't pursue this only because we might not like the results at the far end. I think there's value in establishing some kind of legal precedent in this area of law, regardless of the outcome. That way, the next time an issue like this comes up, we'll have a better idea where we stand and what constitutes "proof".


Trust me. I have absolutely zero stake in proving that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The last thing I want is for us to have President Biden running the show. Think about it...

It's really about following the proper process of law here. This is a constitutional matter. There's no doubt about that. Why not let the process take its course and see where it leads us? I just don't see how our legal and political process benefits by avoiding this issue instead of facing it head on. You will continue to have nutters on both sides no matter what. But right now, despite quite a bit of nutterism going on, there really are legitimate constitutional questions at stake. How about we answer them?



The courts shouldn't be ignoring this issue. What they should be doing is welcoming the opportunity to establish some precedent in this area of constitutional law. Right now there is absolutely *zero* Supreme Court history on this issue. Largely because it's incredibly difficult for the correct conditions to present themselves for the court to have any reason to hear a case involving the natural born citizenship clause. It can *only* occur if someone who's running for president is suspected of not being a natural born citizen, and then only if a plaintiff can show harm from this.

Well. Those conditions have finally, for the first time in our nation's history, been met. Let's not avoid the issue, but face it head on.

Absolutely. You still have yet to show proof that he never once used his birth certificate to prove citizenship at some point in his political career and/or life.

You're right. It's resolved because the people who had the standing to question it were all silent and thus presumably satisfied with the evidence back in 2007 & 2008. The fact that you're not satisfied is absolutely meaningless aside from, I dunno, you can petition your Congresscritters to start demanding hearings or something. Go write an angry-gram to McCain demanding that he sue the courts or something if you care that much about it.

Better yet, soothe your soul and try to forget your complete impotence in this matter by telling yourself that no one in Congress could have possibly raised this issue because the Democrats were keepin' them down but they no doubt weren't satisfied with the publically available evidence.Yup, he sure has. Again, to the satisfaction of those people whose opinion on this is actually of value as opposed to a bunch of nutcases foaming on internet blogs and late night talk radio.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 12:09am by Jophiel

I've read this several times, and I'm still unsure what it means. I'm going to assume that it's basically what you said before. Perhaps you should take a course on the misuse of pronouns, and tense, and possibly sentence structure.

It's irrelevant because, for one, you can't prove a negative, and secondly, the long version being sealed, I assume someone would have dug up a record of it being unsealed. If it were an issue, it would be up to us to prove that he did show the long form that Gbaji loves so much. Fortunately it isn't.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 1:00am by Xsarus