Thread: Meet the Press

Originally Posted by denmason

There is every reason he should cooperate. So far he hasn't come forth with the documents. I am not a Republican or Democrat, but I sure want to know. This could lead to some very interesting events happening in America should it be reviled that he is not what he says he is.

I agree it would be an unmitigated catastrophe. Personally I think it would suck bad to have McCain win on a technicality (no matter how important the technicality).
But in this case, he has nothing to win by cooperating immediately.

This way he can keep the Rep Mudslingers occupied.
If McCain should openly attack, he can just say 'Oh here are my papers' and McCain will appear childish and lose more points. Worst comes to worst, there will be a court case, he will show his papers and that'll be it. And he will still be able to put a negative spin on this for McCain.

Perhaps you are someone who cares, but 99.99% of the people will assume that he is American unless he is proven not to.

Aw jeez.....

OK here goes.

The following is taken from the following article:

snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in Article II of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

These qualifications aren't quite so straightforward as they might seem, however. For example, what does the phrase "fourteen years a resident within the United States" mean? Can those fourteen years be cumulative, or do they have to be consecutive? Likewise, the "natural-born citizen" requirement is not so straightforward either, because the Constitution didn't define what a natural-born citizen was. (The definition of "natural-born citizen" was left up to individual states to decide until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, but even that amendment has been subject to further interpretation.)

What qualifies a person for natural-born citizenship status under U.S. law can be quite complicated, depending on factors such as where the person was born, when he was born, where he and his parents lived, and the nationalities of his parents.

Some of these factors might seemingly come into play in the case of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Although his mother was herself a natural-born U.S. citizen, his father was a Kenyan national, and his parents may or may not have been legally married in the eyes of U.S. law.

A few facets of this claim immediately jump out as being far-fetched: first, that a sitting U.S. Senator who has already spent a good deal of time and money securing his party's nomination for the presidency would suddenly be discovered as ineligible due to an obscure provision of U.S. law; and second, that U.S. law would essentially penalize someone who would otherwise qualify for natural-born citizenship status simply because his mother was too young. The fact is, the qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there (21 August 1959 for statehood vs. 4 August 1961 for Obama's birthdate).

Some outdated versions of this item conclude by stating that "It should be demanded that Obama produce his 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate," but in fact his campaign made an image of that document available on the Internet back in mid-2008.

In August 2008, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in Kenya (not Hawaii) and/or subsequently gave up his U.S. citizenship and thus does not qualify as a native-born citizen of the U.S. Lawsuits over candidates' eligibility are not uncommon: similar lawsuits (none of them successful), for example, have been filed challenging the citizenship status of John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone), challenging the Wyoming residency status of Dick Cheney (who was born in Wyoming but moved to Texas), and challenging the citizenship status of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (who was born in Arizona before that territory was admitted as a state).

Thanks Sidney. Seems to me this answers the question then.

Also, the lawsuit has been filed by a Democrat.

Originally Posted by denmason

I'm still waiting to see Obama produce credentials proving that he is a natural born American citizen. Without proof he is not in standing to be a candidate let alone be on the Ballot. If he is indeed a natural born American, provide the documentation.

I guess you missed this thread

Just to recap, here's something from Obama's website:

Three quick points:

1. The last Sunday of Sep. I received a draft copy of the judge's ruling in Obama's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed. The judge found sufficient evidence to dismiss Obama's petition and require that he prove his status as a natural-born citizen. He is still delaying.

2. As odd as it may sound, there is no agency that is required to vett any candiadate's status. While a contitutional requirement to be natural-born, no one is tasked to ensure it. Since it has not been an issue except for two candidates who were born in U.S. territories, there is nothing in place to deal with this situation as we see it now, where a candiadate may be foreign-born.

3. Obama provided a certificate of live birth, which is not a birth certificate. Under the laws in Hawaii at the time, all his mother had to do was show up and show paternity (maternity) and that he was actually alive. This is stated in the lawsuit, and the judge found it credible.

Originally Posted by denmason

Check it. Don't be surprised to see McCain throw this down next week.

Actually, there are quite the number of folks, including folks serving on the Appeals circuit courts, that think McCain's Canal Zone birth doesn't qualify for "natural born"

Oh, please, tell me we're not still going through this crap. This was put aside months ago. This guy in PA was a Hillary supporter who was part of the "kitchen sink" strategy.

"Certificate of live birth" and "Birth Certificate" are the same thing. My son once had trouble because his proof of birth said "birth registration" and some clueless bureaucrat suggested it wasn't kosher. Fortunately, my wife is an attorney, and I sincerely doubt the idiot will try something that stupid again.

This re-birth of the phony "birth registration" scam smacks more than a little of desperation.

j

Scott, I wonder if it could mean a third term for Bush or at least a prolonged 2nd term?

really now, you guys should find better things to do with your time then dredge up this garbage about Obama's birth. Like with John Mccain the real issues take a back seat to this kind of stuff.