However, if you or others are alleging falsifying documents either by his mother, his grandmother, or his father, that is another matter altogether. That is, of course, criminal activity.
One of my children was born overseas and both traveled with us abroad as children. Other than telling them they were travelling again, I told my children very little about why they were having their photographs and fingerprints taken again, or getting shots, and I made especially sure that they never had physical custody of any critical paperwork for any longer than absolutely necessary for fear it would be lost. And no one, including me, ever explained the nuances of citizenship law to them. It wasn't necessary: they had been told they were US citizens, end of discussion.
Consequently, assuming these supposed illegal acts occurred, I'm not sure how much blame I'd attach to him personally for them up to the point of majority.
Subsequent to that, of course, he owns the acts and any falsehoods told to cover them up.
I read through the opinion you provided at the link and have no problems with it except this part:
The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.
I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
In the Cornell University Annotated Constitution, there is this note in the discussion of Marbury v Madison:
"Finally, the Chief Justice noticed the supremacy clause, which gave the Constitution precedence over laws and treaties and provided that only laws “which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution” are to be the supreme laws of the land."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag29_user.html)
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on citizenship and naturalization.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on the operation of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court is not going to say the 1790 Congress, one consisting of many of the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution, somehow had forgotten their original intentions when the language in Section II,Article I, Clause 5 of the Constitution was drafted.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that, in the naturalization law passed by the Congress in 1790, the one ascribing "natural-born" citizen status to children of US citizens born overseas, that the Congress had somehow forgotten what it meant by "natural-born" just three years earlier.
And finally, the Supreme Court is not going to effectively bar forever, in defiance of the 14th Amendment, millions of present and future otherwise "natural-born" United States citizens from election the highest office in the land just because of where their United States citizen parent(s) were when the labor contractions came.
The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.
I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
Your opinion is wonderful. But here is the real world--I am a federal tax lawyer--I have argued Supreme Court cases but that isn't what I do. But I deal with DC lawyers a great deal and this issue, and the related issue with respect to McCain is a hot gossip issue among professionals who make a living arguing cases to the Supreme Court.
The overwhelming view is that if the issue ever gets to the Supreme Court, assuming Obama was in fact born in Kenya, neither McCain nor Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4.
I have tried as best I can to lay out in layman's language why it is likely that is how the Court comes down--lots of people here can't get over the view that McCain ought not lose a Constitutional privilege because his father was serving his country outside the US when he was born (it would be more difficult if it was his mother--she could have returned to the US to preserve his position). The Court's usual response to those kinds of arguments is that is why the Amendment process is in the Constitution--if you think it is unfair, amend the Constitution.
Like all arguments, there are two sides; and there is a political context. Although at the moment, it looks to me as though the political context probably also cuts in favor of the usually accepted Constitutional lawyer's view.
But knowing that you don't want to hear it from me, the real bottom line is that (if Obama was born in Kenya) neither McCain nor Obama pass the test. And if it gets to the Supreme Court, expect that result.