I don’t think that the technicality that he references is the Constitution. The technicality is that in 1961, under US Immigration law, a US citizen mother, who gives birth to a child in another country, and is 19 years old, can give her child Natural-born US citizenship status, while the same woman in the same circumstance, who is 18 years and 9 months old, as Obama’s mother was, would have a child who does not qualify for US citizenship. In reality, this was a very stupid law.
However, it was the law, and no matter how stupid or technical the author believes it to be, it is still legally binding. Truthfully, I believe that BO was born in Hawaii. If he turns out to have been born outside the US, I would think the dishonesty factor, rather than the citizenship factor would be a bigger issue for the American people.
If he was born in Hawaii........let him prove it to the American people. Let the people see the Birth Certificate. Let the people see all of his records. Without doing this, half of our nation will never accept him....regardless of what the media or politicians say.
You can't say this isn't enlightening, though.
We're told by journalists that citizenship laws are "technicalities" -- exactly the view of transnational progressives -- no borders, no countries, what's the diff?
On the other side of the aisle, Republican Senator Mel Martinez of Florida sends a canned response to email inquiries on this subject in which he references an opinion handed down by the US District Court, Eastern PA:
"The court...noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office." [and therefore] "The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President."
So, according to Martinez, whoever wins the most votes is therefore qualified. Who needs the Consitution when we have American Idol?
I don't know where he was born, and at this point, it's no longer the point. The piece of paper he wants everyone to believe proves his identity doesn't -- it could reflect exactly the information on his original birth certificate, or, considering the various Hawaiian statutes concerning reporting of births or changing of records, it could simply reflect the latest of one or more changes and/or anomalies in his official birth record(s). The only thing it proves is that what Hawaii characterizes as an original record exists.