[FrankR]

"Plausible deniability. Who has retrievable memories of where they were the day they were born? If you grew up with people telling you you were born in “x”, you grow up believing you were born in “x”. "

Were you part of the original O.J. jury?????

The burden of proof is on Obama, not the rest of us. He has to prove his Constitutional eligibility for the office of President, not us. If he can't do that, well it sucks to be him.

That is why the United States and other countries have a system of registering births, so there are doctors, hospitals, and other witnesses to provide a evidence that you were, in fact, born at a certain time and a certain place. Pretty simple concept, and a system that has proven to be legally valid and certifiable and required for everything from entering school, getting a passport, to applying for Social Security.

That is why we want to see the document the Governor of Hawaii has under seal. That's all, we just want to see it. Not a big request. Not an expensive request. Not an illegal request...we just want to see it.

Show us the papers.

[fightinJAG]

It’s not all about the birth certificate. It’s really about the legal definition of a “natural born citizen.”

Based on the raonale for the “natural born citizen” provision-—ensuring against foreign allegiance, etc.-—here’s what I think would have made sense to the framers at the time:

(1) Natural born citizen = a citizen literally “born American” (as opposed to merely born IN America). This means citizenship determined by descent-—i.e., by operation of nature (or “natural law”). At that time, most likely descent from the father. I don’t think we have had a president whose parents were not both Americans at the time of his birth. Obama’s named father clearly was not an American.

(2) Citizenship at birth = those who are Americans at birth because a law makes them so-—i.e., by operation of law-—, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. These Americans AT birth would not have the same status as Americans BY birth. In the latter case, no law, at all, was required to make them citizens while, in the former case, a law was required.

(3) Naturalized citizens = those who were not Americans BY birth or AT birth, but obtain citizenship later by fulfilling a legal requirement and doing a substantive legal act to obtain citizenship. This would be citizenship by operation of law and volition.

In short:

— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;

— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and

— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.

Since much of the caselaw on citizenship addresses only citizenship, and therefore could be limited to citizenship by operation of positive law (i.e., AT birth as opposed to BY birth), much of that precedent may not be helpful in determining eligibility to serve as President.

OTOH, if natural born citizenship status is as simple as having two parents who were Americans by the time of one’s birth, or—according to the law at the time-—a father who was American by the time of one’s birth, that’s a straightforward standard that would greatly limit the possible factual permutations that could be presented.

[Secret Agent Man]

Stop reading in things to what I said. Too many people here are firing from the hip at shadows.

What I said in my post and what I personally believe about Obama (yeah I think he’s hiding stuff about this) are two different things.

Have a beer, dammit.

[TheThinker]

I’ll just be happy if Obama simply lets the Supreme Court see it. They can then rule as they see fit.