“I suppose which states’ statutes would Obama have had to follow, and would that apply to other states he’d moved to is what we need to find out.”
No, this is missing my point. States CAN have different procedures/rules for “official” name changes, but as a matter of constitutional right, anyone can change their name at will:
“The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one’s name at will, by common law, is clearly one’s constitutional right. Nonetheless, one may still choose to have a court issued name change.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change
But as a practical matter, one might be forced to resort to a formal name change “by the book” in instances that businesses or others refuse to recognize your new name:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/5/objectId/7C7FA175-7305-4E94-8D24DB5866EEE3CB/catId/211754E8-4167-4E64-9EABA23C9510DE4F/118/121/FAQ/
My interpretation is that in the above instance, one could technically FORCE a business to accept a name change on constitutional grounds, but pragmatically, it is far cheaper to simply follow the legal route.
yeah, maybe you’re right..
But whatever, the case isn’t about his name change and the legality of it. In the context of interpleader, the case is about a retired Colonel having to follow the orders of a CIC who is not eligible to be president. The interpleader is an attempt to get him to provide proof.
http://www.obamacrimes.info/Copy%20of%20ComplaintSoetoroInterpleader122708.pdf
I see a potential problem with something else in his case, but I’ve other things to look into at the moment. I’m sure a lawyer would have a better view on it, in a any event.