Replies

So, it is absolutely essential that Obama meet the requirement of having taken the oath prescribed by the Constitution, but you don't believe that there is a similar absolute requirement that he be a natural-born citizen?

There is a requirement that he be a natural-born citizen. There is no requirement that he provide any particular document to any one who asks for it. The people who had the constitutional power to decide if he was eligible-- the House and Senate when they met in joint session to count the electoral votes-- decided unanimously that he was a natural-born citizen. In my opinion (informed by 30 years as an appellate lawyer), no court is going to re-visit that issue, at least unless someone comes up with smoking-gun evidence that he was not born in Hawaii (as distinguished from speculation, or claims that the documents he has provided are not good enough).

"There is a requirement that he be a natural-born citizen. There is no requirement that he provide any particular document to any one who asks for it. The people who had the constitutional power to decide if he was eligible-- the House and Senate when they met in joint session to count the electoral votes-- decided unanimously that he was a natural-born citizen. In my opinion (informed by 30 years as an appellate lawyer), no court is going to re-visit that issue, at least unless someone comes up with smoking-gun evidence that he was not born in Hawaii (as distinguished from speculation, or claims that the documents he has provided are not good enough)."

Precisely. Thank you for putting it better than I do.

I would only add that in my opinion the documentation we have is enough to prove the facts of his birth, in any reasonable way.

It's always possible to make up stories about forgery and conspiracies. Criminal defendents do it every day. In real life the existing documentation is enough.

Lurking Libertarian said: "In my opinion (informed by 30 years as an appellate lawyer), no court is going to re-visit that issue, at least unless ..."

Unless? Isn't it true that no court will ever consider an issue unless the party bringing the complaint has standing and the issue is deemed relevant?

If you were a Supreme Court Justice and a defendant who was convicted of a felony enacted by legislation signed by Obama, and that defendant submits to the Court a decent forgery of a Kenyan birth record indicating that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements, how would you rule?

Would a person convicted as I described have standing to challenge the validity of the law?

Would you rule the law invalid if Obama were proved not to be a natural-born citizen?

Would you just arbitrarily rule that the Kenyan document is a forgery or would there be an obligation to examine it?

If the examination of the document did not permit determination of its validity, would the Court enforce orders to present other documents, such as those sealed in Hawaii, that could provide a basis for making a decision?

Or would you just rule that some provisions of the Constitution are more important than others and let the conviction stand?