[markomalley]

Actually, it's really one way to be a NBC. Born in the US to US citizens...otherwise carry on.

In which case, McLame wasn't one either.

Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

Other than that minor detail, both in your assertion and in the article's, I thought it was a good piece.

Now, having said that, it becomes doubly confusing why he won't release his actual birth certificate (the one with the baby footprints and the OB signature). Because regardless of where he was born, due to 8 U.S.C. §1401 and by virtue of Stanley Ann's citizenship, he's qualified for the post.

My theory:

• if he was actually born offshore, although he would, per 8 U.S.C. §1401, be qualified. And, Freemen and Citizen Grand Juries aside, the courts would find that way, as well. But, he would have lied to all of his supporters and to his sponsors (Soros, et al). While his supporters are mind-numbed lemmings are malleable enough to buy whatever story (we are at war with Eastasia…), I don't think his sponsors would be so forgiving.
• if he was born, as he asserts, in Honolulu, there's got to be some reason for his not releasing the original BC. Think about it: there "should" be no reason not to request the State of Hawaii to provide access to the original Microfilm that has his actual birth certificate, right? And, with the "Where's the Birth Certificate" movement gaining momentum, despite the media assault, it is going to become more and more of an imperative. This isn't going away anytime soon. Thus, there can be only one reason why he has sunk so much money into suppressing any and all efforts to provide the original B.C.: there's got to be something on there that he doesn't want us to see. I don't know what that is and won't speculate as to what it specifically might be, but it's got to be something that would be hugely politically damaging.

So, press on.

But know the facts.

[Red Steel]

Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

I know the facts better than most. I've see that US Code 1401 at least a dozen times over the last year and nowhere does it address the issue of Natural Born Citizen as it pertains to the eligibility of the US presidency. What the statue does define are US Nationals and Citizens.

So press on.

[Kegger]

Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)

... But know the facts.


Are you citing the current law? Wouldn't use the law as written at the time of BHO's birth, not current law?

[Godebert]

"Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term (Natural-Born), Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)"

That code defines citizenship....NOT Natural-Born status. Perhaps you should learn the facts.

[Godebert]

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

[Samurai_Jack]

I’m not a lawyer but you seem like a reasonable individual...
From your link...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
“(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;”

His mother is a person born in the US and ‘arguably’ was physically present for a continuous period. Perhaps this defuses the issue?

Also see Subsec (g) which spirals around the language to almost point directly to BO, which was amended in 1986.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5071+102++%28Title%208%20%3E%20Chapter%2012%20%3E%20Subchapter%20III%20%3E%20Part%20I%20%3E%20Section%201401%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

I’m just asking from a laymans point of view. Where precisely in the law COULD it be argued that this president is a natural born citizen by way of ANY law. Notwithstanding the notion that we may need to apply laws as they were written in 1961 when he was born. That’s a separate argument.

And if such a law could be found, WHY hasnt the media and the “legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, [WHO] are in widespread agreement that Barack Obama is fully qualified.” simply cited the relevant legal code and be done with it?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know!

[Red Dog #1]

markomalley,
IMO, If I had to bet money on why he's hiding his birth certificate, I'd go with your option number two. A “long form” Hawaiian birth certificate was posted on FR several weeks ago. Beyond the place of birth, the volume of personnel information on it would have great potential for embarrassment.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Since the U.S. Constitution doesn't define the term, Congress has the right to do so...and they have (8 U.S.C. §1401)"

That, as I understand it, is the CURRENT definition. Other info posted here proves that the definition AT THE TIME OF OBAMA'S BIRTH (which is the law that would apply), does not yield him to be a natural born citizen. Specifically, birth to a single citizen parent outside the United States only garnered citizenship if the parent was over a specific age. Obama's mother was younger than the required age.

[Plummz]

The Constitution does not define the term “navy.”

According to your bizarre theory, the Congress could redefine “navy” to mean “lollipops.”

You are in la-la land. A natural-born British subject like Barry just ain’t ne c’est pas un naturel ou indigene...