A passport can be used to prove citizenship, in the absence of a birth certificate, affidavits from older relatives, church records, contemporary census data, post-natal medical records....
Lots of things have been used in the courts and in making policy. There is lots of precedent.
There is no precendent, particularly in using a challenge to citizenship to overturn the results of a completed election.
Maybe it’s because nobody knows this guy from childhood and he is from Kenya? Just a guess
Lack of precedent only means it hasn't been done before. Not having been done before is not a reason to not pursue it now.
Maybe it's time establish the precedent for the future.
-PJ
That is the key issue you seem to be missing and is required by our Constitution.
Heck, if you want affidavits from older relatives, shall we rely on his step-grandmother who says he was born in Kenya?
Awake-n-angry,
I’m afraid you are making the freshman mistake of equating *citizenship* with *eligiblity to serve as President.*
Yes, there is substantial precedent on when one is a citizen. There is much less specifically addressing the issue of what constitutes “natural born citizenship,” i.e., the circumstances in which one obtains the type of citizenship status that makes one eligible to serve as President.
Since “natural born” uses the word “born,” it would be easy to think it simply refers to *where* one was born. But it’s not clear that the law is that easy. It may be that a citizen can be “natural born” by descent (that is, receiving citizenship from his parents, regardless of birthplace), as *arguably* McCain did.
This is not necessarily an open-and-shut question. It depends on the facts, first, and those do not seem to be nailed down yet. There is still controversy, for example, over how Hawaii’s laws on recording births operated in 1961.
Bottom line: a passport, your example, may prove citizenship, but it doesn’t prove “natural born citizenship” status.
Like his granny who says he was born in Kenya? LOL