He DID release his certificate of live birth, aka birth certificate! It’s not the long form original that many people want, but it IS a certificate from the state of Hawaii showing Obama was born there.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
The government of Hawaii confirmed that Obama’s long form original matched the information on the birth certificate. More on that here:
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/
A local newspaper also announced Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
It’s my understanding that the BC released by Obama would qualify him to go on the ballot in Arizona. The proposed law doesn’t say he has to release the original document. It only says he has to release documents proving he’s a “natural born citizen.”
Now some FReepers believe Obama is not a NBC by virtue of having a Kenyan father. Has the SCOTUS ever provided a precise “natural born citizen” definition that specifically requires both parents to be citizens? I don’t know of one.
That doesn’t mean I don’t support this law in Arizona. I don’t understand why anyone would oppose it, since it’s a relatively benign requirement to provide the necessary documentation. In other words, it’s no big deal.
Obama covered up his academic records and fought the “birther” lawsuits. Nevertheless, that doesn’t prove he’s NOT a natural born citizen. Based on the existing evidence, it’s reasonable to conclude Obama IS a natural born citizen. I’d love to have a court see the original document and rule on this, but I’m far more concerned about Obama’s un-American ideology than this conspiracy stuff.
He did not release a valid document from the state of Hawaii. Nice try though ...
The COLB he released is a forgery. The DOH has indirectly confirmed that in 2 different ways now. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
If Obama had to produce a legitimate COLB he would be caught because his is amended. As long as the person doing the certifying in AZ knew that an amended BC isn’t prima facie evidence and thus can’t be used for the required “proof”, Obama could not get away with showing even the genuine Hawaii COLB right now.
He for SURE wouldn’t get away with posting a print-out of a computer graphic with a seal that doesn’t bend when the page it’s on is folded.
Not true.
Conspicuously, Hawaiian officials refuse to confirm that the information on the "original" certificate conforms to what has appeared on the "Certification of Live Birth" produced in 2007 that has so far been passed off as original by the Obama "Fight the Smears" site (here) and the Annenberg-backed site FactCheck.org (here). The latter dedicated a photoshoot to examining in pornographic detail a computer-generated facsimile that may bear no relation to the original document that the State of Hawaii now admits holding.Then, Polarik slipped in the the following question. He asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."
He said that, according to Polarik.townhall, he called Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), and asked various technical questions relating to the COLB document, like borders, pixels, seals, etc., Polarik “asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied: “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”
Natural Born CitizenU.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett
Minor v. Happersett
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
Yes they have, but only in dicta. For it not to be dicta, Natural Born citizenship would need to be a factor in the case. That can only happen with respect to eligibility for the office of President. For all other offices and purposes, citizenship is what is required, plus in some cases residency in the US, such as for US representative and Senator. But only eligibility for the Office of President (and VP) require one to be a Natural Born citizen.
For example, MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents
Note, the second "class" is "citizens, while the first class, all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, are "natives, or natural-born citizens".
BTW, this tracks with Vattel's "Law of Nations" definition (using the French "naturels" , and with the early practice of equating the terms "natives" and "natural born" in contrast to the modern usage of "native-born", meaning born in the country. A change of usage that The One takes advantage of, by referring to himself, or having his minions describe him, as "native born", which he might be.
