“And at this point, that’s what birthers have become.”
“It’s not what they’ve become, it’s how they’ve been painted.”
well .... both.
We have multiple independent sources for his birth in Honolulu, including now an INS report written in Aug 1961, alongside the newspaper announcements which where based on state birth records and the certified copy of the long form BC which corroborates and confirms it. Maybe back in June 2008 it was reasonable to have doubts, but all this evidence over the years has piled up, and you either accept it or rationalize away reality. Birthers doubting those facts have dismissed the facts as doctored and devolved into conspiracy theories to explain how such massive fraud could happen.
His long form BC and official statements and other 3rd party info (as mentioned above) verify his birth facts in spades. It’s time to definitely lay to rest the bogus “born in Kenya” claims and call it the BS that it is. That’s what I mean by: “We should stop treating irrational conspiracy theories with the respect they dont deserve.”
“Obama’s eligibility is not an “irrational conspiracy” theory, it is a a legal question that needs to be resolved.”
First, you are (deliberately?) confusing dubious legal arguments with the even more dubious birthPLACE arguments. I was talking of the conspiracy theories that are now required to ‘justify’ the bogus claim that Obama hasnt proven he was born in Hawaii.
NOW ... Here’s why the legal argument is dubious: Nobody worried about Spiro Agnew or Chester Arthur having a non-citizen Dad when they were born. It was assumed that birth in USA was sufficient. That’s been the rule and common understanding. Won Kim Ark enshrined the interpretation of the Constitution that you are a citizen at birth if born in the US, no matter what the citizenship of your parents.
” Is the son (or daughter) of a non-US citizen a natural born citizen?”
Yes, if born in the US. See Ankeny court ruling on this very matter.
” Are we going to follow the constitution or not?”
Indeed. We must follow the Constitution, which includes the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment. Here’s how Ankeny court ruled and any other court would rule: Obama’s birth in Honolulu makes him a citizen from birth and therefore eligible. These courts would say that to claim Obama isn’t eligible is to go against the Constitution.
The Constitution also says the only way to remove a President from office is impeachment. That’s the Constitution. If there are no impeachment hearings on this, its a dead issue. The only way to get Obama out of office soon is the Nov 2012 elections.
“Here’s why the legal argument is dubious: Nobody worried about Spiro Agnew or Chester Arthur having a non-citizen Dad when they were born.”
“Nobody worried” is not a legal argument. And Chester Arthur deliberately hid the fact that his father wasn’t a US Citizen when Chet was born during his political career, to the point of destroying records.
Please see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. He explains the rulings of Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny, Minor v. Happersett, etc. If not on the main page, sift through the archives.
“Birthers” seem to include anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility - his place of birth or his natural born Citizen status. The legal question relates to whether the son (or daughter) of a non-US citizen father is a natural born Citizen for constitutional purposes. Until this point is resolved, where he was born is immaterial. His birth certificate is only important in that it establishes who his father was. His producing a document showing his father as a non-US citizen may be much more damaging to him in the long run, if we can ever get a court of competent jurisdiction to rule on this matter. It would please me no end for a court to rule him ineligible while he’s in office or even after he leaves office.
Being a “citizen” at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born Citizen.
“The only way to get Obama out of office soon is the Nov 2012 elections.”
Maybe so, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. What’s the harm in pursuing both avenues of removal?