Creepingfool,
In the hopes that we can have clarity before consensus, let's be clear on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of current Constitutional law. It is irrelevant to me what you and other "birthers" think the law should be.
So what are the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the President? Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says the following:
Quote:
|
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
|
Let's deal with them on a point be point basis:
1. Natural born Citizen.
According to any history book you read, I presume that you read things other than World Nut Daily, Hawaii became a state on on Aug. 21, 1959. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Nearly two years after Hawaii became a state. So I don't see why this is an issue. Please illuminate me, in your own words, why this is a problem. As an aside, there was a group that attempted to do what you "birthers" are doing to Sen. Barry Goldwater. He was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not a State. It was also done to John McCain and Dick Cheney.
Further "natural born Citizen" is not really defined. In fact, this term was left to the States to define until the 14th Amendment.
2. A Citizen of the United States.
Please note that the Constitution uses the conjunction "or" indicating that the President can be either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States." So it seems to me that legal citizens can become President. Then again I am just a layman in regards to Constituional law, and would be open to an opinion form our resident attorney-at-law.
3. Must be 35 years old or older.
President Obama was born in 1961. He was elected in 2008. Simple math demonstrates that he is eligible on that front.
4. Fourteen years a resident of the United States.
This is were there is some ambiguity in the Constitution. Are the 14 years cumulative or consecutive. It's not really clear, but either way, President Obama meets this requirement.
On all four of these elements, I see no reason why President Obama is disqualified, but then again maybe I'm just to liberal to see the issues, right?
Now, regarding the U.S. law about birth parents. I don't see how it affects anything, since current U.S. states that any person born in the United States IS a citizen, period. Again, whether you or I think that "birth right citizenship" is good for this country or not is irrelevant. Current U.S. law says this is the way it is, and that is that.
Further, the citing of this law is silly. Why would a sitting U.S. Senator running for the Presidency, gathering millions of dollars do that if he, and his advisers knew that he might be ineligible due to some obscure law? Besides, if this was an issue, and, as your claimed, Bush and Cheney were in on it, it does not explain why talk radio did not jump all over this issue. But that's what makes conspiracy theories so fun. The more people that don't respond in the manner you want you can label as ignorant, stupid, or liberal. This is why I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories, because too many people in the know can and will talk.
Now on to the alleged forgery of President Obama's birth certificate. I see no reason to dismiss this as a forgery. Perhaps you can tell me why I should. Again use your own words, and nothing from World Nut Daily. Further, why would a major Presidential candidate risk his candidacy over a forged birth certificate. Further, the certificate is consistent with others issued in that era in Hawaii. Lastly, those who have touched and examined the certificate, have attested to its authenticity. Why would anyone lose professional credibility over a fraudulent birth certificate?
Then you have the birth announcements found in the major newspapers from Honolulu, which list a birth of a boy to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." I guess you are going to tell me that these newspapers in some sort of premonition about this particular baby made it all up?
The Kenyan birth certificate forgery. Yes, this is a forgery, for a number of reasons, which I will list.
1. The document is dated Feb. 17, 1964 and bears a marking identifying it as from "The Republic of Kenya." Just one small problem. This name was not officially adopted until Dec. 12, 1964. In February of 1964 Kenya was known as The Dominion of Kenya. So what do you do with those extra 10 months? Are you going to tell me that somehow, someone in Kenya knew that the country was going to change its official name, and placed it on an official document some ten months before the fact?
2. Barack Obama's father's age is incorrect. He would have been 24 or 25, not the listed age of 26.
3. Barak Obama's birth place is listed as Mombasa, Kenya. Just one problem, Mombasa was not part of Kenya until Dec. 12, 1963. Prior to this date, Mombasa was part of a country called Zanzibar.
4. Mombasa was hundreds of miles away from Obama, Sr's. home town. Nairobi would have been much closer, not to mention in the actual country of Kenya.
5. This forgery was exposed as being a copy of an Australian. The forgery contains many of the same numerical markings as the original.
6. The Taitz document is also a forgery for the following reasons:
Citing Mombasa as the city of birth. The distance (over 1,000 miles) of Mombasa (eastern Kenya on the Indian Ocean) to Obama's home (southwestern Kenya) versus Nairobi's.
It based on these reasons that I dismiss the claims of "birthers" and place them JFK conspiracy nuts, 9/11 "truthers", Federal Reserve nuts, and other conspiracy nuts. Now if you want to convince me, you have to come at me with some hard facts. The burden of proof is on the "birthers". You are making the positive assertion. President Obama has no reason to respond to your nutty claims. The fact that he has, and the "birthers" dismiss it is not surprising. That is conspiracy theory 101: Deny the facts presented by those you oppose.
Now whether you agree with me or not is of no concern to me. I believe that hardcore "birthers" in this movement are detrimental to our credibility. Sadly, we have to deal with you. I would hope that we deal with you be keeping you far from the public as possible.
Edited to add: I call you a "conspiracy nut" not because I wish to dismiss your arguments, but because you have truly earned that moniker based on your posts here and on other boards.