In a story that's beginning to feel all too familiar, there have been, and continue to be, questions about Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Conservative bloggers have asked why the campaign hasn't released Obama's birth records.
Liberal bloggers have responded by posting a copy of a "Certification of Live Birth."
This copy also appears on an Obama campaign site.
But now people are talking about whether the posted certification is a real one.
And comparing the certificate on the Obama campaign site to a certificate that is allegedly an actual Hawaiian certification of live birth.
The conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this, and reasons for the alleged "hiding" of Obama's real birth certificate range from the subpar to the ridiculous. Of course, since a quick glimpse at the real thing (the birth certificate, not a "certification of live birth" which is a less complete, computer generated record) would dismiss all the wild conspiracy theories in the blink of an eye, the question is why the Obama campaign hasn't yet taken this obvious step?
I happen to think that there are more important things to discuss in this campaign than whether either candidate is hiding something about his birth (remember, these questions were raised about McCain, too). So hopefully the Obama campaign will be quick in using the best weapon at hand to dispel the rumors.
Otherwise, these things have a way of getting out of control. Just ask Dan Rather.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Nitpicker
The bottom line is: nobody knows what "natural born Citizen," the term used in Article II of the Constitution, means. It may mean "born on US soil." It may mean "a citizen by any legal means except naturalization" (for example, a citizen by virtue of being born abroad to one or more parents who are US citizens). It may mean something else. None of us can say for sure.
In the absence of a definition in the constitution, the correct thing to do is to look at what the current opinion was at the time the Constitution was written.
And, like I said, in 1790, six years before the Constitution itself, under the previous 'United States of America', a law was passed, by many of the same people who signed the Constitution later:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
But, anyway, forget that for a second and let me explain why the idea it wouldn't include people granted citizenship by their parents is incredibly stupid. The US, like many other country, grants citizenship at birth based on territory and/or based on parentage.
People claiming Obama (or, more realistically, McCain) aren't eligible imagining there's some difference between people made citizens at birth solely by law, and people who are 'naturally' citizens at birth by magic/the constitution/international law/whatever.
So let's check the Constitution to see who's a citizen. Flip flip flip. Um...hey, it doesn't appear to define it at all.
Now, the 14th amendment requires the government to grant citizenship to people born here, but if that's the sole thing bestowing the magical 'natural born' on citizens, that's clearly stupid, as that would mean the founding fathers set up a system where no one could be a 'naturally born citizen', so when we ran out of 'original citizens' we'd be unable to elect another president.
No, the 14th amendment is just a red herring, except WRT pointing out that McCain is not eligible under it....military installations are not under 'US jurisdiction'. The people born in the canal zone became American citizens solely because of a law, not the 14th amendment.
But that's silly because all citizens of the US are citizens solely by law. One of those laws cannot be altered easily, as it is an amendment, but it is still a law. The law says you're a citizen, you are, the law says you're not, you're not. Anyone who thinks that 'natural born citizen' means anything outside of what Congress defines it to be is deluding themselves. Congress is entirely in charge of citizenship, or at least it was when the Constitution was written.
However, as I pointed out at the very start of all this, the people who wrote the Constitution seemed to have no problem classifying people born outside the borders as 'naturally born citizens'. We can argue if that means those people must be considered naturally born or if Congress can decide otherwise, but considering the law agrees they're 'naturally born' it's moot.
TK: You advance some good arguments for an expansive definition of "natural born Citizen" under Article II. But, until the relevant courts accept them, they are just that: arguments. As things now stand, we don't have a definitive statement from the courts, so it's still an unsettled area of law. We can make predictions, but that's all.
As you say, the courts probably really, really, don't want to decide this, since the fall-out from the last election hasn't cleared up yet. If I were a judge, I'd hope that McCain doesnt' win! Obama says he was born in Hawaii, has produced a certification of his birth, and Hawaii is now confirming the validity of that certification (so says the St. Petersburg Times, at any rate; my post with the link to that story has been held up here for review). So it appears there's no longer an issue where Obama's concerned, only in the case of McCain.
Oops--I meant to be responding (at 10:30 a.m., above) to DavidTC, not TK, re the interpretation of Article II. Was responding to TK about the politics involved.
From today's gun control case (Heller v. DC): "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope is too broad." This doesn't tell us how Article II ("natural born citizens") will be interpreted, but it does tell us the approach that will be used.
Goodguyex: I'm not sure I understand your comment at 11:45 p.m. It sounds like you are saying that some people want to confirm Obama's birth certificate because he is black. Is that what you meant?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.