You sure about that? I thought that the argument was that, although Obama is undoubtedly a citizen, his parents’ status means he is not a “natural born citizen.” Since “natural born citizen” has never been defined, AFAIK, they are hanging their hat on that.
I think the whole “actually born in Kenya” thing was pretty much put to bed by the aforementioned birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper.
You’re definitely an American, but are you a “natural born citizen?”
That’s the question.
No, there’s still nutters who claim this.
What is the point of this question? It’s a tautology to say “if X were proven then X would be proven.” The problem is PROVING it.
I know you’re just playing devil’s advocate here, Bricker, but suppose I allege the following:
Now, if those facts were proven, would you agree that the South won the Civil War?
It’s easy to get to the conclusion you want when you’re allowed to make up the facts supporting it.
Well, yeah. But, as they say, if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.
I don’t see how your “hypothetical” does anything other than well-poisoning.
Actually, the Donofrio suit (the one distributed by Justice Thomas for conference today) does not contest that Obama was born in Hawaii. Donofrio is trying to argue that even though Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s not a NBC because his father was a British citizen and that somehow makes Obama a dual citizen and that somehow makes him ineligible to be POTUS. It’s really that asinine.
That is the question, and no one’s ever actually ruled on what the Constitution means.
However, I think the best basic definition – one that is probably the founders’ intent – is someone who is not a naturalized citizen. Since Obama has not been naturalized (there would have been paperwork) and since no one has produced any evidence that he was a citizen anywhere else, the case that he’s not a citizen has nothing behind it but irrelevant speculation.
Typical of all conspiracy theories – I’ve yet to find one that had any actual evidence behind the claim. Merely objecting to a fact does not disprove it.
Incidentally, the (utterly unsupported) allegations by the right that An Dunham ever “renounced her citizenship” are based on the completely bogus assumption that her marriage to her second husband – an Indonesian citizen – somehow invalidated not only her own US citizenship, but her son’s as well. Even the whack-a-doodles aren’t trying to contend that she renounced her citizenship before her son was born. Bricker’s hypothetical is rendered even more pointless by the fact that it contains allegations not even being made.
I understood differently – I thought they claim that the birth in Kenya is the key.
In any event, it’s irrelevant. The point is this: does the suit allege facts that, if proven true, would compel the conclusion that Obama is not a natural-born citizen? There are obviously some facts that would make this true… does this suit allege them?
If it does not, then it can be safely waved away as nonsense. If it does, then it’s not unreasonable to have someone in a judicial role examine them to see how outlandish they are.
I think the claim is that Obama’s evidence of U.S. citizenship is being disputed – they claim that his birth in Hawaii is a lie, and that his passport was issued in error. So there’s no reliable evidence, they say, of Obama being a U.S. citizen.
Again, don’t mistake my Socratic inquiry here for support of the merits of the claim… I have zero doubt that Obama is a natural-born citizen.
The thing is that there is no dispute. It’s just a bunch of nutters desperately asserting the patently false and trying to get the courts to humor them, and their ridiculous “claims” put them on the same level as those crackpots who try to sue the US government for causing 9/11.
Bricker, the suit in question does not allege that Obama was born outside the US. As far as I know, it doesn’t even allege any facts that Obama would dispute. It stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a US citizen when he was born. Donofrio is essentially asking the Court to rule that a person cannot be eligible to become POTUS unless both parents are Natural born citizens.
By the way, the assertion made in other lawsuits (not the Donofrio suit) that Obama was born in Kenya is based on a debunked allegation (now widely repeated and taken as an article of religious faith on the fringe right) that a Kenyan step-grandmother once claimed he was born in Kenya. This from Slate:
So basically, that myth is busted. There was a glitch with the translators that was emphatically corrected in the same phone call, and the correction was edited out of the transcript by Berg. The grandmother that the wingnuts love so much actually said Obama was born in Hawaii. Not only that, but there is no evidence Ann Dunham ever went to Kenya in the first place.
In favor of Hawaiian birth for Obama, we have the public copy of the Birth Certificate, the confirmation by the state itself and (perhaps less official but still probative), a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper.
In favor of birth outside the US, we have…nothing.
No. There are multiple lawsuits out in the stratosphere. The first is Berg v. Obama, which stated that 1. Obama lost his citizenship as a child when his mother married an Indonesian man, and never got it back, and 2. There isn’t evidence he was born in the US and his birth certificate is fake. That was dismissed back in October by the district court for lack of standing. Berg’s petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supremes.
The second is Dinofrio v Wells. Dinofrio is arguing that because Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen, but instead a British subject, Obama, while he’s a citizen of the US, isn’t a “natural born” citizen under the Constitution, and is therefore ineligible to be President. He’s claiming that his father’s foreign nationality gives Obama dual citizenship, and therefore conflicted or dual loyalties, not just to America, but also to Britain/Kenya, and that’s antithetical to the purpose of the natural born requirement in the Constitution. Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full Court conference for cert, and they’ll be voting on it today. The case had originally been submitted to Souter, who denied it.
There are numerous other cases…here’s a list of of the current lawsuits and their status:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518
Please note that I’m referring the website to the board strictly for factual purposes, and don’t neccesarily endorse any of the opinions expressed.
Well, asking the Court to rule that a person can’t be eligible to become POTUS unless both parents are citizens, at least.
Alan Keyes is performing a valuable service. He says something and I know the opposite is true. It makes my life so much easier.
I know. But going by the basic rule – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs – it’s those who argue he’s not a citizen that have to provide evidence.
Even if the evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth were shown to be false, it wouldn’t prove he wasn’t a citizen – merely that the documents produced didn’t substantiate the claim.
If lack of records meant you weren’t a citizen, then I bet many 19th century presidents don’t have any birth records. Or that if a fire burned down the hall of records, you couldn’t claim to be a citizen.
Those arguing against his citizenship need to provide evidence he was born in Kenya, that his purported mother wasn’t involved, or that he renounced his citizenship when his mother moved to Indonesia*. They have not provided this, but merely made the assertion, and an assertion is proof of nothing.
*Actually, there’s a strong argument that renouncing your citizenship does not keep you from being a natural born citizen if you susequently reestablish it.
I blame 7 of 9. She needs a spanking*. I will give it to her because she has been a bad bad girl.
*and then, oral sex!