# Let's say Congress wants to see Obama's Birth Certificate **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 21, 2008, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770 "2008-11-21T02:53:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/41 "2008-11-21T21:33:10Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No, let’s not. This is not even a hypothetical; it’s pure idiocy. Actually, it’s pretty clearly a hypothetical. The reason we need to make this assumption is that fraud is impeachable, no matter what it’s about. If you want to address the (interesting) constitutional question of whether being ineligible to be president according to Article II is impeachable in and of itself, you have to use such a hypothetical. If you don’t start with the assumption that there was no fraud, the question is simple and boring-obviously fraud is impeachable. It’s impeachable if it’s about your taxes (spiro agnew), in testimony (clinton), about the way you ran your re-election campaign (nixon), or if you lie about your age under oath. It’s pure idiocy to argue that the hypothetical is meaningless. It’s the only thing that lets us address the interesting question here. This is another, perfectly good way at getting at the question. But in order to address the constitutional question, we have to start with a serving president who has done nothing impeachable apart from being indisputably 33 years old. > [@Chronos](#): > > A simpler case might be that of a foundling with an assumed approximate birthdate, such that (so far as the candidate, FEC, and everyone else can determine) the candidate appears to be of age, but that new evidence then comes to light concerning the true birthdate. And again, Impeachment is a remedy against wrongful acts while in office. The president isn’t in office when he runs for the first time. So I’m not sure that fraud on FEC materials during an election campaign would be impeachable, if not repeated while in office. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/42 "2008-11-21T23:35:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’d also like to hammer home the point AGAIN, that Obama would still be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Osama bin Laden’s Saudi beach cabin. Cite that Osama bin Laden has a Saudi beach cabin? ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/43 "2008-11-22T00:20:34Z")
> [@Love\_Rhombus](#): > > Cite that Osama bin Laden has a Saudi beach cabin? True, he didn’t have a beach cabin. Rather, it was [“the most luxurious, expansive building you could imagine.”](http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23555539-details/'I+cracked+safes+for+Osama+Bin+Laden,'+reveals+Birmingham+father-of-one/article.do) I knew I’d forget to check the amendments, **whorfin**. Previous versions of the law only seem to deal with losing citizenship, so the age limit of 19 years would apply. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Frink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Mr.Frink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Frink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/44 "2008-11-22T05:14:53Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Hence the point of my GQ. The Senate asked McCain to submit paperwork in 2000 to show he was a natural-born citizen and he complied. Has the OP ever followed up on this statement? ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/45 "2008-11-22T13:48:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There is a process by which the count of electoral votes can be challenged, but it is basically a question on the authenticity of the votes of the electors, not a question of the constitutionality of the decision of the electors. > > I apologize for the following long quote from 3 USC 15. In fairness, I did trim a little bit off the beginning. > > Not being familiar with state laws, my guess is that the states would have the burden of examining whether a candidate for office would be eligible for that office before putting his name on the ballot. I can’t see why that would be different for electors pledged to a particular candidate. I’d note that this provision was invoked as recently as 2004. During the counting of electoral votes, Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones objected to certifying the electors from Ohio to protest voting irregularities in that state. The two bodies resolved into their respective chambers, and voted (overwhelmingly) to certify the results. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2008, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/46 "2008-11-27T07:39:07Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > So who files the Birth Certificate for someone born at home? I checked California law and for babies born outside of a hospital, a midwife or one or both of the parents, must file a certificate of live birth within 10 days. ---
**Author:** ![xanthous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/53a042/32.png) [@xanthous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xanthous)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/47 "2008-11-28T05:49:06Z")
Okay, so at Thanksgiving dinner table tonight :rolleyes:, a family member said that a closed session of the Supreme Court will review this matter on December 5. I found [this article.](http://foolocracy.com/2008/11/supreme-court-to-review-obamas-citizenship/) Why, after rejection at the state level, and by one SC justice, has Clarence Thomas put this forward for review? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/48 "2010-12-03T21:32:35Z")
> [@Mr.Frink](#): > > Has the OP ever followed up on this statement? There is a mention of it [here](http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=127362) as the last line about the Washington Post article. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/49 "2010-12-03T22:08:36Z")
The OP has some flawed assumptions, and while I suspect the introduction of facts may not have any bearing on the discussion, I want to point out a couple of things. 1. [Congress has the power to issue subpoenas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas), but individual members do not. 2. Obama is not in possession of the “original birth certificate,” so it’s not something he can be compelled to produce. The stuff about objecting to the electoral college retroactively is nuttery. As a matter of law, this issue is closed. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/50 "2010-12-04T19:57:34Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > There is a mention of it [here](http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=127362) as the last line about the Washington Post article. You seriously waited two years and all you’ve got is a Jerome Corsi article on World Net Daily? Which doesn’t even address your claim that the Senate asked for any documentation in 2000. The claim that he produced his long-form birth certificate for a Senate committee in _2008_ does appear, but isn’t sourced (it isn’t mentioned in the linked _Washington Post_ article). I’ve seen some weak-ass cites before, but this has to be pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. You’d have been better off letting this thread remain forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/51 "2010-12-04T23:50:44Z")
> [@xanthous](#): > > Okay, so at Thanksgiving dinner table tonight :rolleyes:, a family member said that a closed session of the Supreme Court will review this matter on December 5. I found [this article.](http://foolocracy.com/2008/11/supreme-court-to-review-obamas-citizenship/) Why, after rejection at the state level, and by one SC justice, has Clarence Thomas put this forward for review? To answer this one, two years later, Justice Thomas was doing precisely what SCOTUS rules of procedure call for. If a “nuisance” litigant makes a petition to one justice, who rejects it, then similarly petitions _another_ justice in a way that suggests he’s “justice shopping,” the second justice brings it to the Conference, which then presumably collectively puts an end to such petitions (except in the unlikely event that at least four justices consider the petitions to have merit). He didn’t do it out of some idea the petition had merit – it’s more like getting consensus to order the annoyance stopped, which no one justice can order individually but they sure can as a Conference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770.md?page=2)