8th January 2008

Question?

Posted by Jake in Uncategorized |

Hot Air, Malkin

Eye of the Needle release

, Patterico

et al have been on a tear this week ridiculing the Obama birth certificate thing, so here’s my question: have I missed something?

I’m not saying there is or isn’t a legitimate case here, but then again, I have no idea that there isn’t. So has some piece of evidence been provided that I somehow missed?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 3 responses to “Question?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On December 9th, 2008, Rhonda said:

    From all accounts I’ve seen and heard, no, but then again if his birth certificiate is legit, let’s see it. The latest appeal to the SCOTUS was from a NJ attorney whose main contention was not that Obama was not born in Hawaii - but that because his father was technically a British citizen that that somehow makes him a dual citizen under British law - which in their opinion would make Obama ineligible. But that’s ridiculous on its face since most of the founding fathers would have been ineligible.

  2. 2 On December 9th, 2008, Katie's Dad said:

    The issue is not that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate. He has produced that document. But Hawaii has a weird law that says folks can be born in a foreign land to an American parent, be born a citizen of that foreign land, and later a parent can petition and obtain an “official” birth certificate making them Hawaiian - thus, American. So, a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii doesn’t really mean anything in this discussion. The be all and end all for this is that the document Obama hasn’t produced and presumably won’t produce is his Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth,” which provides the details of his birth (hospital, physician) proves he was indeed born in America and had no other citizenship before the birth certificate was issued.

    As far as our Founding Father’s births are concerned, they were considered “Jus Soli,” born of the soil. It certainly mattered then: Alexander Hamilton, who was born in a British Colony on the island of Nevis, was not eligible for the presidency because he was not “of the soil.”

    Considering that this strikes directly to the Constitution, we would be remiss if we did not question his legitimacy as a qualified candidate. It appears that the only people with standing to bring such a suit and have it heard before the Supreme Court are those responsible for checking legitimacy BEFORE putting him on each state’s ballot. I believe in most instances the parties with proper standing to bring suit would be the Secretaries of State for each state, the elected officials responsible for checking this stuff in the first place. But which of the Secretaries of State would have known that a birth certificate from Hawaii is not the right document? Probably only Hawaii’s.

    What I think will be interesting, if it comes to it, is whether or not some Secretaries of State demand he produce a Certificate of Live Birth in 2012 before certifying him for state ballots if he runs again. They have every right, and I believe, every obligation to do so.

  3. 3 On December 10th, 2008, Rhonda said:

    I don’t disagree with what you’re saying; I’m just speaking on the nature of the current lawsuit that was the latest unsuccessful attempt. I heard D’Onofrio on a talk radio show say what his issues were, and it wasn’t a live birth issue for him.

Leave a Reply