Great…. So then you must admit that Arthur’s circumstance is of no help to the Birth cause whatsoever. Neither of us can prove negatives, but we can prove the fact that Chester Arthur was born to a foreign national, and still elected to be Vice President without anybody ever raising it as an issue.

I think that the fact that Arthur’s citizenship status was never publicly determined would render him moot to either side of the debate, except for the fact that William Arthur was a resident of the United States, and a de facto/naturalized citizen of the United States for the entirety of Chester Arthur’s life.

If Chester Arthur could be ruled a natural born citizen jus soli and jus sanguinis, Mr. Obama would be the first President to be born after the Constitution was ratified who could not claim natural born citizenship jus sanguinis through both parents.

He was an Irishman who immigrated into Canada. The obit states that he immigrated into New York and nothing about Canada.

So? He was still an Irishman, and not a Canadian.

Arthur’s opponent in the 1880 election, Bayard, denied simple citizenship to a person born in the United States to a German father when Secretary of State.

So? Do consider him an authority somehow?

The decisions concerning United States citizenship requirements have been very inconsistent throughout history. Each person can cite cases to support their point of view. This is the first time that we have a President who is not without question a natural born citizen. If Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen without question, then no one would be asking questions. No one questioned Bush’s, Nixon’s, Kennedy’s, etc. citizenship, because there was no question.

That is one possible explanation for the unique challenge to Obama. There are others, you know. Need I point a finer point on that?

There is no evidence that he sought to disclose his citizenship details either.

Great…. So then you must admit that Arthur’s circumstance is of no help to the Birth cause whatsoever. Neither of us can prove negatives, but we can prove the fact that Chester Arthur was born to a foreign national, and still elected to be Vice President without anybody ever raising it as an issue.

Did you enjoy my “musings” published below?

I must not have read them yet.

1) Arthur’s father was an Irishman. Not a Canadian.

He was an Irishman who immigrated into Canada. The obit states that he immigrated into New York and nothing about Canada.

2) Arthur was explicitly accused during his Presidency of not being a natural born citizen. But then (as now) it was understood that NBC related only to place of birth, not citizenship of parents. He was accused of being born in Canada, but never challenged on his father’s citizenship since that has nothing to do with NBC status, and his opponents knew it.

Arthur’s opponent in the 1880 election, Bayard, denied simple citizenship to a person born in the United States to a German father when Secretary of State.

The decisions concerning United States citizenship requirements have been very inconsistent throughout history. Each person can cite cases to support their point of view. This is the first time that we have a President who is not without question a natural born citizen. If Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen without question, then no one would be asking questions. No one questioned Bush’s, Nixon’s, Kennedy’s, etc. citizenship, because there was no question.

3) Then as now, Arthur didn’t have to prove anything, since his opponents had no evidence that he was born anywhere other than where he said he was.

There is no evidence that openly Chester Arthur claimed a foreign national father at birth although his father was a British subject on the date that Chester was born. Chester Arthur’s exact citizenship status has never been resolved and, as far as we know, the voters were not aware of his father’s citizenship status at his birth. William Arthur’s obituary reproduced in Hinman’s book did not even recognize that he had lived in Canada.

Naturalization has been held by courts to be retroactive to protect the interests of a naturalized citizen’s heirs specifically in property cases*. William Arthur was serving in an elected city position in Vermont prior to Chester’s birth**; it would require a court to determine if William Arthur’s citizenship status would be retroactive to the date that he was acting as a citizen (before Chester Arthur’s birth).

From Hinman’s book:

Hinman’s letter:

New York, January 7th, 1881.
Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator

Dear Sir: -What is the construction of Article II, S I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States – that “No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be eligible, etc.”***.

Yours respectfully, A. P. HINMAN

Bayard’s letter:

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, I881.

A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.

The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.

Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.

The second paragraph in Bayard’s letter could indicate that Bayard was aware of Arthur’s citizenship history or it could be an answer to something in the snipped part of Hinman’s letter.

Speculation: Chester Arthur, who was running for VICE President may have informed Bayard of his father’s naturalization when he was 14 when he became a candidate. Garfield was not particularly strong Presidential Candidate. Arthur came out of no where and had a history of stuffing ballot boxes in NYC. If Bayard accepted Arthur’s candidacy without challenge (possibly assuming that the ticket had no chance), it would have been ungentlemanly to challenge his status after the election and beyond. If Bayard knew or personally objected, he didn’t make Arthur’s situation public.

Later as SOS, Bayard denied a person born in the United States to German parents simple citizenship. “Native Born” was not the same as “a native of the U. S.” to him.

**Hinman’s book shows an entry in the Fairfield City record (p. 53) that William Arthur was elected by the populace to a position of public service that was the equivalent of today’s school board twice (in March of 1829 and 1830), a position which today requires citizenship and residence in my school district.

*Courts have held that citizen heirs could inherit property provided that the alien had naturalized or formally expressed the intent to naturalize before death, effectively making the alien’s naturalization retroactive to the date that the property was acquired (Governeur’s Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826)). Other retroactive claims to property include Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 116 116 (1867), “His present status is that of a person naturalized, and that naturalization has a retroactive effect, so as to be deemed a waiver of all liability to forfeiture and a confirmation of his former title.” (refers to Jackson v. Beach 1800, for a description see p. 157 of CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED
STATES, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. LETTER from THE SECRETARY OF STATE, submitting REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTI1ON ABROAD, December 20, 1906.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1906.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zdENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=%22Jackson+v.+Beach%22&source=bl&ots=m3xalTkVLz&sig=lrLNtiWkS9Q_c0_6qTv83VSneho&hl=en&ei=f7ISSuOeGYKjtgff56WWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA137,M1 .
Other interesting cases concerning retroactive naturalization status are cited in this reference.)

4) There is no evidence that any attempt was ever made by anybody to conceal the fact that Arthur was born to a non-citizen.

There is no evidence that he sought to disclose his citizenship details either.

KJ: Mr. Obama only addressed carefully chosen questions and the only document offered was his COLB.

Historian Dude: Since that comprehensively establishes his natural born citizenship, none of the other questions are relevant to his eligibility to be president. So frankly, I do not care about them. Neither, apparently does he.

Did you enjoy my “musings” published below?

Mr. Obama only addressed carefully chosen questions and the only document offered was his COLB.

Since that comprehensively establishes his natural born citizenship, none of the other questions are relevant to his eligibility to be president. So frankly, I do not care about them. Neither, apparently does he.

I read some of the opposing blogs today. The COLB and his two books that claim to present his life/ideas in his own words figure prominently in the justification the he is eligible, without any concern about confirming his version of his life with disinterested third party information. May I suggest that you pursue the due diligence that you exercise when answering comments on this site in considering the limited information that Mr. Obama has offered?

Go to Amazon.com and see how many books have been written about Obama (both pro and con) beyond his own two. There is more written about him than any other single first term president in American history. I am confident that the version of his life he has provided is true.

You are personally a dual citizen? May I inquire to what other country you owe allegiance?

Italy.

There is no evidence that openly Chester Arthur claimed a foreign national father at birth although his father was a British subject on the date that Chester was born. Chester Arthur’s exact citizenship status has never been resolved and, as far as we know, the voters were not aware of his father’s citizenship status at his birth. William’s obit did not even recognize that William had lived in Canada.

1) Arthur’s father was an Irishman. Not a Canadian.

2) Arthur was explicitly accused during his Presidency of not being a natural born citizen. But then (as now) it was understood that NBC related only to place of birth, not citizenship of parents. He was accused of being born in Canada, but never challenged on his father’s citizenship since that has nothing to do with NBC status, and his opponents knew it.

3) Then as now, Arthur didn’t have to prove anything, since his opponents had no evidence that he was born anywhere other than where he said he was.

4) There is no evidence that any attempt was ever made by anybody to conceal the fact that Arthur was born to a non-citizen.

Although I am an Independent and not a PUMA, I did not vote for Mr. Obama in 2008 and did what I could to urge 300 others not to vote for him in the days before the election.

Good for you. See? The Constituional process continues to work flawlessly.

Unless he presents the documents to prove that he is eligible, I will do whatever I can (money, time, and work) to prevent his reelection in 2012.

Isn’t democracy a beautiful thing?

Yes, there is. After being listed on his school paperwork as an Indonesian citizen, he traveled as an adult between Indonesia and Pakistan at a time when Pakistan was under martial law and did not allow entry to US citizens.

Pakistan has never, at any time in its history, ever denied entry to US citizens. This is another fake birther factoid.

During the time of Obama’s visit, Pakistan happily issued 30 day visas to any American tourist who showed up. You can find a copy of the US Government Travel advisory here: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

Sure. By smugly displaying a document that could be held by a foreign-born person, and hiding, at a cost of almost a million dollars, his actual full birth certificate and the rest of his basic documentation, he fully addressed the question. He addressed the hell out of it.

1. The document he displayed could not be held by a foreign-born person. The COLB of a foreign-born would show the actual foreign place of birth, not Honolulu.

2. Your “million dollars” number is yet another fake Birther factoid.

My point was that even if this document couldn’t be acquired by a foreign-born person – and it can – he has not provided the document. He has provided pictures on a website.

Again, a foreign-born person cannot get a COLB that lists their birthplace as Honolulu.

Do not mistake what he has provided to you personally with what he has provided to anyone else. You have to accept the simple fact that you personally will never hold a certified copy of his birth certificate in your hands. You will always have to depend on what somebody else who actually has held the real document has told you.

I am content that he provided the actual paper document to FactCheck, and they declared it authentic.

The point being that the first hurdle is the fact that the document can be acquired by a foreign-born person, and the second hurdle is having his documentation vetted by a government agency whose responsibility it is to verify his eligibility before allowing him to take power at the head of our goverment and rule us as opposed to expecting everyone to accept a picture on a privately-operated website as the final word on the matter.

You don’t get to invent new “hurdles” just because you don’t like Obama. If you are unsatisfied with Obama’s documentation then you personally have the single most powerful vetting mechanism possible: you can withhold your vote.

Hawaiian law allowed for a parent to register a birth after the fact based on their own claim that the child was born in Hawaii. This leaves the door wide open for a foreign-born person to hold this document. The full birth certificate would reveal this and tell everyone that there is no proof he was actually born in Hawaii, or it would reveal his birth details such as hospital, doctor name, etc. He is fighting its release along with all other relevant documentation. What does that tell you?

Every state in the union permits the registration of unattended births. Hawaii is not the slightest bit special in this regard. If the only witnesses are the parents, that’s just the way it goes. If the authorities at the time decided (by whatever process) to go on and register the birth, then the birth certificate is absolutely valid.

Deal with it.

The framers used Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” as their reference. Look up what it says a “natural-born citizen” is. They also made it clear in their writings and statements that this was their understanding of natural-born citizenship.

You have been misled. At the time the constitution was framed, the “de Vattel definition of natural born citizen” did not exist. Unless you are suggesting our Founding father’s were time travelers, it is impossible for them to have used de Vattel as their reference.

There is not a single “writing or statement” by a single framer of the Constitution that mentions anything about the citizenship of the parents.

You admit later in your post that they do have financial ties to Obama.

I will say it again as clearly and as unambiguously as I can:

There are zero financial ties between FactCheck.com and Barack Obama.

Obama’s refusal to allow anyone to see the actual full birth certificate and insistence on displaying instead the short form that a foreign-born person could hold speaks for itself.

The very fact that we disagree proves this assertion false.

Explain how keeping his promise of transparency by releasing the basic documentation relevant to his eligibility for office would be a dereliction of duty.

It would eviscerate the foundational legal standard of standing, and thus create a de facto judicial filibuster that would cripple our government.

Garbage. He could have released his documentation long ago in response to the public demand for him to do so and not in official response to any lawsuit. He released the short form and meant this to serve as the exact same thing.

Your accounting of the temporal facts are in error. He was never once asked to release his long form certificate, his school records, his passports, or anything else on the Birther wish list prior to Berg filing the first lawsuit. That’s your fault, not his.

And? If a group receives its funding from the same place as one of the candidate’s projects, the group has a conflict of interest and is not an appropriate entity to verify the candidate’s eligibility for office.

I can think of no more accurate way of responding than this: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The independence of FactCheck from the Annenberg Chicago Challenge of ages past is absolute. There was not even a single individual human being that had any connection with both of them.

Who the viewer is changes the fact that whether a document appears to be legitimate upon viewing an emailed picture of it does not mean anything? Explain.

I will try to respond to what I think you were asking, since the question you actually wrote is incomprehensible.

An expert’s assessment of documents or document images are more authoritative than the assessments of rank amateurs.

He did no such thing. He simply ignored the clarification and pretended that they were talking about the same document by referring again to the short form.

He was not pretending.

Yes. And if the long form shows a hospital, doctor name, and other corroborating information, then Hawaiian birth is proven. If it simply shows that the mother walked in with a baby and claimed it was born in Hawaii, Hawaiian birth is not proven.

Rank pseudolaw. The standards of proof are already established, and they have nothing to do with birth in a hospital or the presence of a doctor. You can read the standards here:

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

All COLBs are signed this way. But COLBs can be acquired by a foreign-born person. So, factually speaking, the signature on the back does not mean the place of birth is correct.

You are 100% in error here. The signature on the back and the registrar’s statement absolutely means the birth of place is correct. That is the only reason the statement and signature are there at all.

If someone’s documentation reveals that there is no evidence that they were actually born here, they should not be allowed to rule us. End of story.

Tough. The law in every state of the union says otherwise.

The entire purpose of the natural-born citizneship requirement was to ensure that our ruler’s allegiance lies with us alone. The idea that Obama, who was born to a foreign citizen father, who was a citizen of a foreign country at birth, who traveled to another foreign country later in life and became a citizen, and who refuses to release his basic documentation relevant to his eligibility even as those who are being ruled demand it, would fit this purpose is absurd.

If you imagine so, then do not vote for him. If the Framers believed this, they certainly could have said so.

They did not.

Obama exhibited a properly attested and embossed state record, which thus invokes the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitutions. It is the same kind of record that Hawaiian-born Americans now routinely use to prove citizenship by birth. Phil, you seem to be arguing that the kind of birth certificate Obama showed is unacceptable for occupying the presidency, and that’s utter nonsense because no other president showed any birth certificate at all.

Unfortunately for both of us (as I’m having to now repeat myself), you seem to fail to recall what I’ve already said on this issue:

1. Since there is no controlling legal authority to enforce presidential eligibility, I don’t know even if a birth certificate (as in the 1961 one) is “enough” to substantiate;

2. Since there’s plenty of background documentation on this President, it seems reasonable to me that allowing that documentation to be revealed (unsealed) would go a long way in helping to determine if the President really is qualified, as in constitutionally qualified.

I, as an American citizen, have a right to know these things per the eligibility clause of the Constitution.

-Phil

Huh?

Completely free, anonymous and open debate is absolutely what you get over there. Registration does not sacrifice a shred of anonymity.

You forgot to take into account my parenthetical immediately after the part you quoted! It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek response!

-Phil

First. there is no evidence that Obama ever carried a foreign passport at any moment in his entire life. [Unneeded verbiage]

Yes, there is. After being listed on his school paperwork as an Indonesian citizen, he traveled as an adult between Indonesia and Pakistan at a time when Pakistan was under martial law and did not allow entry to US citizens.

He has fully addressed the citizenship question. He did so one year ago this month.

Sure. By smugly displaying a document that could be held by a foreign-born person, and hiding, at a cost of almost a million dollars, his actual full birth certificate and the rest of his basic documentation, he fully addressed the question. He addressed the hell out of it.

1. Since we were explicitly talking about a “piece of paper,” we certainly could not have been talking about just the Internet image. As we used to say in Ranger School, “Nice attack. Wrong hill.”

My point was that even if this document couldn’t be acquired by a foreign-born person – and it can – he has not provided the document. He has provided pictures on a website. The point being that the first hurdle is the fact that the document can be acquired by a foreign-born person, and the second hurdle is having his documentation vetted by a government agency whose responsibility it is to verify his eligibility before allowing him to take power at the head of our goverment and rule us as opposed to expecting everyone to accept a picture on a privately-operated website as the final word on the matter.

2. A COLB that says “Honolulu” as the place of birth cannot be acquired by a foreign born person.

Yes, it can. Hawaiian law allowed for a parent to register a birth after the fact based on their own claim that the child was born in Hawaii. This leaves the door wide open for a foreign-born person to hold this document. The full birth certificate would reveal this and tell everyone that there is no proof he was actually born in Hawaii, or it would reveal his birth details such as hospital, doctor name, etc. He is fighting its release along with all other relevant documentation. What does that tell you?

3. Being born in the United States does, in fact, automatically make him a natural born citizen. The “two citizen parents requirement” is imaginary pseudolaw that exist nowhere in the Constitution, in any American Statute, and is contradicted by established legal decision.

The framers used Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” as their reference. Look up what it says a “natural-born citizen” is. They also made it clear in their writings and statements that this was their understanding of natural-born citizenship.

[Unneeded psychobabble] The claim that they have “financial ties to Obama” has been so thoroughly refuted that I can no longer give anybody who makes the claim credit for an honest mistake.

You admit later in your post that they do have financial ties to Obama.

1) A foreign born person could not acquire a short form that said he was born in Honolulu.

Again, yes, one could.

2) None of this is evidence contradicting the COLB. [Unneeded verbiage]

Obama’s refusal to allow anyone to see the actual full birth certificate and insistence on displaying instead the short form that a foreign-born person could hold speaks for itself.

No. I don’t. After all, we know for a fact that a foreign born person could not acquire a COLB that said he was born in Honolulu.

Again, yes, one could.

In this case, absolutely.

Explain how keeping his promise of transparency by releasing the basic documentation relevant to his eligibility for office would be a dereliction of duty.

I will correct you guys just as often as you insist on making this false statement. He is not fighting their release. He is fighting to preserve the critical legal standard of “standing.”

Garbage. He could have released his documentation long ago in response to the public demand for him to do so and not in official response to any lawsuit. He released the short form and meant this to serve as the exact same thing.

And that “same place” is the foundation of a conservative Republican and personal friend of Ronald Reagan, run by a woman who supported John McCain in the last election.

And? If a group receives its funding from the same place as one of the candidate’s projects, the group has a conflict of interest and is not an appropriate entity to verify the candidate’s eligibility for office. Nevermind the blatantly fawning nature of their website as demonstrated by their factually lacking whitewashes of issues such as this, his relationship with William Ayers, etc.

Not when the person viewing it is the official spokesperson for the Hawaii DoH.

Who the viewer is changes the fact that whether a document appears to be legitimate upon viewing an emailed picture of it does not mean anything? Explain.

And Gibbs was correct to disabuse him of the false presumptions that underlay the question.

He did no such thing. He simply ignored the clarification and pretended that they were talking about the same document by referring again to the short form.

Nothing in that statement is true.

A COLB is exclusively an abstract from a “long form” birth certificate. If a foreign person has a COLB, that can only be because they also already have a “long form” birth certificate too. And if the “long form” shows their foreign place of birth (as required by law) then their COLB would too.

Yes. And if the long form shows a hospital, doctor name, and other corroborating information, then Hawaiian birth is proven. If it simply shows that the mother walked in with a baby and claimed it was born in Hawaii, Hawaiian birth is not proven.

1) Everybody seems to keep missing the fact that the Fukino statement is not the only place a Hawaiian official has said anything about Obama’s place of birth. The COLB itself bears the statement and signature of the Registrar, Dr. Alvin Onaka that Obama was actually born where it says he was; Honolulu.

All COLBs are signed this way. But COLBs can be acquired by a foreign-born person. So, factually speaking, the signature on the back does not mean the place of birth is correct.

2) Every state in the Union has the same “loophole” for registering unattended births. The bad news for you is that a BC for an unattended birth is, by law, still absolute legal proof of citizenship.

If someone’s documentation reveals that there is no evidence that they were actually born here, they should not be allowed to rule us. End of story.

[Unneeded verbiage] There is nothing in American law that says dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are mutually exclusive. Again… we are a sovereign nation, and no other nation gets to tell us who we consider as natural born.

The entire purpose of the natural-born citizneship requirement was to ensure that our ruler’s allegiance lies with us alone. The idea that Obama, who was born to a foreign citizen father, who was a citizen of a foreign country at birth, who traveled to another foreign country later in life and became a citizen, and who refuses to release his basic documentation relevant to his eligibility even as those who are being ruled demand it, would fit this purpose is absurd. Don’t twist yourself into a pretzel trying to wiggle out from under it.

Again, I’m a little confused at the “silly”-ness characterization you’ve just used. I have been told by various opposition commenters on this site that there is zero evidence that could be shown, one way or the other, to determine this President’s eligibility. Obviously, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Obviously there is evidence that could shown, because conclusive evidence has been shows; I cite it all the time: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html . It has the specified in 28 USC 1739 for proving non-judicial state records, also the features the state department requires on a birth certificate to establish citizenship by http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf and obtain a passport http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf .

Everyone — everyone — already knows that background documentation exists for this President. The issue is one of access. Perhaps folks like you don’t believe such access should be allowed, and I disagree with such a sentiment, especially when we’re talking about getting to know someone who occupies the highest office in the land.

Obama exhibited a properly attested and embossed state record, which thus invokes the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitutions. It is the same kind of record that Hawaiian-born Americans now routinely use to prove citizenship by birth. Phil, you seem to be arguing that the kind of birth certificate Obama showed is unacceptable for occupying the presidency, and that’s utter nonsense because no other president showed any birth certificate at all.

When you are the accused in a legal proceeding, your counsel absolutely should prevent your accuser from trying to use the discovery process to learn things that have nothing to do with the case at hand. Your counsel should also protect you from having the plaintiffs conduct discovery as a publicity campaign. You would expect your attorneys to do this if you were in this situation. To release publicly an unsigned subpoena, before discovery in the case had even begun was, to put it mildly, extremely bad form and outside of proper legal procedure. It was an “in your face” move by plaintiff’s counsel. Obama’s counsel was justified in threatening sanctions.

Once again, discovery in a lawsuit does not give either side free rein to go into anything they want. That’s why subpoenas have to be signed by a judge, he decides of the info they want is germaine. Anecdotal stories are not generally admissible as evidence.

KJ: If Mr. Obama was concerned about maintaining the integrity of the Presidency and protecting it from legal challenge, he had adequate opportunity to fully address the citizenship questions before he took the Oath of Office.

Historian Dude: He has fully addressed the citizenship question. He did so one year ago this month.

Mr. Obama only addressed carefully chosen questions and the only document offered was his COLB.

I read some of the opposing blogs today. The COLB and his two books that claim to present his life/ideas in his own words figure prominently in the justification the he is eligible, without any concern about confirming his version of his life with disinterested third party information. May I suggest that you pursue the due diligence that you exercise when answering comments on this site in considering the limited information that Mr. Obama has offered?

Historian Dude: Second, So what? I carry a foreign passport too. And yet I am a natural born US Citizen, born on American soil to two parents who were also born American Citizens.

You are personally a dual citizen? May I inquire to what other country you owe allegiance?

KJ: Mr. Obama has claimed a foreign national father at birth, the first President to do so.

Historian Dude: You forget Chester A. Arthur.

There is no evidence that openly Chester Arthur claimed a foreign national father at birth although his father was a British subject on the date that Chester was born. Chester Arthur’s exact citizenship status has never been resolved and, as far as we know, the voters were not aware of his father’s citizenship status at his birth. William’s obit did not even recognize that William had lived in Canada.

Naturalization has been held by courts to be retroactive to protect the interests of a naturalized citizen’s heirs. William Arthur was serving in an elected city position in Vermont prior to Chester’s birth; it would require a court to determine if William Arthur’s citizenship status would be retroactive to the date that he was acting as a citizen (before Chester Arthur’s birth).

Mr. Obama could never have such a claim. Perhaps he is the only American President that had a foreign national father “at birth” and thereafter.

Historian Dude: Your “belief” is noted. Sadly it is completely unsupported by any law.

I invite you to read my “musings”.

Historian Dude: Then you have a powerful legal remedy with which to act on your lack of confidence: withhold your vote.

Although I am an Independent and not a PUMA, I did not vote for Mr. Obama in 2008 and did what I could to urge 300 others not to vote for him in the days before the election. Unless he presents the documents to prove that he is eligible, I will do whatever I can (money, time, and work) to prevent his reelection in 2012.

So much for completely free, anonymous and open debate, huh?

Huh?

Completely free, anonymous and open debate is absolutely what you get over there. Registration does not sacrifice a shred of anonymity.

It looks like the Soetoro supporters here refuse to challenge my statements regarding Amendment XIV. The statements still stand:

1. Amendment XIV can’t be used to qualify candidates for Article II Natural Born Citizenship because of the ‘or naturalized’ clause.
2. Birth certificates satisfy the born clause in Amendment XIV and therefore satisfy ‘citizen of the United States’ only.
3. As such birth certificates are sufficient for qualifications for senators and representatives stated in Article I, but insufficent for presidential eligibility stated in Article II.

Prove my logic is wrong. Remember, Amendments SUPERCEDE prior Constitutional statute.

Good luck.

Anonymous lurkers are still allowed. Just not unregistered anonymous lurkers.

So much for completely free, anonymous and open debate, huh? (That was meant as a jab from all those who claim that either my site has become too censored for the opposition or that other so-called “birther” sites have completely shut down their registrations)

I nevertheless thank you for the invitation.

-Phil

Historian Dude writes that releasing the birth certificate:”…would end no speculation at all”. The Dude is wrong! It would end speculation about the birth certificate. It is true that it may not end speculation about the President’s eligibility to serve as President, because of other matters such as his becoming an Indonesian citizen at a time when there was no dual citizenship agreement between Indonesia and the U.S., which would have required that President Obama reapply to regain his U.S. citizenship on his return to the U.S., which could be an even more significant matter.

1) This is at its core not true. On several Birther websites the “long form” birth certificate has already been declared a forgery, sight unseen.

2) Dual citizenship has nothing to do with “dual citizenship agreements.” Every sovereign nation gets to ascribe citizenship to anybody they want. No other nation’s laws matter. If two or more countries happen to ascribe their citizenship to the same person, they are dual citizens even if they don’t know it.

3) Under US law nothing could have required Obama to reapply for his US Citizenship on his return to the states at age ten. Under the explicit terms of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Obama cannot under any circumstances have lost his American citizenship as a child.

Perhaps Historian Dude is right about the continued use of the COLB (Certification of Live Birth) document in the state of Hawaii, but he has to be wrong about both the COLB and the long form Certificate of Live Birth being the same, because two things cannot be the same and be different at one and the same time. The Certificate of Live Birth contains much more information including: 6d. which answers the question of place of birth which includes for information about the birth occurring in other judicial districts, and item 11. that identifies the birthplace, which might have been on foreign soil.

This is a meaningless quibble. The information necessary by law to prove citizenship at birth is identical on both.

According to Hawaii Statute 338-17.8, certificates were also issued for births when the legal parent while living without the State of Hawaii who had declared the State of Hawaii their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceeding the birth or adoption of such child.

And the issued certificates would reflect the actual foreign place of birth. They could not legally say “Honolulu” if the birth actually took place in Mombassa, Kenya.

What is more important is a December 19, 2008 State of Hawaii, Office of Elections document re certificte of Nominations in which the National Convention of delegates representing the Republican Party verifies that John McCain and Sarah Palin both met the requirements of the offices they were seeking; however, in the case of President Barack Obama and V.P. Joe Biden, it is signed off on by Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Mr. McCain’s eligibility was also challenged, and Congress apparently certified that Mr. McCain was elligible (they may have been wrong). But one can certainly wonder how Ms. Pelosi, and the other signatory for the Democratic National Convention were able to certify the “natural born citizen” status of Mr. Obama given that so many of his personal records were not available for scrutiny, and proof of being a natural born citizen of the U.S. is one of the only three qualifications for determining eligibility under the Constitution?

One can certainly wonder all sorts of things. It is, after all, the source of so much interesting fiction.