The real question here is are we not entitiled to see the same authentic documentation that clearly establishes one's natural citizenship? His copy of his birth certificate does appear to have issues. We are required as CITIZENS to establish identity and citizenship for many things. Now, the most important office in our country and we are essentially being REFUSED to see the original, unaltered birth certificate that would clearly RESOLVE this in seconds.

I have NO ISSUE with him being elected (even though I did not vote for him) if the original birth certificate establishes the proper natural citizenship. If this document were released and opened doubt as to Obama's citizenship, then YES, it should be resolved even if this means getting the SCOTUS involved. Folks, you either respect our laws or you don't. We don't "bend the rules" just because our guy won.

Incidentally, I would have asked the same of McCain as there were questions about his natural born status. From what I read, he did release his original birth certificate to resolve this.

Why is this so difficult for Obama to do?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Freenrgy2]

To quote Intelgurl on this thread

this is s non-issue even if he was born in Kenya (which I very much doubt) as he would still be a elligible to be President

Originally posted by intelgurl

Here are the citizenship requirements for President of the US - the one that fits Obama is in bold:

Title 8 Section 1401 of the U.S. Code
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* Anyone born inside the United States

* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Again, all this hullaballoo is nonsense - this is a non-issue.

As to the people who say his right to citizenship extinguished with his mother's marriage to the Lolo Soetoro should know that a minor cannot lose his/her citizenship through the actions of the parents.

Originally posted by Popeye
To quote Intelgurl on this thread

this is s non-issue even if he was born in Kenya (which I very much doubt) as he would still be a elligible to be President

Originally posted by intelgurl

Here are the citizenship requirements for President of the US - the one that fits Obama is in bold:

Title 8 Section 1401 of the U.S. Code
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* Anyone born inside the United States

* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Again, all this hullaballoo is nonsense - this is a non-issue.

As to the people who say his right to citizenship extinguished with his mother's marriage to the Lolo Soetoro should know that a minor cannot lose his/her citizenship through the actions of the parents.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney - note the word "ATTORNEY", he probably has a fair idea on the legalities of the matter

Transparency is a good thing, especially for the people we elect, unless people want to be treated like good little peasants

I tried to read through some Indonesian law that was in affect at the time Obamas mother remarried. It seemed to suggest that once his mother married an Indonesian citizen, she could become an Indonesian citizen too. And, the adoption of Barack, err I mean Barry, would also bestow Indonesian citizenship to him automatically through his step-father. And, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at the time, thus for any of this to have occurred back then over their, they would have had to renounce their US citizenship. Barry's mother and step-father, his legal guardians, may have basically threw Barry's US citizenship in the trash. Sucks for him, but hey, that's the way the ball bounces for some of us sometimes. Confess, Obama, the Great Deceiver, and stop trying to hide the truth ya liar liar! Also, at that time, Indonesian law stipulated only an Indonesian citizen may attend the public schools, which he did.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Divinorumus]

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Can anyone tell me why is it so important that the US President has to be born in the US, rather than just be a citizen? Are they more American for being born on the US soil? Do they know more about the US and can take the citizenship test perfectly like someone who is applying for citizenship?

All I see is a technicality that people are using to make sure Obama never gets into office, whether it be because of his race, him being democrat, or both.

If more than 50% of the US population wants him as President and a small group of whiners don't, why don't the whiners know what "majority rules" means in a Democracy?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by DJMessiah]

Because we do not live in a democracy, USA is a constitutional republic, and the majority DOES NOT rule.

I agree fully. This is called piecemeal representation, and would level the playing field.

The only caveat aside from diversifying the battleground states into districts is that they would be prone to gerrymandering, like Congressional races, but still more accurate nevertheless..

But anything's better than getting rid of the electoral college. That's the worst idea ever.

Originally posted by DJMessiah

If more than 50% of the US population wants him as President and a small group of whiners don't, why don't the whiners know what "majority rules" means in a Democracy?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by DJMessiah]

Because ya know its a funny thing, The United States isn't a pure democracy where the majority rules supreme, we are a Republic or as some refer to it as a Representative Democracy. Which means regardless of rather or not you like it, this .minority? Has a say in how this country is run, I know I know its hard to grasp that a minority by a small margin still has a say but that's the reality of a Republic. Welcome to America

FYI:

I am interested in the direction this discussion is taking, even though there are several threads on this issue. However, because this is based on a blog entry, it doesn't fit the rules for BAN material, no matter how fascinating.

I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, but this thread is being moved to Political Issues.

Thank you, and carry on.