ATS has a better grade of debate on this than Freedom4um, where the Birthers get really vile at anyone who doesn't share their fantasy.
A few things I'd like to point out:
For those agitating for a default judgment or contempt citation (or arrest warrant) for Obama for not coming to the hearing: Besides the issue of
special accommodation for a sitting President, there was a very serious doubt that the subpoena of a Georgia administrative court had any clout on
persons and things outside the State of Georgia. As a matter of fact, Taitz was aware of this doubt by the day of the hearing because she had tried
to subpoena >another birther -- Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Phoenix, Ariz -- to make him provide her with his alleged evidence and he had the county
counsel write her a starchy letter about how her subpoena lacked authority (rather than reveal that he really had no evidence). Apart from this, a
default judgment on such an issue (that would have deprived millions of Georgians of the chance to vote for Obama) would have been the easiest thing
to overturn.
The birther geek-speak about the Hawaii birth certificate is really about the internet image of the Hawaii birth certificate. Not one of those people
actually examined the paper document itself. The Hawaii Dept of Health issued it on that strange green security paper because it was required to by
FEDERAL law, namely the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevent Act of 2004, PL 108-458, enacted Dec. 17, 2004, § 7211(b)(3)(A), 118 Stat. 3826
reprinted in the Official Note to 5 USC §301. This requires birth certificates to be issued on "safety paper" designed to prevent falsification.
This safety paper is so effective that it confuses Photoshop and a lot of other computer programs for duplicating images.
The Georgia decision makes clear that Taitz was very unpersuasive about evidence. There are hundreds of professional document examiners in this
country, many of them available freelance for forensic purposes, and they have the professional background, the credentials, etc., and have already
been recognized as experts in other court cases. Taitz avoided all of them and opted for self-styled dabblers. Why hasn't an authentic expert come
forward on the birthers' side?
The Georgia decision was with the weight of legal authority. A good many "amateur lawyers" seemed to misunderstand - almost deliberately - the
meaning of "precedent". "Natural Born Citizen" (NBC, with or without a hyphen) occurs in American law ONLY in the provision about Presidential
eligibility. NO court case ever dealt with the issue of a person born here but somehow not an NBC. The cases that do exist treat non-candidates for
the Presidency but used NBC as synonymous and interchangeable with "native born citizen" or "birthright citizen" - often using the phrase NBC
itself to describe the person - for someone born here even when both parents are non-citizens.
About another country's claim on a child born here: This was already an issue in many of the precedents. But the American courts have said that, as
far as American law is concerned, those children are US citizens from birth even if the law of a foreign country (which they might or might not ever
visit) says something else. We fought the War of 1812 to prove this point. In Obama's case it is even more cumbersome because (and this is sort of
awkward to say about the Prez) his parents' marriage may not have been valid, since his father already had a wife back in Africa. That fact alone
may be enough to cancel the notion of dual citizenship, but even if it didn't, that does not affect his NBC status. And we have the example of the
21st President, Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885) born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.



