Reality Liberation Front

First: an apology…I have not been blogging over the last few weeks. I believe it to be the result of “post-election burnout” combined with an increased workload. Additionally, the news has been pretty heavy on predictions but pretty light on substance lately.

That being said – I’m ready to get to work again…

I was recently asked by a good friend about my thoughts regarding the recent inquiries into President-elect Obama’s citizenship. I did some research and here’s what I found:

What is the issue?

The We the People Foundation lays out the various arguments. The first (and weakest) is that Hawaii has not certified Obama’s birth certificate as valid. It is alleged to be a fake/forgery.

The Berg lawsuit alleges that Obama was born in Kenya, and that since his mother (U.S. Citizen) was not living in the U.S. for at least five years after her 14th birthday (impossible since Obama was born when she was 18) Obama is actually a Kenyan citizen.

The Dinofrio lawsuit alleges that since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen as specified in the Constitution. He also remarks that McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, is not a “natural born” citizen either.

What does the law say?

According to the U.S. Citizenship Information website:

“A child who is born in the United States, or born abroad to a U.S. citizen(s) who lived in (or came to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, is considered a U.S. citizen at birth.”

“A period of time” is defined as five years, two of which occurred after the parent’s 14th birthday.According to the Constitution:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

What does this mean?

On the subject of Obama’s birth certificate: When initially released, the scanned copy of the certificate raised a few eyebrows and some people questioned its authenticity. However, at this point, several organizations have been allowed to PHYSICALLY INSPECT the document, including Factcheck.Org and the conservative Powerline Blog. All who have seen the birth certificate have verified the document’s authenticity…Factcheck.Org wrote: “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.”

On the subject of Berg’s legal claim: Berg claim requires proving two points. First, that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Secondly, that Obama’s mother’s citizenship does not apply because she didn’t live in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday. Even if Berg could prove the first point, on the second point he is clearly in error. The requirement is FIVE years in the U.S. TOTAL, with TWO years taking place after the parent’s 14th birthday. Therefore, Berg’s “logic” doesn’t hold up and the case falls short. Obama seems clearly to meet the U.S. Government’s requirements for being a “citizen at birth” even if he were born in Kenya (again, a dubious claim).

On the subject of Dinofrio’s claim: The term “natural born citizen” appears in the Constitutional requirements, but is never defined and never appears again in the Constitution or in Federal Case Law. Dinofrio and others have chosen to define the term themselves as “born on U.S. soil” or “born to TWO U.S. citizens.” However, there is no legal foundation for these definitions, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support the contrary. By law, Obama is a citizen “from birth.” This fits neatly with the idea of “natural born.” Also, we refer to people who eventually become U.S. citizens as “naturalized citizens“…it would make sense that people BORN as citizens would therefore be called “natural born citizens.” Either way, since there is no formal definition, the suit doesn’t stand up.

What would happen if Obama WEREN’T a citizen?

We can only speculate, because this situation is the definition of “uncharted waters.” My thoughts: if evidence were found pre-inauguration, then the Supreme Court would have to weigh in on the evidence’s weight and on how to proceed. Experts agree on what would happen if evidence came to light post-inauguration…nothing. Once installed in office, the only way to remove a standing President is set in stone: impeachment and removal. Period.

Why is this a moot question?

The Supreme Court won’t touch it. Today they announced that they will not hear Dinofrio’s case…and they will take the same position if Berg tries to come before them. The Court does not like to rule on such matters, and is still being criticized for their role in deciding a Presidential election. If they don’t want to hear a case, they won’t…and they really don’t want this turkey.

Also…if the State government in Hawaii says the certificate is legitimate, and the Federal government echoes with its approval…that’s it. They are under no obligation to reexamine their position unless UNDENIABLE evidence is presented, and so far most of what is out there is little more than loose conjecture and faulty logic.

I’ll end on this note: I do find it curious…most of the people attempting to give this story legs are, understandably, conservatives and Republicans…some of the same people who pushed a few years back to relax the presidential requirements so that naturalized citizens could run…so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could be fielded as a candidate.