NCAAbbs

I have heard grumblings that Obama's birth certificate is a fake and that he was actually born in Kenya.

Apparently, a Pennsylvania democrat senator is suing over it....

Not legal to be President?

Has anyone else heard anything on this?

Ive heard people claiming that McCain might not be eligible to be POTUS, but I havent heard of this.

I heard something along that line as well, but I believe that McCain was born on a US military base in Panama(?), so I think that would make him elligible.

Yes. As a child of a Military Office stationed in the Canal Zone, John McCain was born on the base... which despite claims by a small number of morons, is as much "America" as our embassies, Hawaii and Washington, D.C.

I wonder what would happen in the case of Brangelina's baby who was (by choice) born in the south of France, or for (in an extreme example) someone on vacation who gives unexpected birth... or in the case of a military base, when parents were forced to (perhaps because of emergency) give birth away from the base?

FTR, I know nothing of Obama's certificate, and doubt that it is not legit.

McCain was born in the US-Controlled Panama Canal Zone in a US Military hospital to American parents. I would love to see the libs try the approach that a retired Navy Captain, and POW, who's father was a retired US Navy Admiral, who's father was also a retired US Navy Admiral, isn't qualified. The Panama Canal Zone was considered US Sovereign land.

As funny as this would be if it were true, I tend to doubt it is.

I agree with you, but I find it odd and intriguing that a democrat would be suing over it.

For all the political junkies on this board, this is surprising. The Obama = Fake birth certificate issue has been thoroughly debunked by the left AND the right.

The Constitution doesn't say you have to be born on US soil to be President, it says that you must be a "natural born citizen" when Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

I would imagine, that child born of American citizens in a foreign land, through accident or through design, would easily be able to defend their ability to run and receive the Presidency. There simply is no precedent, and the Constitution is not crystal clear. My interpretation of the Constitution / natural born citizen clause was to immediately eliminate any foreign influence, such as a candidate loyal to the British Crown, running in the years after the Revolution and the Constitution.

A child born in a foreign land, to foreign parents, to foreign citizenship would be a much more difficult matter to reconcile. My uneducated guess is that courts would allow this person to run, as long as they met the other requirements, that being that they are 35 and have lived in the USA for 14 years (plus citizenship, natch)

And the Panama Canal zone is a dead issue. From 1937 until the turnover in 1979, the Panama Canal zone was as much a part of the USA as Topeka, Kansas or Tampa, Florida.

Agreed Stan... though Obama's father wasn't American... and according to the article, his mother may have somehow given up her citizenship at some point when she married a Phillipines native. As I said, this is a moot point... nobody would be so stupid... However... as a simple question of citizenship... I'm not sure a child born to an African father in Africa, even with an American mother would be considered American... which is what this guys claim is...

Apparently Arnold Schwartzenegger (sp) is ineligible despite meeting all of the other criteria.

The Constitution requires that the president be a US citizen by birth. We have two standards here (I'll apologize in advance for any Latin spelling errors):
1. Lex solis, or law of the soil, so where you were born governs citizenship
2. Lex sanguinis, or law of the blood, so who your parents were governs citizenship

Some countries recognize one or the other exclusively. The US and many countries recognize the right to citizenship by either means. This is one factor in having so many people eligible for dual passports (Aaron Baddeley, the Australian golfer was born in Nashua, NH; his father was crew chief for one of the Aussie drivers who was driving NASCAR at the time, I believe it was Graham Hill, and that's where the good old boys were running that week, so he carries both US and Aussie passports; he would be eligible for the International team in the President's Cup, or for the US team in either the President's Cup or the Ryder Cup).

If you are born on US soil, you are entitled to US citizenship regardless of your parents' citizenship. This is the issue that arises often with children of illegal aliens.

If one of your parents is an American citizen, you are entitled to US citizenship regardless of where you were born. The first time I heard this come up in a presidential context was when Romney's father was a contender for the republican nomination in the 1970s; he was born in Mexico, where his parents were on a mission trip, and it was generally agreed that there was no problem at the time. My understanding is that Obama's mother and both of McCain's parents were American citizens at the times of their respective births. Therefore, either McCain or Obama could have been born on the moon and they'd still be US citizens from birth by the lex sanguinis standard. Obama could presumably also claim Kenyan citizenship based on his father. I don't know whether McCain could claim Panamanian citizenship or not; I doubt it, but there are some quirks in the Canal Zone treaty.

Schwartzenegger was born in Austria to Austrian parents. He has no claim to US citizenship by birth. Since the Constitution requires presidents to be citizens by birth, he is ineligible for the office. Some people have proposed amending the Constitution to change this provision, and that idea has gotten some more momentum because of Schwartzenegger.

Obama was born in Honolulu. He's American. He was born in '61, Hawaii became a state in '59. Really a stupid f'n argument, but then again, this guy is a Democrat.

Rebel... that is sort of his issue, though. He CLAIMS that Obama was actually born in Kenya because his mother was too preganant to fly... and she had him registered in Hawaii 4 days later.

That is his claim anyway.

I don't see where it makes a difference. If his mother was a US citizen at the time, he's a US citizen by birth. Lex sanguinis.

Unless he's claiming that mom somehow renounced her US citizenship BEFORE he was born. It would take that plus being born in Kenya for there to be a problem.

I could see where being born in Kenya could be spun into a campaign issue. And at this point I don't think anything is beneath anybody in this campaign. But it wouldn't disqualify him.

His mother was a few months pregnant when she and his father married, in Hawaii

Where he was conceived doesn't matter. ....unless you libs and moderates are now saying that life begins at conception.

69, he actually claimed that she renounced his citizenship when she married her second husband... a Phillipines native.

Fan, while I do not dispute your comment, it offers no proof on where he was when he was born. She could easily have traveled to Africa while a few months pregnant, and then been kept from flying (his claim) when about to give birth.

The charges he makes seems to be a bit of a catch all... sort of a... He wasn't born here... but his mom is American so it doesn't matter... but she renounced her citizenship and de facto, his... when she went to the Phillipines... he even shows a paper he claims showing Barack (going by another name... interestingly enough... while I can understand that an adoptive father might not want him to have another man's name... why would he change it back to a man he never knew?) as a Phillipines citizen... again, I'm not agreeing with the guy... I just read his claim.

Sweet, I love being called a liberal on this board. That should make me a conservative in relation to American politics. Makes me feel like a free thinker.
But, what I am saying she was already preggo when married, in Hawaii. I haven't seen anything about her travelling to Kenya to get pregnant, get married, see his family, etc. while the baby daddy was still in school.

It is a large part of the link provided in the first post, so it was assumed that people read it.

I go back to my "catch-all" suit... his borth cert isn't real... which it appears to be... but it doesn't show he was BORN here, and family members claim he wasn't... which apparently doesn't matter under us law (though for some reason the Panama claim had legs??)... but she gave it up when she married the Phillipines native (there is more to the claim in the link)... though he clearly had a US passport ... but he seems to have traveled at 20 to a country it would have been difficult for an American to travel to...

All I can assume is that a Democrat filed this in August so that if any part were true, they could switch to Hillary quickly... and to avoid a November surprise.

Ah, I see now that it is all from a world nut daily article. Now I know this is all

I was going off of what I read in the latest Time

I didn't call you a liberal. I said "you libs and moderates". Whichever one you are is not my concern.

Fanatical.... the fact that the suit is being publicized by a partisan publication has no bearing on the veracity of the suit. These are not claims they made up... they are claims a Pennsylvania Democrat made up. Actually, despite reporting it, the article pretty clearly says that many/most of the claims are patently at odds with law. It is hard to read that article and think that the reporter is trying to raise doubts about his eligibility.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing, but the fact that you would discount the suit entirely because of whom is telling you about it makes me question your objectivity. I haven't seen a patently "liberal" publication treat an unsubstantiated claim about McCain with such a dismissive tone. The question is, why a Democrat is bringing the suit.

And you call YOURSELF a liberal...

Actually, posters on this board call me liberal. And yes, I do dismiss world net daily simply because it has shown time and again to not be an objective news source. Most of my WND experience has come from scientific articles, not political; though they seem to want to politicize science. If this were from an AP wire, Reuters, BBC, even Yahoo! I might take this guy's claims against Obama seriously. It is nice that WND is calling this guy's claims as baseless; however, making much ado about nothing at all.

If his mother (or either parent) was a US citizen when he was born, then he is a US citizen by birth and the constitutional requirement is satisfied. This is the slam dunk to end all slam dunks, and I really can't imagine what the basis of the lawsuit is.

I guess that there could be an issue if the birth certificate is somehow fraudulent, but then the issue would be why would anyone have wanted to create a fraudulent birth certificate? Even if he were born in Kenya, there's no problem. If that's what happened, it must be for some other reason, and what might that reason be?

I suppose that if it were the father and not the mother who was the US citizen, someone might raise some kind of paternity issue. But as a Jewish friend of mine reminds me, Jewish law provides that it's whether the mother is Jew/gentile that governs, for the simple reason that you may not always know for sure who the father is, but it's pretty hard not to get the mother's identity right.

Sorry, I realize this is drifting into kook territory here, and I don't mean to. It's just that I'm trying to figure out how this lawsuit could have any kind of merit, and I'm coming up pretty empty.

I don't get it either, and even what Fan apparently feels is a news source a little to the right of the Nazi party seems to agree with... hence my thought that this guy (a democrat) is trying to have it debated, debunked and decided long before election day.

Fanatical, i was referring to your "liberally intellectual" handle... and as I said... WND isn't the source of the story... the guy bringing the suit is... and it is apparently a real suit... even if it is entirely meritless.

he certainly is trying to make a point, though it is beyond me what that is.

69... purely for academic purposes... can one be born an American... give up citizenship (because SOME countries don't allow dual citizenship) and then take it back... and as long as you're here 14 years... you're good to go?? that, too seems to be one of the claims... though I would think he has satisfied AT LEAST that point.

There is also a statute involved as well. I don't remember the citation. But Owl is correct at least as far as the statute is concerned, if either parent is a US citizen, you are a U.S. citizen. The unlitigated issue to parse words in true Clintonian fashion is what the phrase "natural born" means. Does it mean born in the 50 states? Does it mean born in the 50 states, military installations and territories? Does it mean that you were born a US citizen due to lineage no matter where you were born? The Constitution doesn't say, US citizen, but natural born US citizen. So, there may or may not be a distinction between a citizen at birth and a "natural born" citizen. Reason would argue that if you were born a US citizen, then you qualify. But who knows perhaps there was something discussed at the time the Constitution was written where they only meant born on US soil as natural born citizens. That's why they have Courts.

Stang... apparently (according to even the tight wing article above) that has already been decided... the Child of an American citizen born anywhere is an American by birth. the child of a foriegner born on American soil (which precedent would also include embassies and military bases) is an American.

i realize that is one of the points raised in the suit... but it has apparently been challenged before... just not by a Presidential candidate.