Georgia State Court decides Obama is NOT eligible for Presidency

[jordan179]

The details here, by Craig Andreson in "Obama Eligibility Court Case ... Blow by Blow" (January 26th, 2012, The National Patriot

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

The judge first determined that Obama's father had never been an American citizen.

Disc received from

Comments

[irked_indeed]

Hang on, I'm a little confused/ignorant here.

Why does he not qualify as a natural-born citizen under the normal clauses? Wasn't that the point of the whole birth certificate thing?

[banner]

because both parents have to qualify, and at least one of the parents who qualifies has to have lived in the US a certain number of years. His mother doesn't qualify either.

Then of course there is the whole issue of Barry's adoptive father, did he change barry's citizenship? And then of course the issue of barry traveling under a foreign passport.

[tagryn]

Snopes.com pretty much shot down all of those objections in their summary at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
...{T}he qualifications listed in the example quoted above are moot because they refer to someone who was born outside the United States. Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, they do not apply to him. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

[rowyn]

Yes. It doesn't matter if his parents were illegal immigrants from the moon and his SSN was issued in 2028; if he was born on USA soil, he's a natural-born US citizen.

[lonewolf545]

Citation to case law that defines exactly what "natural born citizen" means?

[rowyn]

From the Congression Research Service

At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term natural born with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were natural born subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this same rule was applicable in the American colonies and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution .

You can use Google as well as I can if this does not satisfy you.

[ford_prefect42]

Accepted that he's a citizen, however, identity theft is a felony. If he's guilty of that, in having a fraudulent ssn, then he's inelligible. There are questions here *other* than whether or not he's a citizen.

[banner]

And as is occasionally the case, snopes is wrong.

[tagryn]

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Obama was born in Hawaii, that makes him a natural-born citizen. What's so hard to grasp about that?

Also, just stating "snopes is wrong" without any specifics or cites isn't helping your case any. I could also say "snopes is wrong" about any other urban legends debunkings on their site - Bigfoot, perhaps, or UFOs - but the burden of proof would fall on me to prove otherwise, given snopes.com's general stature and the careful argument they laid out on their site. Ball's in your court.

[ford_prefect42]

The credibility of snopes is not all that I wish it were. All too often, they choose to expound on the social antecedents of the things they "investigate" rather than to actually *investigate* them. I don't care if the "gerber baby" african thing is based in self-superiority, I care whether or not it *happened*, and they rather infrequently investigate that. Further, they tend to find "false" things that, even in their analysis, they find actually took place, if they dislike the thing in question. Bad form at best.

[tagryn]

That could be a valid criticism of Snopes in some circumstances, although not a very compelling one - in many cases, the underlying social causes *are* the primary reason an otherwise irrational/"crazy" meme or urban legend gets to be popular. And I've seen a lot of cases where they actually track down original sources to get to the bottom of a meme - here's one example, and another.

However, that criticism doesn't help in this case, since the entry linked to doesn't use social reasons as its central argument. When they lay out a step-by-step argument like that, then some random guy on the Internet comes along two posts up and says merely "well, they're wrong", the burden of proof is on the latter to demonstrate the argument is false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[gothelittle]

The short-form certificate could have easily been issued to a baby who was born overseas and registered at the nearest hospital a few days later. The long-form that was released has a number of abnomalities, such as extra layering in the document (more than just the background and then the document) and type spacing abnomalities that did not happen with the typewriters available at that time period.

Plus the long form of another baby born hours later than the indicated date at the exact same hospital looks completely different.