Is Obama Constitutionally Eligible for the US Presidency?

To follow up on this, there is also action going on with an elector lawsuit:

Berg v. Obama: Elector Suit Call to Action

-Phil

Ack! The comment didn't pick up the URLs!

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=604 (Berg v. Obama: Elector Suit Call to Action)

I liked what Justin has to say, we will have to wait and see what happens after Dec. 15.

I actually laughed out loud - what a lark - needs an American to find the hair in the soup

Wny would you put such crap on the internet! Trust me the CIA and FBI have done their job. He was living with his grandparents in Hawaii! His mother still doesn't lose her American citizenry because she married an Indonesian. Further, he was raised by his grandparents. Trust me, they are Caucasian, and they made sure his citizenship was legal. His grandmother had a very good job! Will you people stop this crap and get over it! The man's skin just happens to be black. Trust me, you won't be able to tell once he starts making decisions as president. Since you know the electoral process, then you should know just because he has African blood doesn't mean he'll be ablel to do anything!

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that one could even run for a party's nomination, let alone president (and then be elected president) without proving their citizenship first, particularly if it could be "called into doubt". I think all of this speculation is coming from people who don't want to accept that McCain lost. And I know this hasn't come out since McCain lost, it came out before then, but they were pretty sure he was going to lose for over 1 month.

You certainly touched upon a controversial topic. I truly believe that if he was not a citizen he would not have been allowed to run even in the primary. Can you imagine how embarassing that would be to the Democratic party?
As far as I'm concerned, he is our new president, now let's see what he can do. It doesn't matter what his background is or what the color of his skin is.

This has been going on since August 2008. Obama has never released his "Certificate of Live Birth" to the public. He has also never released his school records. If this is wrong, then why has Obama never release his records? The "birth certificate" that he released has been reviewed by others who have real birth certificates from Hawaii from the early 1960s. His "birth certificate" looks nothing like a real one. It lacks the name of the hospital he was born in, any signatures from his parents, the witnessing doctor, or a seal from the state of Hawaii. Obama went to live in Indonesia when his mother (Ann Dunham) married Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, he had to become an Indonesian citizen to go to school there. He was registered to go there. He even admits that in "Dreams of My Father". This explains also how he was able to go to Pakistan in 1981 with his friends. In 1981, Pakistan was a restricted country in which you could not go with an American passport. He went there on his Indonesian passport, which you can only get when you are a citizen of Indonesia. If Obama renounced that citizenship and reclaimed his American citizenship, then he would be a "naturalized citizen," not a "natural born citizen". Furthermore, there are reports that his family in Kenya was very proud the day they were born. In fact, they were proud because they witnessed his birth in Kenya. His mother was not old enough under US law to pass the citizenship to Obama. If Obama has nothing to fear, then he will present his "Certificate of Live Birth" on December 1, 2008 to the United States Supreme Court. This is to do with following the Constitution. If you are against that, then find yourself another country to live in.

I certainly agree with Peter, but Ken also brings up compelling points as well. It will be interesting to see what happens no matter what. Can't be any worse than what's going on now! Happy writing everyone! :)

This has nothing to do with who lost or who won, this has to do with the fact that this man is an unashamed liar to the nth degree. What hasn't he lied about? His long-time friendships with known radicals, his friendship with his own pastor that he has had for the past what was it? 20 years? Oh, but he doesn't agree with his teachings all the sudden. Come on, people. He has ordered his college records to be sealed so we can't see the things he was doing at Harvard, his birth records in Hawaii are mysteriously sealed. This man is trying to be the President of the United States and refusing for the American people to review his "resume" and you don't see that this is a problem??? I'm waiting for the day when everyone is demanding results for all his promises and he can't give them that without further creating a problem. He says he will give tax breaks to 97% of these people but not all of those people even PAY their taxes so who pays for that mistake? The rest of us. He basically "bought" the presidency by promising $1,000 to the middle class people...we will see what happens.

Aside of this issue, I'm pretty sure that Obama is the right choice to fill the vacancy of 44th US president. Don't doubt and just see the change has come to America.

I'm certain that no one like to see a Bush's admisnistration recurring in the United States, right?

I've some suggestions here
http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/If-I-Were-Barack-Obama-What-Would-I-Do-for-America.331947

Take care.

I don't know if he has the legal right to be president. However the court will decide that.

Be concerned that no allowance is made now that could jeopardize the future of the Presidency.

If the court confirms his eligibility then pray he doesn't screw up as you would for anyone in the office.

And just as importantly - no ones thoughts or positions in this forum are crap - their writing maybe crap but not their position or thoughts provided they are not slanderous.

Grant

It's nice to see that even his supporters are starting to wonder about this, and also that someone already corrected you about the naturalized citizen line. It personally saddened me that less than 1% voted for one of the other parties out there, by far the smallest margin in an election that had more than 2.

To this day, Barack Obama has not been able to present a birth certificate. His mother was too far along to get on the plane to Hawaii. He was born in Kenya where his brother, George, lives in poverty. Being the attourney he is, he will find a way to get people to ignore this fact.
I did not vote for him as I believe him to be too radical. John McCain without Sarah Palin would have found me voting for Dr. Alan Keyes, another respected African/American conservative Senator.
Read The Case Against Barack Obama and you will really think twice about the candidate who, according to Joe Biden, is a 1-term President.

Actually, Obama did produce his birth certificate. The State of Hawaii already stated it last week again. The news media had picked up on it and dispersed it throughout the Internet.

all ya are hatter...just admit he is the 44th president deal with..lol

Justin,

Despite all the negative comments here, let me just say good job, you have a valid point. You wrote and article based on a valid issue and wrote it well. Thats what getting information out is all about.

It\'s interesting that we cannot question this man, his credentials, and his capabilities without being called haters and worse. Some people just cannot deal with those of us who seek the truth. I have written articles questioning Obama\'s charactor and religion, only to draw vicious comments and called nasty names.

The Supreme Court is not even looking into whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. Nice try. Try something else. Maybe you'll have better luck at that one becasue this one is dead.

To all the people that say trust me the government has done their job. Well I only have a couple of things to say. First if you believe everything your government tells you with out question then you are truly a monkey with no brain. Can you think of at least one time you were lied to by your government? If you can't then I will shut up.

Are you kidding? has he really not produced a birth certificate? The world cup is stricter than that when chosing players!

First of all, I never voted for him. I haven't voted for a Democrat in many years, and todays brand of Democrats are really Marxists at heart, and Obama is one of the worst. Like all "good" politicians, they will lie and tell people what they want to hear.

Second, the rumor about Obama's birth certificate is interesting, but if it were true, I assure you the Clintons would have dug it up and trucked it out long ago.

Third, The Electoral College isn't going to undo the election results, so stop hoping for it.

And last, but not least, all this crying of "racism" is a tired old ploy that still sometimes works (unfortunately), and a sad sign of playing a low card when all else fails. Don't believe it, don't waste your breath arguing the point. You know it's not true and I know it's not true, so who cares what anyone else thinks?

To: #19 by Kim W.

If you don't believe that this is with the Supreme Court look at the following:

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008

Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

In addition, there is a case in the Hawaiian Supreme Court regarding the same issue:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/andy-martin-hawaii-supreme-court-petition-obama-birth-certificate-writ-of-mandumus-obama-in-hawaii/

The Electoral College has a duty to vote for a qualified candidate. There is a movement by Phil Berg (who has filed his writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court) to contact all of the electors to notify them of the disposition of these cases. Even after the Electoral College meets, a member of the Senate and a member of the House together can still challenge the validity of any vote made by the electors when the votes are tallied on January 6, 2009.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/dates.html

There are checks and balances built into the US Constitution. It is time for them to be used to remedy this situation before we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

Please note that I have made references throughout this posting to show you that I am not making any of this up.

I will only say one thing and this comes straight from the college campus. "If your old, vote McCain and if your young and know better, vote Obama".

There hasn't been an outpouring of youthful voters coming out since B. Johnson for the sole purpose of making sure a fossil doesn't make it into the Whitehouse.

I'd like to thank the young voters for making history happen. With Obama, all things are possible.

Just because one parent marries another parent of different citizenry, the US citizen does not lose their status. If the child was born from those dual citizen parents, they can be given dual citizenship. Since Barack was not, he retains his mother's US citizenship. His move to Indonesia does not have any precedent on his citizenship.

The Constitution simply states:
"Born on US soil" "At least 35 years old" "Lived in the United States for 14 years"

They would have figured this out way before he announced his intent to run. Plus, I would be surprised (about as surprised as McCain choosing Palin) if this ends up in the Supreme Court.

Dear morons:

Obama baby had two passports, one US and the other he got in Indonesia. I am in the same situation as Obama. I was born in the US, left when I was a baby (yes you can get a passport when you are 3 months old) and then got a second passport once I got to my father's home country (same case with Obama). Then I've come back to the US and have never had to declare anything. I even had an interview with the embassy when I was 21 and they said everything was fine and gave me a new US passport. I even get to keep the other nationality.

So, having said that, what the hell is your problem?

This message is to Carlos. Carlos I didn't realize a statement of fact meant I had a problem, but I guess I might be a racist because I question things. Just because you are violating the law by having dual citizenship doesn't mean it is legal, and unlike my opinion I will cite the law so you can look it up for yourself "A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship." - http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Carlos,

It is very common for liberals to participate ad hominem attacks against a person in the case that they lack sufficient evidence to back their own arguments. The fact-of-the-matter is that any person who has had dual citizenship is ineligible to be President of the United States. Carlos, since you are a dual citizen, you are ineligible because you are not a \'natural born\' citizen just like Obama is. Obama and his campaign have even admitted that we was a dual citizen of Kenya before his Kenya citizenship expired in 1982. In addition, there is no dual citizenship agreement between the United States and Indonesia. Bottom line, Obama is ineligible to be the President fo the United States unless Congress redefines the meaning of a \'natural born\' citizen. The reason for requiring that the President be a \'natural born\' citizen is to remove any foreign allegiances that one may have to another country.

It is NOT against the law to have dual citizenship.

This is from a legit website.

"Is it possible to be a dual citizen of the United States of America and another country?
YES -- in many cases.

If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life.

The US State Department -- once quite combative in its handling of dual-citizenship claims -- has changed the way it handles these cases in recent years, and it is now much easier to retain such a status without a fight than it used to be.

The situation is slightly less clear for someone who becomes a US citizen via naturalization and still wishes to take advantage of his old citizenship. People who go through US naturalization are required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old citizenship, and conduct inconsistent with this pledge could theoretically lead to loss of one's US status.

However, the State Department is no longer actively pursuing cases of this nature in most situations. In particular, when a new American's "old country" refuses to recognize the US naturalization oath (with its renunciatory clause) as having any effect on its own citizenship laws -- and insists that the person in question must continue to deal with his old country as a citizen thereof (e.g., by using that country's passport when travelling there to visit) -- the US State Department generally no longer minds.

Similarly, the State Department doesn't seem to be doing anything any more to people who renounce their US citizenship as part of a foreign country's "routine" naturalization procedure (in a manner similar to what the US makes its new citizens do). However, if the other country in question requires its newly naturalized citizens to approach officials of their old countries to revoke their previous status, one will generally not be able to remain a citizen both of that country and the US.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's all this talk about dual citizenship?
It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.

Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent -- at least in theory -- to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect.

The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized (i.e., accepted) as a fact of life. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll almost always say it's OK.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't you lose your US citizenship if you move to another country with the intent of living there for an extended period of time?
No.

I used to think this was a totally off-the-wall question and that everyone knew the answer -- until I told people I was about to move to Canada, whereupon probably at least half a dozen of my friends asked me if this meant I would have to give up my US citizenship.

It was once the case that a naturalized US citizen could lose his citizenship by remaining outside the US for an extended period. However, this provision was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Schneider v. Rusk (1964) and was repealed by Congress in 1978.

More recently, a naturalized citizen could lose his citizenship by setting up a permanent residence abroad within one year following US naturalization. This provision was repealed by Congress in 1994, however, and no longer applies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doesn't the US Constitution forbid dual citizenship?
No. The Constitution says nothing explicitly about dual citizenship at all. Indeed, in its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court used an argument derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to dual citizenship. "


By the way, may I suggest if you are writing articles for the first time to actually do some real in-depth journalistic research. It was proven he was born in Hawaii. By the way, unless he denounces his citizenship, or engages in military combat for another country his citizenship is intact no matter where he lives. People can get visas!

Side note to Ken Edwards: Obama has not held his dual national status for quite some time so he is in fact 100% an American Citizen who was a) born in the U.S.

"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

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law (Naturalization Act of 1790): "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." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)[11][12]

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth." One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship). Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship."


b) Has no other citizenship with any other country which does IN fact make him eligible to run for President since he is not a citizen of any other country.

Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.


By the way Justin, I figured I might do some homework for you that you forgot to do.

Chicago Tribune already posted an article on your topic, your theory debunked. Unless of course, you want to challenge all infants born in the U.S. and question their citizenship based simply on being born on U.S. soil. Wouldn\'t you be under question then as well? Hmmm.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story



here's another from factcheck.org (which was used to debunk lies during the campaign process from both sides) This one is about whether Obama has Kenyan Citizenship, which he does not.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html


Personally my favorite,
this link will answer ALL your questioning about his mother\'s move to Indonesia, and it even breaks down the Berg lawsuit and shows that Berg\'s argument doesn\'t stand. Title is "Did Obama Become an Indonesian Citizen when His Mother, Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, and moved to Indonesia?" (which is basically your question)

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-becom.html

Your welcome ;) Anytime you or your editor need someone to do your research for you give me a call

Chiquita,

This is not about whether someone can have dual-citizenship. It is about the qualifications for the President of the United States. You have to be a "natural-born" citizen, which is not the same as a "naturalized-citizen". The reason for this clause is to prevent undue foreign influence over the executive branch of the United States government. In addition, it is to prevent the kinds of dynasties and alliances that existed in Europe. There is plenty of research out there to show that the birth certificate he proved is fraudulant. He has never provided his Certificate of Live Birth or his school records. What does he have to hide? Yes, people can get visas, but this would disqualify him from being a "natural-born" citizen. He obviously has close ties with Kenya...check out his relationship with Kenya's Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his support of him for the Kenyan presidency. Obama just needs to come forward and tell the truth. I don't believe one shred of what the media says about him. They are in love with him...love is blind.

Chiquita,

So he is the catch in your arguement.

"Side note to Ken Edwards: Obama has not held his dual national status for quite some time so he is in fact 100% an American Citizen who was a) born in the U.S."

A "natural-born" citizen can never have had any dual national status ever.

If he has nothing to hide, he will respond to the Berg's court case before December 1, 2008.

Fact-check.org is a bogus website.

More news regarding the question of whether Obama was a "natural-born" citizen.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931

If Alan Keyes is willing to put his good name on the line in order to clear this controversy up, then there must really be a doubt to where Obama was born.

More news on the above story. Looks like the main-stream media is getting a hold of this now.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/presheadlines/34587804.html

Oh, BTW, for all those who think that Obama\'s \"Certification of Live Birth\" is proof that he is a nature-born citizens will be pleased to know that even the state of Hawai\'i doesn\'t even consider it proof. Look at the following:

\"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.\"

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

Obama needs to provide a \"CERTIFICATE of Live Birth\" which is different from a \"CERTIFICATION of Live Birth\". The CERTIFICATE has the name of the hospital, the doctor who signed off on his live birth and other important data to his birth. Let me tell you folks why he hasn\'t released this. It is because he doesn\'t have one!!

Thank you Kenny for clearing that up. You tell them all.