Obama a Natural Born Citizen? New Developments (11-19-08)
As a lawyer (and someone who cares about the Constitution) I've been following the Obama "Natural Born Citizen" issues with interest. Some of the early court cases were dismissed on "standing" grounds, but new developments and fresh legal framing of the issues continue to emerge every day. Here's an update.
Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, his vice-presidential candidate, and members of the American Independent Party have filed suit in California seeking to bar the Secretary of State from certifying the names of Electors until documentary proof is produced and verified establishing that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain. The Keyes lawsuit relies on the same theories cited in earlier cases (for a recap, see my column "Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen?"), and the main significance of the Keyes action is his enhanced status as a person with legal standing to sue.
A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.
Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:
"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."
Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
An Obama spokesman has dismissed the citizenship issues as garbage, but we shall see. Donofrio's argument is grounded on the express wording of the Constitution, and does not require any extrinsic evidence such as a birth certificate for court resolution on the merits. In the meantime, more and more people become aware of these "natural born citizen" issues every day, and Obama's refusal (thus far) to disclose even the most rudimentary documents and evidence seems increasingly strained. These are matters of core Constitutional eligibility, and imho they will not be wished away by supporters of the Obama/Biden campaign. So we'll continue to watch developments as they occur.
- Rick Williams's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 3979 reads
****
tüm sitelerimiz hakkında bilgileri aşağıdan tıklayarak alabilirsiniz.
sesli sohbet
sesli chat
sesli chat
tatil otelleri
tatil
tekne
kiralık tekne
tekne kiralama
evden eve nakliyat
manken
mankenler
manken resimleri
su pompası
dalgıç pompası
hidrofor
diyet
barbie oyunları
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
Assuming BO is now a U.S. citizen, he can never be said to be natural born because his biological father was subject to British authority at the time BO was born and, by law, passed on this foreign sovereignty to his son.
Oh, and did you intentionally omit the first provision of the law you cited to support your viewpoint, because it tends to support Donofrio's interpretation that the material consideration must be whether a citizen was born subject to a foreign sovereign?
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States
at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof;"
The horse is not merely dead, it was stillborn.
My reason for taking on this issue is not to insure the coronation of the new “leader.” My interest is seeing Break The Matrix become a viable instrument in the struggle to restore liberty. I have been active in the freedom movement in some way or another since the mid-seventies when I was involved with a local group named Citizens for Constitutional Compliance.
Truthfully, I don't care if Donofrio position is valid or not. Anyone who has paid attention to how things work in reality in this country, realize that, unless there is some other unforeseen development, on January 20, 2009 Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States regardless of the issues put forth by Donofrio. I would strongly urge BTM to not make this a front and center issue, even if it had all of the possibilities of a snowball in the Arctic.
If this issue has any legs, there are plenty of other organization and websites devoting time and energy to it. There is a strong need for BTM to focus on other matters. The Obama natural born citizen issue does little, if anything to help. It is only a diversion.
I omitted nothing from my posting that was relevant to this issue, and I did provide a link to the full text of the law for anyone to access. The matter of a British subject being subject to the jurisdiction of US laws was illustrated several decades ago in Arkansas, USA in the case of Keith Richards.
This effort to disqualify BHO from being president of the US is not in the spirit of the Constitution. Even if the British subject approach had some validity regarding citizenship status, Obama, Jr. had very little contact with Obama, Sr. He spent vastly more time with his grandparents. His grandfather was in the US Army when Obama mother was born in Kansas, the geographical center of the US. George, Dick and Hillary are his distance relatives, but that should probably work against him. The natural born citizen requirement has certainly not spared us from a rather large number of individuals who have done great damage to this country while they were depleting the oxygen in the Oval Office.
I am much more concerned about the divided loyalties he demonstrated when he went before AIPAC. But, that was not unique for the presidential candidates.
Welcome to Break The Matrix. I am sure you are sincere in your first contribution here. I guarantee you I don't look forward to this ObamaNation coming soon to a country near us.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
We certainly should enforce the constitution. But if disqualifying Obama puts Biden in the presidency then there is no improvement.
that's the plan?
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
i agree...
if you read this article, http://bit.ly/rKsf , it states that his own website, which was setup for the specific purpose of diffusing rumors and proving them false, that he was in fact a Kenyan citizen until 1982.
Listen starting at 12:20 into the interview:
http://www.gdrg.net/dm/kenya.mp3
I just figured out what the Forefathers meant
with the 12th Amendment Section 1...
Immigrants can't be President.. but.... their children's children (grandchildren) can....
Let me explain....
The Founders themselves immigrated here .. so they were the Only Immigrants that could be President.. after that an immigrant can't be President of the US, but their children's children, if born in the US can be President.... One Generation has to be a Citizen of the US BEFORE that Family can be eligible for President of the US.
To explain further...
Barak Obama can't be president if ONE of his Parents were considered an immigrant..... but.... His Children can once they are 35 yrs or older... but also having lived in the United States for 14 yrs...5 of which has to be prior to their run for Office.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
I stand corrected... If I am wrong, I am able to admit it....
But my point still remains... as stated elsewhere in this thread....
Just an FYI... The reason why this has become so important to myself and so many others, is the fact that as American Citizens we are continually asked to show our "Certified Birth Certificate" to get just about anything done in this country...it is only fair that Our President Elect has to do the same... The point is... if he was truely born in Hawaii, then why won't he simply let the American People see the Certified Copy that Includes which hospital he was born in? And what about going to school in Indonesia, relinquishing his "Natural Born Status" (if he was indeed born in Hawaii) How can one expect to earn the Respect of the very people you want to Lead without being upfront and honest.
The comparison to McCain is null as McCain did in fact produce his Birth Certificate AND His Medical Records..(and they were not photocopies on factcheck.org) Why shouldn't Obama do the same? Isn't it the law? If we let this go, then what else are we willing to "just let go" because to fight would mean being ridiculed or laughed at? I'm sure glad our Soldiers don't feel that way in battle.
Do you have any answers as to how you arrived at the blatantly false position you put forth in your “I just figured out what the” comment? I thought I indicated that I want to hear some justification for the statements you made. Making statements that have absolutely no bases in fact doesn't help promote your position on the Obama natural born(?) issue even if it is valid.
And here again in your reply to my reply "Truly a strange posting," you toss out another blatantly baseless statement, saying that attending school in Indonesia resulted in the relinquishing his citizenship. Are you going to contend that Obama started receiving special treatment when he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia at age ten and never had to prove his citizenship like the rest of us for the next 37 years?
Looking at your track on BTM, I find nothing that indicates any concern for the crimes committed by the Bush administration and the great damage it has done to this country and the rule of law. Your expressed concerns regarding the threat to the future of this country from “sneaky” Obama rings hollow in that context. If there is to be ridicule or being laughed at, it will come from making absurd assertions, not from taking a principled stand.
A sure sign of desperation is bringing “our” soldiers into this. These are the folks who have been used and abused most aggressively while their phony supporters turn a blind eye to the true nature of the situation their commander in chief has put them in.
Where does the business about McCain come from? I said nothing about him.
Perhaps you need guidance on this matter. Why don't you try to contact Cara Winship? She has probably seen a sign from God.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/godhands.asp
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
This is truly a strange posting. I do not see any way that the 12th Amendment could lead anyone to arrive at a conclusion concerning the qualification to be president in relationship to birth. Perhaps you can provide some enlightenment as to how you “figured out what the Forefathers meant with the 12th Amendment Section 1...”
While some of the founders did immigrate to the American colonies, many of them did not. (I don't think any of the early presidents or even their parents immigrated to these shores.) You claim that an immigrant's child is not eligible to become president, but his grandchild is. How did you arrive at this conclusion? According to your interpretation, while an immigrant who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified could be eligible to become president, his child could not.
The classifications of citizenship are natural born and naturalized. A person born on US soil is a natural born citizen and is therefore not required to undergo the naturalization process to become a citizen regardless of the citizenship of either or both parents. The only exception might occur if one of the parents was a diplomat of a foreign country.
If Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and a birth certificate has been put forth as proof, then I see no way that this effort will prevail. In consideration of the reaction of many of the people who have pinned great hopes and expectations on the Obama presidency, anyone charged with making a determination as to Obama's qualifications based on citizenship is going be very generous toward him in that regard. Absolutely no one is going to pull the trigger on this matter when it could results in a totally out of control, blood in the streets situation.
What is particularly annoying about the people riding their “Rule of Law” high horses when it comes to the Obama natural born(?) issue is they are from all appearances totally oblivious to the multitude of breaches of the Rule of Law committed by the outgoing Administration. A strong grassroots effort to have the Bush administration investigated and prosecuted where applicable is badly needed. It would send a strong message to Obama and future presidents as well.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
I can see where you're coming from kinda, but just because I or others may or may not think it'll happen doesnt mean we shouldnt be able to state our opinion of the state of matters in our country. No matter if we're right or wrong, we can say what we think about whatever. And your whole we shouldnt go after Obama because we didnt go after Bush is the worst reason ever. Yes Bush did horrible, apprehensible things, and something should be done, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And to say nothing will come of this because too many people deify Obama and to disqualify him would cause an all out civil/race war is still no reason to ignore the Constitution. I appreciate your opinion though.
jbell,
Glad to see you start participating. I am not sure I ever indicated that others cannot express their opinions. It certainly was not my intent. But, understand one thing. If someone puts out something that is totally disconnected from reality, they should not be surprised when they are called on it. I think the statements made by wvGin would be even more unsettling to me if I shared her opinion on this issue. Making outrageously false statements to support an issue do great harm to the issue and others who support it.
I don't think you can correctly claim that I said not going after Bush disqualifies anyone from going after Obama. You can claim that I contend the people going after Obama shouting, "Rule of Law. Rule of Law." while mostly ignoring the Bush administration's crime spree are a bunch of phonies.
It is obvious from the current state of this country that ignoring the Constitution has for a long time been a national past time much more favored than baseball. You and I are not going to be making the finally decision as to whether or not this issue will go forward. I contend that the people who do make that decision are going to be greatly disinclined to render an opinion that has a strong possibility of setting off 1992 South Central LA in dozens of cities across the country, the Constitution not withstanding. My opinion about what is likely to happen is totally unrelated to what I think should happen. I thought Ron Paul should be the next president, but I never bet the farm that he would be.
My purpose is liberty. I see no way the Obama natural born(?) issue furthers the cause of liberty. And, I believe if those pressing this issue prevail, the resulting atmosphere will be completely hostile to spreading liberty for a number of years. I could be wrong, but that is the best I can make of it.
Please feel free to comment about anything I write. Just try to avoid mischaracterizing it. No doubt I am in error from time to time, and sometimes I just simple fail to express correctly what I am trying to get across. You can take a look at my content as well: http://www.breakthematrix.com/users/liberty44/submitted
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
What if the Court decides, "Yes we concede he is technically not natural-born under the letter of the law, but we interpret the spirit of the law under these circumstances to say that he is and is eligible to serve as President."
Might that furnish a precedent that would lead to other foreign-borns becoming eligible to be President without a Constitutional amendment?
A certain Governor?
To Magicchord:
Then the whole lot of Justices should be removed from their posts immediately... Everytime they liberally define the wording of the constitution, we take one step further away from our freedoms and personal liberty. The good thing is that the wording of the constitution does not allow room for any interpretation of intent of the law as it pertains to the requirements to sit in the highest executive's chair. It is very clear as to the meaning (which is what I believe Donofrio's case really hammers on -- removing any ambigous argument about what it means to be "natural-born").
To jbell639:
As far as the idea that Joe Biden would serve as Pres and not as the VP, this is covered in the twentieth amendment (section 3), which states (note the bold-faced part, that's where the interest lies):
"If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
Good Find... There are alot of folks asking this very question, myself included.... thank you for posting
ok, hypothetical question... what if we go through all this is he/isnt he issue, and they decide he isnt. then hypothetically speaking he cant take the oath to be president. So who does, Joe Biden? or what? If Biden, then doesnt he get to pick a VP. Theres a whole nother question there. I've been wondering about this for awhile.
From what I understand of the case and the Constitution the SC would order another election be held.
What exactly that entails, I don't think anyone knows as I don't think this has ever been a case.
Alot of folks are saying that Berg's case has more substance, but I tend to disagree.
Leo D's case is actually going to be discussed in conference with all 9 Justices. If 4 of the 9 Justices vote that the case be heard, it will go to oral arguments...
Berg case only orders Obama to provide the court with documentation.
From my understanding, Berg's case is completely circumstantial. It gets a bit confusing to say the least. These cases are completely different from Leo D's ... all of the cases except Leo D's are requesting a BC....
Leo D's is citing that Obama had a dual citizenship at birth (British/US) and according to the Constitution he can not run for President. You have to be born here on American soil, to native American Citizens unless you were born before the drafting of the Constitution. Which really makes sense if everyone thinks about it....
that was the other hypothetical ending i was thinking of. im sure if this was to happen there would be a HUGE "issue" with certain peoples. but i guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens... for it to not be so hypothetical and stuff ya know.
The case brought by Donofrio (08A407) was referred to Justice Clarence Thomas and distributed for conference set for December 5, 2008.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
In Berg's case, we have "Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed."
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
Rick, can you shed some light on what these things mean? In Donofrio's case, does it mean they are going to confer to determine if they will provide the requisite 4 grants for petition of writ of certiorari? In Berg's case, does the FEC believe that their decision to waive the rights to respond supports a belief that Berg's case is not credible and therefore won't be considered? What's your take on all of this?
And to Nathan, I agree, there are a million things to not like about an Obama presidency. Frankly, it's a dangerous proposition - so why exactly is it a waste of time to stop it from happening?!? You'd rather let him get in the office, undermine the Constitution, screw up the Republic and "hope" we survive long enough to fix it?
There are significant problems with Obama. This one is not the top of my list. Good luck wasting your time.
What this case is about is Our Country.. Our Rule of Law.. It is Not about Obama, it's not about being a democrat or a republican.
The LAW explicitly states that NO ONE NOT BORN IN THE US can be President... for a very good reason, that you even stated, so that someone with other interests than in our own country can't come here and tear our country apart...
Case in point... Obama thinks our Constitution needs to be changed... He stated that Our National Anthem needs Changed.... These have been a part of our history for over 200 years... so because a President who has no loyalties to the United States of America says he thinks these things need updated we should just sit back and let it happen... I don't think so...
On another note, doesn't it bother you just a little bit that he feels he is above the law and doesn't have to do as the rest of us American Citizens and show his Birth Certificate? I think this fact alone bothers me more than anything else about this man... What does he have to hide? Doesn't it make you wonder the same?
Listen to this interview with Leo Donofrio from last night http://www.lanlamphere.com/audio/livejava.php. Leo explains so much about this suit and maybe you will get a better understanding of the reason he has brought this case... This is also the last interview that he will be doing until after the Justices convene on Dec. 5th.
I am trying really hard to understand why I should care about this matter. Oh sure, there is that constitutional thingy, but it seems there are a huge number of other long poles in the tent which we might should worry about more. I am capable of worrying about only so many things at a time, so I try to prioritize a bit. The founding fathers probably had good reasons to want to guard against someone becoming president whose loyalty to the US might be weakened by a strong connection to a foreign country. It is my understanding that only about 1/3 of the colonialists were gung ho about the revolution. (Supposedly, George Washington's own mother was not among this group.) About 1/3 of them were loyalists, and I guess the remainder were for none of the above.
There may have been a good chance that a post-ratification immigrant from Great Britain could have become president, and there is no telling what kind of damage he could have done. He might have even gotten the US into some great global conflicts on the side of the British. Although, Obama was born on US soil, if the birth certificate is valid, his having a father who was a British subject due to being born in a British colony should send shivers down the spine of every patriotic American. We will no doubt in short time see what great hazards the founding fathers were attempting to protect us from with this particular restriction.
By the way, did anyone notice that Obama, along with other presidential candidates, pledged allegiance to the state of Israel? A country with which we have no treaty. If some how we could send a message back to the founding fathers that they needed to put something in the Constitution to guard against a future president and Congress subordinating the interest of the United States to the interest of a foreign country, they probably would not be able to comprehend how such a thing could every happen. After all, they did have that thing in there about the president having to be a nature born citizen...
I give this effort very little chance of successfully derailing the Obama presidency. We face tremendous challenges in the immediate future. If this effort were to succeed, try to imagine the immense wave of bitterness that would sweep across the country. Just try to imagine effectively taking on those challenges we need to be addressing in the aborted Obama administration environment.
Right now find a website with the US Constitution online and print out a copy. Go through it and highlight the clauses that you consider are currently being ignored or violated. Prioritize those abused clauses according to the amount of damage you believe is being caused by their violation. Is the "nature born citizen" clause even halfway up the list?
BTM should be able to find issues that have substantial meaning for our future, and leave matters of this caliber to the Alan Keyes and other such folks.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
With respect, matters of Constitutionality and abuse of powers and privilege is not something that requires prioritization. Do we not scream about the repression of free speech as much as the individual's right to bear arms or do we prioritize it? This kind of disregard for even the most basic of rule (in defining leadership) sets a foundational precedent that we cannot allow to happen... It's a simple thing for Obama - prove natural-born citizenship. Prove it and move on. Why the secretive nature? Why disregard the requests of Federal judges for said documentation? Why file motions to dismiss on "legal standing" - suppressing an individual's right to petition elected officials through redress of grievances?
If Obama is legit - then great. We can move past it to point out the next constitutionally questionable act... Anyone concerned about his private army of indoctrinated citizens with might that equals or surpasses our national military?!? Wouldn't we want to make sure that if he pulls that crap off, that at least he's an American who did it? At least, it will make it easier to try him for treason...
"In the meantime, more and more people become aware of these "natural born citizen" issues every day, and Obama's refusal (thus far) to disclose even the most rudimentary documents and evidence seems increasingly strained."
From Snopes.com an alleged scanned copy of Obama's birth certificate provided by Obama on his
campaign website:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
(note if you cant access the above link, you can click the link below that includes a hyper-text link to the document)
The rest of the snopes article references one of the lawsuits and some newspaper story from the Hawaii Dept of Health saying they checked and Obama's original birth-certificate is in there.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Note, i am not saying that snopes.com is the end-all be-all of the issues at stake. I am just pointing out - to be fair - that at least one rudimentary document and/or evidence has been disclosed (at least on the web).
Of course, as the above points from DonoFrio make clear, "Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii (which is what the snopes article is about) it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth."
Interesting indeed.
For every article that refutes the claims of illegitemacy of Obama's "documentation", there are people out there who have done forensic analysis given the best case conditions provided by an electronically scanned document.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive....
The analysis done was very interesting...
BUT, like the article states, and as you also pointed out, D'Onofrio's claim might not even have to rely on said certificate. The problem is people place so much weight on snopes, factcheck, fightthesmears, etc -- that something like AtlasShrugged can and is often overlooked as some fringe-kook site...
As others have stated, this is not abut Dems vs. Pubs or even Conservatives vs. Liberals. This is about recognizing the supreme law of the land for what it is and for what it is meant to do. If Obama is allowed to serve as President without ever producing irrefutable proof of legitimacy (even if he realy is eligible), then what's to stop a Hugo Chavez from rolling up into the country to usurp the presidency (especially as the system of checks and balances continues to dwindle under executive order?
I was wondering if this issue was dead in the water.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
-Thomas Jefferson