Our President-elect Barack H. Obama was born August 4,1961 at 7:24p.m. in Honolulu HA. The original certificate of birth is kept in the “vault”. A legitimate copy is in Obama’s Chicago office.
A good site to verify this is Fact Check .org.(I’m never sure how to link.)

http://www.factcheck.org/ask fact check/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections_2008_born_in_the_usa.html

I hope you are looking forward to January 20, 2009 as much as I am!

Your March post addressed John McCain’s problems regarding his eligibility to run for POTUS as detailed in Article II Section 1, but there is no mention of Barack Obama’s eligibility problems.

Given the fact that BHO has refused to present a “vault copy” of his birth certificate, college transcripts, and other corroborating information that validates his eligibility and now that the United States Supreme Court (docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells,) is now scheduled for a “Distributed for Conference” on Dec. 5th, 2008 to address Obama’s eligibility/his dual citizenship, would you please comment.

I have listened to you for years on various talk shows and respect your opinion. I don’t believe Obama meets the requirements as a natural born citizen for a variety of reasons . . . what say you?

In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be eligible to hold the office of President.

U.S. Supreme Court
SCHNEIDER v. RUSK, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. [377 U.S. 163, 166]

Consider more details if you doubt the seriousness of this matter:

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

So the word “state’ can be have different meanings in the Constitution, depending on the context. I agree that when it created a Congress of the United States chosen by the people of the several states, it excluded the District. When it said a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, many say it did include the District. I tend to disagree, since the District is the furthest thing from a free State under any definition of that term, being more like a colony ruled by the Members of Congress.

Turning to the clause in question, it was not written by Bruce Springsteen, and does not say Born in the USA. It does say natural born citizen of the United States. It does not say born in the United States, nor born in the several states, nor born on American soil, so why read those terms into it?

The clause does include a person born in the District of Columbia, even though it is not a state. It does include one born of in a territory, since territories are just like the District insofar as they are owned and ruled by Congress. Their residents are citizens of the United States, and not of any other country. Moreover, George Washington and many framers said that natural born citizens included children born beyond the sea to citizens of the United States, and that is good enough for me for now.

So, McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States, even though he was not born in the USA. Cue the music please: “…a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.”

The public endorsement of John McCain, to me, was reminiscent of the
Bush Family huddled together late on the evening of November 7, 1999 in that hotel room while on the phone with Fox disputing the early results call of Gore’s win in Florida – yada yada yada…

The very next day after the endorsement of McCain there was the NY Times Vicki Iseman/Paxman/FCC story which could have (should have) been released sooner-during the NH primary. And then the matching funds FEC tangle announcement.

Meanwhile…

It is vitally important to stay on point and on message on this 2008 ballot election issue but no more so than the other long standing pending criminal issues yet unanswered .

We have to ensure that there is no possibility of another challenge, as JT fears, or of Bush/Cheney remaining in office for any additional length of time. This needs to be agreed upon ahead of the election.

It’s not only fair, it is critical, in my view.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure there is enough time either. And while Obama appears well-intentioned, I’m not sure he thought this through entirely.

Help me construct a persuasive argument that would support a posthumous lawsuit as to the legacy left to descendants, as ‘caretakers’, on behalf of the Fathers. As just one example, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is a decendant of William Bradford, cited below, as am I and thousands of others.

Perhaps the Mayflower Society, the DAR, SAR, and ‘Hysterical’ Society members everywhere will get on board and do something really significant and memorable.

http://www.bryos.com/plymouth/OldPlymouth.htm

Befitting his high station in the Plymouth Colony, Governor William Bradford rests beneath a marble obelisk which bears a text in Hebrew, now much worn, which is said to mean “Jehovah is the help of my life,” and a Latin inscription which may be translated “Do not basely relinquish what the Fathers with difficulty attained.” The Governors monument bears his name and the names of his parents and that of his birthplace, giving also the years during which he served the colony. About him lie many other Bradford’s. Other early tombstones near at hand are those of Edward Gray (1681), William Clark (1697), and John Cotton (1699)

There are three references to states: First, a natural born Citizen [of the United States]. Second, a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Third, fourteen years a Resident within the United States.

It IS very likely apocryphal. The Clause expressly states that eligibility extends to “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Assuming that Hamilton, after stellar military and civil service in the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation, managed to become a citizen by the time of adoption, he was clearly eligible under this language.

Ralph Nader may have standing as a declared Presidential candidate who stands to suffer real, tangible injury if an unqualified candidate is allowed to appear on the ballot against him.

By the same reasoning, I do not see any reference in the Clause to American soil or federal enclave. If there was never a question about the District, why was there ever a question about Goldwater, who was also born on American soil? Why is his status still unresolved due to his loss of the election? The District and the territories are often linked in their status under the Constitution.

This seems to be tacking the extra-constitutional requirement of American soil on to the plain language and clear contemporary understanding ot the clause.

McCain is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth to citizens of the United States and is eligible to be President.

First, this is another example of some Constitutional neglect by our leadership. This living document needs a little dusting and cleaning. The danger of course is the manipulation of our Nation’s Core Value Statement, by nefarious ideologues. My understanding is that this is where many Constitutional Scholars, as you JT, fear the tidying up, as it could likely open the door to very dangerous consequences.

Second, somehow or another, I’m reasonably sure the arguments on behalf of any amendment to the Constitution for clarification will carry with it a great price – that will likely be levied on immigrants along our Southern border. While we do have a problem with a porous border and potential security issues – I can just see the National ID folks jumping in on this bandwagon and forcing that into a Senate Bill aimed the citizenship clarification.

My comfort is that there are Constitutional Scholars, Civil Libertarians and motivated citizens watching these issues carefully. Perhaps though, JT, while this isn’t your dream case, it would certainly serve Americans in greater way if your head were in this game as it slowly moves towards our current Supreme Court Improv Theatre of Justice.

I know I’m rude and cynical but I’ve been watching this court re-construct the 3 fifths compromise into a 7 fifths compromise when it comes to corporations. It doesn’t seem such a long-shot that the Alpha team will meet with the secret handshake in Pat Robertson’s barn and get them Ah-mur-cuns busy figuring out how to keep them fur-ners out, even if John McCain has to be one of them.

Well, call up Ralph Nader. He will sue anything these days. Or ask my onetime torts prof Banzhaf to Sue the Bastards.

I am afraid that type of review would be viewed as an advisory opinion. Vince’s idea of challenging a ballot is an interesting one. Otherwise, it would not be ripe until after the general election and before the swearing in — assuming he won of course.

Another lawsuit I do not need in my life. However, it would be interesting who has standing to bring the action. Historians are divided on this issue, though some do support the parentage theory. It is simply not clear either way.

Then my blood pressure got elevated when I saw it was a Democrat, Clare McCaskill, who introduced a bill to try to clarify the wording to assure John Sidney McCain’s eligiblity. This was not so good.

Next I saw this morning that Sen. Obama has agreed to co-sponsor the McCaskill bill. Sen. Obama acted immediately, unilaterally and, most importantly, in a statesman like manner that presages his character as President. This was a classy move across the aisle. This was very good.

All of that happened and then I read the good professor’s article to learn that the problem and its solution may be quite a bit more complicated than would appear on the surface.

I wonder if it’s permissable for the Supreme Court to review this issue and/or the PENDING legislation as the guardians of the Constitution to determine exactly what is or is not the proper path to resolution?

By the way, I saw a post on a different site that raised the “natural born” question vis a vis children born to diplomats stationed in foreign countries and whether this bill would cover them.

Clearly, Congress cannot rewrite a provision of the Constitiuon by mere legislation.

But, the First Congress did not seem to try to REdefine this term. They seemed to try to enact the general understanding of the time into law in order to clarify any misunderstanding.

Now, everyone please think about this. George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where the clause was adopted. Then, as first President, he SIGNED the 1790 law. Would he have signed a law that sought to rewrite the Constitution he had just framed? Would George have lied to us?

Also, many framers sat in that Congress. Nowadays, courts discount so-called post-legislative history and disregard statements made by legislators after enactment.

But that is just an arbitrary canon of construction. As historians, we can infer that an enormous amount of knowledge about the intent and meaning of the brand new Constitution circulated orally among the framers, making it unlikely in the extreme that Members of the First Congress would have misconstrued the general, contemporary understanding of the term natural born.

Finally, look to the evil they feared. Were they worried about infants born overseas growing up to be President? There is no evidence of this. Were the worried about the new nation turning its fortunes over to a foreign prince or general in some dire straits in the future? There is evidence of this. By interpreting natural born citizen to mean a citizen who was not naturalized, these purposes are fulfilled.

It is good for McCain that this issue is coming out now and not later, so that it can be aired out and settled.

Professor Turley, to get a decision for all of us, please sue the Virginia Secretary of State to strike McCain from the Presidential ballot.