johnm214 said:

Since a birth certificate is not required to be President

---

Quote:

Hawaii's privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a tangible interest.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

johnm214 said:

Since a birth certificate is not required to be President

---

isnt proof of US birth a requirement since the president can only serve if he was born in the US or on US soil?

---

Strictly speaking per the law?  No
In practice?  No (unless someone makes a stink with the power to do something or who suffers an actual injury/ has an actual case or controversy with the candidate/president due to his ineligibility and thereby gets standing to sue. (i.e., not us peons who only elect the guy)


I presume you mean "natural born citizen" rather than "US birth", as the former is the requirement rather than the later, so I've answered your question as if it were the former.


The Constitution does limit eligibility to certain people, requiring citizenship by way of birth, but there is no stated mechanism to enforce the same.  While there is probably some administrative law, perhaps even statutory, on the subject of eligibility and so forth, I'm unaware of any substantive process requiring the candidate to prove anything at the federal level.  At the state level its more complicated and from my recollection I believe the states may, in adition to administering the election, set their own mechanisms for enforcing federal requirements, I just don't believe they're done so for major party candidates a priori (before the election or a complaint, lawsuit, et cet) other than require candidates to swear to their eligibility and so forth.

In general, the "good old boy's club" has separate rules for the duopoly and the peons, so I wouldn't be surprised if a number of states actually have putative measures for investigating such things that aren't used for major party candidates or that explicitly exempt the "chosen ones" endorsed by the extraconstitutional political parties.  I know my state has such provisions, but in general the duopoly only needs to sign a paper claiming to meet the criteria whilest the onnerous provisions are applied to the third parties (sometimes actually making it impossible for them to run at all- the legislature is so incompotent and unconcerned with those not of the duopoly that they actually sometimes let laws slip in that makes it legally impossible for a third party candidate to run).

In Practice, there is no federal enforcement mechanism other than congress to look into such matters.  The courts are always an option, but since its been decided that a candidate running for an office he cannot legally hold and a President holding office in violation of the constitution doesn't matter enough and doesn't cause sufficient harm to a citizen to allow them to sue to enforce the constitution, there's really nothing the courts can do even if someone does bring suite.  The exception to this would be if congress changes things and provides a means of private enforcement or if you can get one of those extraconstitutional political parties to sue.  Somehow despite not being mentioned in teh constitution at all and having no official purpose in the election, they can get the case heard 

johnm214 said:

Who is "they"?  What is "this"?  Why would it be absurd that "they" would let something like "this" get by in a presidential election?


Anyways, I think your reply is misplaced as I have not expressed an oppinion on the merits of the challenges made or endorsed the view that he's ineligible or not a natural born citizen.  It's a bit disenchanting to notice that whatever principled position someone takes is inevitably construed to evince support of that position your declared principles or reasoning aids.  Seems like we set the bar a little too low in assuming no intellectual integrity of our fellow citizens (if you are).

Then again, I realize you're a new poster, so if you didn't mean to reply to me per se then ignore all that rubbish above and welcome

---

MagicBear said:

If there where truly any doubt of Obama's citizenship you can bet the republicans would have spent every last cent they had to prove it. I have seen a copy of Obama's birth certificate stamped with the proper certification stamp. Spend a little time looking and you can find it too. To think that they would let something like this get by in a presidential election is absurd.

---

johnm214 said:

ahh, yes, I think you are correct


That raises a new question then, and I personally don't see why it should be presumed the lack of Republican challenge to Obama's eligibility means anything. 

a) challenges, especially regarding nationality and place of birth, would inherently be divisive and with the attention paid to "negative campaigning" allready, it seems inevitable that a formal challenge would garner the party much negative publicity.  This is a real reason to consider that cuts against pursuing a challenge

b) the Republicans thinking he's ineligible and being able to prove it are two different things.  While if they had ironclad proof I would imagine they'd bring it forward, that's not to say that the much more likely drawn out and widely publicised/condemned lawsuits would be succesfull- and they'd surely know it.  To get an injunction they'd have to bear the burden of proof, and I see no justification for you presumption that this costly (in terms of political support) challenge would be pursued if the Republicans had anything.  There's a wide gap between what's true and what you can prove.

---