Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/


Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn't Need a Birth Certificate




According to Romney family lawyers it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or even Paris: Because his mother was an American (and not even Donald Trump questions that), he is eligible to be President.

The Romney lawyers investigated this question in the 1960s, when Mitt Romney’s father, Governor George Romney of Michigan, was vying for the Republican presidential nomination. George Romney had been born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, as his grandfather moved there with his wives in the 1880s after polygamy was outlawed in the U.S.

While some opponents nicknamed him “Chihuahua George,” his suitability for the highest office because of his birth was never seriously challenged. The reason his campaign faltered was because of his shift in position on the Vietnam War: He went from being a supporter to opposing it, infamously claiming to have been “brainwashed” by military officials. After that Richard Nixon’s lead in the polls more than doubled.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” and so the question is: Does natural born citizen mean born a citizen or born in the U.S.? The Founding Fathers were of course aware of both jus soli (birthright citizenship) and jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage), but deliberately wrote “natural born” rather than something like “born on U.S. soil,” arguably to include children born to U.S parents outside the country.

The first Congress of the United States (which included many of the Founders) furthered this interpretation, when, in 1790, they passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act, stating that: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” (In 1795 Congress however passed a new act stating that: “… the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”)

Originally the passing of citizenship to children only applied through one’s father, which is why George Romney (born 1907 in Mexico to an American father) was automatically a U.S. citizen, while Winston Churchill (born 1874 in England to an American mother) wasn’t. Only in 1934 did Congress change the law so that citizenship automatically passed through one’s mother as well.


A few years ago, while writing an article on the subject, I consulted several top constitutional lawyers on whether someone born a U.S. citizen but outside the country could run for the presidency. I got three different answers. James Ho, a Dallas-based constitutional lawyer (who recently served as Solicitor General of Texas), told me that the “bottom line is that there is no 100% right answer of what natural born citizen means,” but said he thought that place of birth is the dominant view.

Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor, however, took the Romney family line, and said that natural born should be interpreted as having a “fairly strong connection to the territory of the United States,” and therefore children of citizens born abroad “probably ought to be treated as natural born citizens.”

The third view was taken by Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California. He felt that “natural born means citizen at the moment of birth,” and so it depends what Congress decides it means. (This view he thought was the “majority opinion among jurists.”) According to this approach Congress could tomorrow make every single illegal immigrant a natural born citizen (don’t tell Lou Dobbs), and of course it could restrict who is natural born too. This view, like the previous one, supports the Romney family line.

It’s only an extreme portion of the population that doesn’t believe Obama was born in the U.S., and this question isn’t really relevant to him. It does show, however, how far removed from reality the so called “birthers” (the name given to people who question Obama’s birth), and supporters like Donald Trump, are. On their website they claim (in bold letters): “We seek strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless to the momentary passions of the body politic.” A closer look at the constitution may reveal that they’re the ones with the momentary passions.

Daniel Freedman is the director of strategy and policy analysis at The Soufan Group, a strategic intelligence consultancy. His writings can be found at www.dfreedman.org. He writes a fortnightly column for Forbes.com.

 

Good analysis, AK, very informative.


c

 

Thanks

 

Nice read, and of course it has all the bashing expected from the extreme right. Granted, it is from an Obama supporter at Newsweek, but the reason I think it's worth reading, is that even the most staunch Obama supporter is timid in listing his accomplishments. I guess it's just plain fear of the right, too bad.

I fit into the somewhat demoralized independents, who wished for more. Things like Gitmo etc. But it's nice to see some support for what has been done.

Of course they'll start by shooting the messenger, but us moderates might like to review it.

"The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all. "


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ma-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html


c

 

Can they all be wrong?

A cynic, such as myself, might interpret Sullivan's comment as "the president may just fool them into voting for him again". LOL

 

Yeah, ok, but don't they all think they're fooling us to vote for them again? In some ways, for sure. They call it flip flop, or to rationalize - to modify our thoughts based on new data, or something similar.

If we took all the same accomplishments, switched names, would we not see the opposite in discussions? Many just can't get past their biases. And, to be fair, it's become harder and harder to sift out the reality from the nonsense. Blind faith, blind hate, News stations lying, a lot to have to deal with. And, when all is said and done, most of the populus has no clue to any of this. Anyone watch 'Jay walking' or other similar q&a with the public? Horrifying.



c

 

You noticed I didn't take the opportunity to quote Mr. George W. Bush's famous quote, right? 'fool me once' etc.


c

 

How can a cut and paste be a good analysis. You mean good lift, AK

 

Oh, come on now. Of course it was a picked up piece, and I just thought the piece was a good analysis.

Things like this is why I, and perhaps others, log onto ET. With more sets of eyes, we can learn more, and more quickly, than we would otherwise.

Posting good stuff is a plus around here. Post it, let others decide if they find value there.


c

 

The information it contained

It was certainly a better addition to this thread then this garbage