October Suprise - The Candidacy of Barack Obama

[Cleverboy]

So, basically... this tool released this video early this month:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w

It simplifies the Berg case for the casual
reader, and grinds it down to two points:

#1. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, due to mixed accounts and questions surrounding his birth-certificate. I believe this has been disproved very convincingly (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/), unless you're a conspiracy nut.

#2. Sensing weaknesses in the first point, the argument is then posed (oddly, unrelated to the first line of argument and in contradiction to its assertions), that even IF he WAS a natural-born citizen, he was out of the country long enough, to have needed to "reclaim he citizenship", and as presumeably a citizen of Indonesia (allegedly needed to attend school there), he would have needed to become "naturalized"... thereby disqualifying himself as "not naturalborn".

Last I heard, efforts to dismiss and delay the case have thus far not been overly successful.

Thoughts? McCain also seemed to be caught be possible "technicalities" regarding his citizenship, but seeing as how it is connected to his status as a child of a parent in the military, it is naturally the immediate subject of outrage... even if the technicalities warrant new legislation to clear up any confusion. Would similar "new legislation" clear up any potential problems Obama may have? Is such legislation even necessary?

~ CB

[rdowns]

I really see no need for this thread. This horse has been beaten to death.

[ucfgrad93]

I really see no need for this thread. This horse has been beaten to death.

Agreed. There really isn't anything to these charges. It is starting to sound alot like Loose Change and the 9/11 conspiracy.

[TheAnswer]

I really see no need for this thread. This horse has been beaten to death.

I think Cleverboy's trying an new angle and cover some new ground:

Given that both candidates have had this issue raised about them this election cycle, is it time to clarify these requirements with new legislation?

Since most people see it as a non-issue (myself included), I'm not sure new legislation is necessary. Additionally, since it would have to deal with persons staying abroad for extended durations, I'm not sure it could be comprehensive enough. It would have to address the citizenship rules of all the other countries in the world and if/how accepting citizenship in another country automatically revokes US citizenship, etc. I'm not sure how consistent the citizenship laws of other countries are, but I can see trying to keep up with them and amending the legislation becoming fairly time intensive.

[Cleverboy]

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977488498
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations. Ah. I guess they dismissed the case 3 days ago. The issue seemed to get revived recently by the impression that the defense hadn't produced documents within a deadline, and as such meant the case would be decided in favor of Berg. Someone else then noted that an idle reading revealed that this conclusion was flawed.

Okay. Just wondering. This has been a very LOUD wailing and gnashing of teeth. I think Loose Change was worth a conversation too, but yeah... once its not an issue, its not an issue and "rabbit holes" should only be "gone down" so far without just cause.

Boy, I remember thinking at the beginning of this campaign... "Boy, Obama seems so *new*... I wonder what DIRT people would bring up about him?" Palin too. I thought, "Wow! Smart move from McCain... no one can find out much about her in 60 days." Boy was I wrong. I guess you never know what people are capable of making hay out of.

Since most people see it as a non-issue (myself included), I'm not sure new legislation is necessary. Additionally, since it would have to deal with persons staying abroad for extended durations, I'm not sure it could be comprehensive enough. It would have to address the citizenship rules of all the other countries in the world and if/how accepting citizenship in another country automatically revokes US citizenship, etc. I'm not sure how consistent the citizenship laws of other countries are, but I can see trying to keep up with them and amending the legislation becoming fairly time intensive. Personally, I find it DEEPLY disturbing that "natural born citizen" has been such a tenuously defined subject. If I find the article, I'll post it... but there was actual legal material cited at one point (in some articles I was reading) outlining WHEN you "lose" your citizenship, if you're below a certain age... for an extended period out of the country. When I read it, (and the statute number, etc) it felt like a splash of cold water.

~ CB

[NT1440]

THIS is the best they can do for an october suprise?

Anyone who buys into this is a dolt. Hes been campaigning for over a YEAR. Do people honestly think it hasn't been looked into by the government??

[atszyman]

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 Constitutional requirements are natural born, 35 years old, and 14 years living in the U.S.

That would mean that you could be born here, leave for 21 years, come back and still be elected at 35. Nowhere does it say that living out of the country for any number of years revokes your citizenship. AFIK as long as you don't take steps to end it you will be considered a U.S. Citizen as long as you live even if you moved out weeks after your birth and never returned.

I think it needs to be revisited anyway, given the longer life expectancies now and global economy, I'd rather have a naturalized citizen who spent their whole life here and built their own fortune be eligible than someone who moved abroad very young, and built their fortune in another country be eligible but as it stands as long as both have been in the US for 14 years, the born here can run while having spent less time in the country and contributed less to it's advancement than the naturalized citizen.

[Peace]

To put this to rest finally :

http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news

POSTED: 12:12 pm HST October 31, 2008
UPDATED: 1:26 pm HST November 1, 2008

"HONOLULU -- The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate."

""Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.
Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other."