Intro: "Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the US, the birther version of the constitution would've excluded John McCain too."

Sen. John McCain campaigning for the US Presidency in Sarasota, Florida, in 2008. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)

The Birthers' Constitutional Illiteracy

By Tom Rogan, Guardian UK

25 April 11

Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the US, the birther version of the constitution would've excluded John McCain too.

arack Obama was born in the United States. But even if he had not been (as the birthers believe), he would still be the legitimate President of the United States. The birther movement (apparently, now led by Donald Trump) argues that article 2, section 1 of the US constitution ("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") requires that the Barack Obama of their universe (that is, born "abroad") cannot be the legitimate president.

For the birthers, the translation of "natural born citizen'" is simply "those born inside the United States". To them, anyone born outside the United States is ineligible for the presidency. They are wrong.

First, a little disclaimer: the birther attacks are personal to me. I was born in London to an American father and British mother. While I have a great and abiding respect for the UK (my British grandfather was an RAF officer of whom I am incredibly proud), my ultimate allegiance has always belonged to the United States. My father is a former US diplomat and his father was a career US military officer, whose second world war service included Guadalcanal and Okinawa. I believe that my family heritage has earned my right to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. And I believe any cogent reading of the constitution supports me in this belief.

While the thinking behind the founding fathers' adoption of the natural born citizenship clause is not clear, most legal scholars assume that the motivating intention was to prevent (English) royalist infiltration of the US government - an understandable concern at the time. Regardless of that, though, in determining the meaning of the clause, we must consider the developed law.

The Naturalisation Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens." Just three years after the constitution's adoption, this would seem to give an early and powerful repudiation of the birther reading of the clause. But it cannot, on its own, clarify the constitution.

In United States v Wong Kim Ark, the US supreme court ruled that a child born in the United States to two US domiciled foreign parents not serving with a foreign government was a natural born citizen. This set the precedent that natural born citizenship could be granted by the principle of "jus soli", or citizenship from birth in the United States. However, as illustrated by the Naturalisation Act, jus soli cannot account for all Americans. To fill the space of absent court clarification on American citizens born abroad, Congress has provided statutory definition for natural born citizenship.

Title 8, section 1401 of the US Title Code provides these definitions to include (among other qualifying citizens) those born abroad to one American parent and one foreign parent, provided the American parent spent five years in the US prior to the child's birth. The strength of section 1401 is in its clarification of the clause in a logical manner, compatible with the constitution and in a way that can account for American citizens not physically born in the United States. Because the law grants citizenship even to the Obama of the birther universe, the birthers reject section 1401 as unconstitutional.

In contrast to the logic of section 1401, the birther reading of the natural born citizenship clause is highly problematic. Put simply, if the only natural born citizens are those born inside the United States, then many "natural" Americans are left out in the cold. The state department foreign affairs manual (pdf) notes that under the constitution's 14th amendment, US government installations abroad are not part of the United States. Therefore, according to the birther approach, this would mean, for example, that while a child born inside the United States to foreign tourists or to illegal immigrants is a natural born citizen, John McCain - born on a military base in Panama - is not.

The absurdity of such a reading of the constitution is profound. Under the birther approach, foreign service and experience are acts to be punished by deprivation of citizenship rights for the children of servicemen and women and public officials posted overseas. How can we honestly believe that the founding fathers would regard the citizenship of children of those who have served their country abroad as less than that of those residing in the United States? To make this argument as the birthers do is illogical and reflective their distorted and deficient understanding of the US constitution.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+29 # karen henninger 2011-04-25 16:54

to really complicate things, consider the citizenship of women...it is my understanding that those who qualified for citizenship had to be landowners, so what did natural born mean for the fathers? And if you want to go 'by what the founding fathers meant', well, then we'd have to change quite a bit of what has changed over the last 200 years. these arguments are really not through through. Exactly when and why is the argument of what the founding fathers meant is used selectively. In one breath, we need to change the conditions the founding fathers created by their holdings blacks and women as their slaves and not allowing them in any public social offices, on the other hand people still argue to what is meant in the constitution by the fathers.....there is so much non-thinking going on....

-14 # isafakir 2011-04-25 21:20

citizenship in no way ever regarded land ownership. the constitution considers everyone citizens except slaves.

+25 # Alice W 2011-04-26 05:43

Where does the US constitution say women are citizens? If they are (were) why didn't they have the right to vote from the start?

Antonin Scallia said recently that women are not covered in the constitution. If this originalist thinking prevails one half of the country is disenfranchised . Time to pass the ERA.

I think the reason Obama's original birth certificate isn't brought forward is because his parents weren't legally married, since his father had another family in Kenya. This makes him the son of an American mother who meets the US residency requirements--shup up already!!

+15 # Rewriter 2011-04-26 08:53

Alice, the reason the original birth certificate isn't brought forward is because the law of Hawaii forbids it, to prevent copy and paste forgeries. Anyone born there who needs a copy gets a document that looks like the one Obama has already released. The governor of Hawaii has said the original verifies Obama's birth there. And what makes you think a birth certificate would tell you whether the parents were married anyway? They put in the names of the parents, not their marital status.

+3 # Marley Greiner 2011-04-26 14:24

Older birth certificates do indeed state if the parents were married. There were also boxes to check if a child were legitimate or illegitimate. This template changed gradually. I don't know about Hawai'i but I've seen other states that included this information in the early 1960s. BTW, the husband is the presumed father of a child due to marriage.

+15 # Wanda 2011-04-26 16:45

Yes, Scallia said that women are not covered in the constitution. He's a strict constructionist so he's right in that view. If he had his way we would go back to when only the wealthy white males holding land could vote.
If we all knew our history and really listened to Republicans and Teas there would be a profound movement against them but there's not. Middle class Americans who vote Republican don't know their history and don't care...at least until it is to late to do anything.
This whole issue about where Obama was born is petty compared to the real issues facing this country.

+26 # in deo veritas 2011-04-26 06:29

Then why were Native Americans not officially considered citizens until 1924? Another racist insult by the government and public.

+9 # S Casey 2011-04-26 08:59

There were others [beyond slaves} who were excluded -- the indigenous peoples [Indians] & full citizenship [meaning voting rights & holding office as a result] was limited for others [especially women -- we needed a constitutional amendment to "allow" that]. The right to vote for males [white & free ] was limited to freeholders in the many states for quite a while. Residues of this existed even in the 20th century in state/local elections. Fwderal law excludes it in national elections.

+2 # Linde Knighton 2011-04-29 12:44

Quoting

citizenship in no way ever regarded land ownership. the constitution considers everyone citizens except slaves.

Well, definitely not Indian either. We were not citizens until 1924, no matter how much land we owned

+10 # George Slusher 2011-04-26 01:07

Karen: Don't confuse citizenship with the right to vote. Citizenship is a necessary condition to vote, but is not sufficient. (Millions of US citizens cannot vote.)

Women were considered citizens right from the start, but voting was controlled by the states until after the Civil War. Gradually, the national government forced states to extend the right to vote to women, to eliminate poll taxes & literacy tests, etc.

Those millions of US citizens who cannot vote? They're under 18.

+10 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-04-26 08:54

Gradually, the national government forced states to extend the right to vote to women, to eliminate poll taxes & literacy tests, etc.

Yet another example of why I'm an American first, and a resident of my pathetically backward red-state state, second.

0 # Drew 2011-04-27 13:10

Actually in California and in other states until (not that long ago) ANY resident, whether they were citizens or not could vote.

0 # Ann B 2011-04-29 06:00

Don't forget those who (predominantly non-white) are incarcerated and have been disenfranchised .

+86 # Kayjay 2011-04-25 16:59

So is it fair to say that the "birthers" real problem is with Obama's race? Anyway, be sure to tune into Fox news for other gems of knowledge.

+32 # isafakir 2011-04-25 21:21

the birthers don't care about facts. the facts are simple and clear.

+11 # Capn Canard 2011-04-26 07:47

Kayjay, IMO that is the only reason that they brought up the birther issue in the first place... it is in the Ignoranmi's Playbook of bringing forth issues that have no legal standing whatsoever, nor are they ever likely to change any existing law. It has the same chance as a snowball in he11, nothing more than a distraction. Like a woman's right to choose and the insane absolute distinction of when life begins. (Just to clairify my own beliefs, life begins with two living cells that then form one zygote... but it isn't a human being yet, that'll take 36 weeks.) These issues are almost never solved but look at the traction that Abortion has given the Republican party, and keep in mind that that issue was originally a Democratic issue back in the 1960-70s! This is a football that will always get kicked around by the ignorant. In short, if they were to get what they want the issue would lose it's political power to motivate their base.

+8 # Dave W. 2011-04-26 13:12

Kayjay, I haven't seen any "black birthers" so your analysis is obviously correct.

Magellan sailed 'round the world
Yet they stayed unconvinced,the parochial flat earthers
The lord shall "always" provide,
And when this too failed they still railed, the perfunctory pious perchers
Now a Black man resides in a house "made" for whites and so they trail,
the ignorant,racist ,inane birthers
Tomorrows requirements will come to be
You "must" belong to the GOP

-47 # Georgetown 2011-04-25 17:06

If Natural Born Citizenship didn't matter,
Why did Hillary and Barack feel it necessary to interrogate McCain? Only to sign a Senate Joint Resolution that 'A Natural Born Citizen is a child born on American Soil or Territories and both Parents are US Citizens.'.
http://bit.ly/gAACzO

+16 # Caballero69 2011-04-26 04:29

This simply proves that "no good deed goes unpunished." The non-binding sense of the Senate resolution was introduced to counter arguments regarding McCain's eligibility.

Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. Introduced on April 10, 2008, a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land. Senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were co-sponsors.

The resolution stated: "Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Since 1964, two other Republican presidential candidates, born outside U.S. borders, dealt with this question.
Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona. Former Michigan Gov. George Romney was born in Mexico to parents born in the U.S.

+2 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-04-26 06:11

Quoting

If Natural Born Citizenship didn't matter,
Why did Hillary and Barack feel it necessary to interrogate McCain? Only to sign a Senate Joint Resolution that 'A Natural Born Citizen is a child born on American Soil or Territories and both Parents are US Citizens.'.
http://bit.ly/gAACzO

Maybe they were trying to figure out if Obama should run as white for all the morons or African American for the PC.. So, they came up with Palin to wake people up that any moron can be bought and have followers. Sorry, had a laughing fit.. Cpl. Pierson 101st Airborne, Vietnam. Son of the American Revolution. Pvt. Shadrack Pierson, 1st Virgina,Valley Forge.. And they weren't Americans yet, they were colonist invading my other side of my family's country. The Cherokee Nation.. American huh... george town.. yea, you go boy! Unless your Indian, your an import just like most of us are. Some are half and half,like cream... Bet you see the darkest cream.

+41 # KAYTHEGARDENER 2011-04-25 20:18

They are forgetting a few elections back about the Romney campaign. He had been born in Mexico of US parents, because his grandfather had fled Utah when the crackdown on polygamy was enforced.
Because Romney's parents had registered his birth with the US embassy in Mexico, a court case said that he was eligible to run...
Those who don't remember the past are bound to relive it over and over again!!

+7 # Carlan 2011-04-25 23:28

Did a quick wikipedia and bio.com search and this was the first thing that came up under Romney's early years:
Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan. He was the youngest child of George W. Romney, a man of humble upbringing who by 1948 had become an automobile executive, and Lenore Romney.
...At the end of the day it doesn't matter where he was born, just like it doesn't matter where Obama was born since they're still US citizens by birth.

+6 # Naithom 2011-04-26 03:48

Actually, Mitt was born in Detroit. It was George, his father who was born in Mexico, but your point still stands.

Actually, Trump's mother was born in Scotland.

+3 # Dave W. 2011-04-26 20:06

Naithom, Trump had a mother?! I know...she was a hairdresser. She certainly was no card player. She was "trumped" the day that parasite was born.
He would,however, make "excellent" chum in shark infested waters. Provided the sharks are accustomed an occasional lump of scum arising from the bottom. Honestly America, there is NOTHING admirable about this man. And I use the word "man" sarcastically.

0 # billy bob 2011-04-27 08:47

And he looks exactly like his TRUE father who was a jackal with the mange.

+2 # Jim Goble 2011-04-26 04:41

Right, Kaythe! I've made this point over and over! That is George Romney, Mitt's father. It's a stupid argument.

+21 # Eva Hatch 2011-04-25 20:49

I was just wondering how many of our founding fathers and greatest historical figures would fail to muster citizenship according to the birthers. If anybody knows I sure would like to hear about it.
Even civil war southern heroes whom the birthers mostly venerate and worship.

+8 # Terre 2011-04-26 06:00

How about for starters...George Washington, Thomas Jefferson John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin to name a few would probably fail the birther test. None of them was born in the US. They were all born in England. John Tyler, the 10th President is the first US born President.

+1 # Ken Hall 2011-04-26 17:35

George Washington was born near Fredericksburg, territory of Virginia, which would later become the state of VA. Don't know fer shur about the others but I think they were also born on what would later become US soil. US territory at the time was a colony of the UK, not England proper. John Tyler's distinction was to be the first pres to be a US citizen at birth.

+1 # billy bob 2011-04-27 08:45

A colony of the England is not the United States of America.

0 # Zephid 2011-04-30 23:49

They were citizens, but not natural-born citizens. In Art.2 Sec.1 of the constitution says so.

+9 # Eva Hatch 2011-04-25 20:56

Would someone tell me if there are any American heroes, great leaders, founding fathers, who would have been denied citizenship by birthers' standards. I'd love to hear about it, particularly "heroes" of the sousthern cause in the civil war, whom birthers venerate & worship.

+6 # isafakir 2011-04-25 21:27

alexander hamilton,

-43 # Jack Spratts 2011-04-25 21:18

+21 # rongcro 2011-04-26 05:24

What fun! If the birthers are "onto something" it is ignorance and racism, and they obviously have a firm grasp on those. Now you seem to be attempting to start a new rumor that his purported father wasn't really his father because Obama didn't resemble him? I think you'll have to do better than that. Do you think all children resemble their fathers? You better do a little reading on biology and inherited traits.

+8 # Cynthia 2011-04-26 06:15

Ha Ha -- that's right! I think it is obvious to anyone of discernment that O'bama's real father is Clarence Thomas. Darn that man, anyway!

+8 # J D MATTHEWS 2011-04-26 09:09

Hey Man, Don't you guys realize that it is not Obama who is keeping his "long form" Birth Certificate out of Public but the Law of Hawaii. The State made public their certification which they use for every offical request for BC. That is their form plain and Simple. Oh Yeah
also anyone who wants to go to the Court House in Honoulu can see the
book of regrestered births. The form
that is public is the form everyone in Hawaii gets

+9 # Bud 2011-04-26 11:38

Certification of Live Birth
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Honolulu Hawaii U.S.A.

Child's Name
Barack Hussein Obama II

Date of Birth Hour of Birth Sex
August 4, 1961 7:24 PM Male

City, Town or Location of Birth
Honolulu

Island of Birth County of Birth
Oahu Honolulu

Mother's Maiden Name
Stanley Ann Dunham

Mother's Race
Caucasian

Father's Name
Barack Hussein Obama

Father's Race
African

Date Filed by Registrar
August 8, 1961

+6 # billy bob 2011-04-26 13:42

It was also reported in the papers at the time, but apparently repugs know about his secret time machine.

0 # billy bob 2011-04-26 13:44

I think you've been watching too many Omen movies.

+3 # Dave W. 2011-04-27 07:43

Jack Spratts, Fascinating! I've never seen a picture of you yet now know you to be an idiot. I, for instance, look NOTHING like my father. But he IS my father. This DOES happen quite frequently. You'd probably do well to stay out of this "birther" nonsense and stick to something more understandable...marbles or checkers perhaps.

+16 # giraffee2012 2011-04-25 21:23

With people losing jobs or looking for jobs and 2 wars (unpaid for) and Bush Tax breaks while at war - contributing to a mounting deficiet -- Who cares what the Birthers decide "who is a natural born anything" --- If they have a problem with the citizenship of President Barack Obama, they should request the Stupremes to interpret the legitimacy of President Obama's right to his Presidency.

After all, in 2010 the stupremes decide corps had first, 5th, 14 amendment rights (I may have missed one or 2) so now we have the "best government money can buy"

And so the saga shows the Koch brothers are buying elections and look at Wisconsin, etc.

Yes, I admit this is clean sarcasm

+13 # DaveM 2011-04-25 21:45

Why dignify the rantings of a group of fanatics with any sort of response at all? The entire "birther" thing is a bunch of extremely twisted thinking, half-truths, and assorted conspiracy theories with tinges of racism (note that no one has challenged John McCain's citizenship).

This sort of material deserves no more attention than the sort of material that used to be mimeographed and handed out by people wearing tin foil hats. Reality will catch up with in time....leave it to do so, and meanwhile, let's focus on the non-fiction section when we talk about news, shall we?

+22 # Seth Sklarey 2011-04-25 22:16

Does "natural born" exclude those who arrived via Caesarian section?

+11 # wolverone 2011-04-25 22:40

What about c-sections and drug-induced births? The resulting citizens are not natural born.

+6 # in deo veritas 2011-04-26 06:36

There is a difference between the concepts of native-born and natural born. If c-section was a problem then JFK wasn't qualified. Why don't these nitwits have anything constructive to say about solving the country's problems instead of engaging in character assassination? Maybe because they themselves have no character.

+40 # Richard B. 2011-04-25 23:30

Eva, Without doing any research I can at least say the following: Alexander Hamilton, who authored most of the Federalist Papers (along with Madison), was born in the British West Indies as a British citizen and was born illegitimate. Tom Paine whose tracts were largely responsible for rallying the revolutionary cause among the colonists, was born in England to English parents and was a British citizen. In addition, the United States did not exist until the end of the Revolutionary War so none of the Founding Fathers were born US Citizens. They were born in the American colonies with British citizenship at birth. This would include all US Presidents up through Andrew Jackson who was born 9 years before the DOI. All of the famous figures of the Civil War (e.g. Robert E. Lee, born 1807) were born after the US became independent of England and were, therefore, born as US citizens. Under current law it would not matter if Obama had been born in Kenya (which he was not) so long as his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. It is not necessary that both birth parents have US citizenship so that of his father is irrelevant. This dispute has nothing to do with civics or the constitution. It is the result of a toxic mix of politics, ignorance and racism.

+17 # in deo veritas 2011-04-26 06:39

Bravo! You know your history! As a retired history teacher it is gratifying that there are those like yourself who are proof that our educational system has borne enlightened results!

+3 # debraslone 2011-04-26 00:27

Looking at the ICE website, both Obama and McCain are ELIGIBLE even if born outside USA for different reasons: Obama because his mother was a US citizen who lived in the US for at least 5 years both before and after her 16th birthday, and he does not have to naturalize, and McCain for that plus Panama base was considered US territory so born on US soil.

+1 # Terre 2011-04-26 06:04

I beg to differ none of the US government installations have ever been considered US soil. Panama, unlike the US Virgin Islands, was also never a US territory.

+2 # Rewriter 2011-04-26 09:00

Terre
Panama was never a US territory, but the Canal Zone was considered US territory, and that's where McCain was born. Of American parents, so who cares where he was born, he was a citizen at birth.

0 # billy bob 2011-04-27 08:43

Are you saying that it doesn't matter where you were born as long as one of your parents was a citizen?

+16 # liberalman 2011-04-26 01:28

The major problem i find with this & similar arguments is that one must have a certain level of literacy to grasp the written concepts drawn. This test of comprehension has been proven elusive to the shrill & faith based (versus fact based) populace of the Birthers, the Tea Baggers & their ilk.
They would sooner believe the frantic claims of "the sky is falling" chicken if it were broadcast by fair & Balanced Fox News or blathered on the Rush Limbaugh radio show of shows.
Progressives: Time to reclaim America Now!

+21 # Eric B. Lipps 2011-04-26 03:05

Just a thought: At this point, just what would the birthers expect us to do even if it turned out Obama hadn't been born in the U.S.? Retroactively declare McCain president?

This whole issue is an absurdity. What it comes down to is that some people just can't accept that a black man could be elected president, and as a (shudder) Democrat at that.

+7 # in deo veritas 2011-04-26 06:43

Of course it is consistent with these anal retentives. They have no viable solution to the country's ills so thyey obfuscate with racism and irrelevant issues (to Most of us) like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) Isn't it odd that on that latter issue they show that they have no concern for the plight of those already born?

-22 # lnason@umassd.edu 2011-04-26 04:09

The Guardian's take on this is wrong. Conservatives did in fact have concerns about McCain's status as a natural born citizen and the McCain campaign addressed it by getting an official ruling that his birth on an American base in Panama to two parents who were both citizens of the United States qualifies him as a natural born citizen.

While Obama is surely also a natural born citizen, his failure to produce his birth certificate (he has only published a certificate of live birth which contains much less information than the full birth certificate) has meant that many in the birther movement think Obama is hiding something (though many believe that he was actually born in Hawaii). Additionally, Obama's failure to release academic records causes similar suspicions.

But the most interesting thing about this controversy is about who is promoting it. I hear a lot from progressives and leftists but I hear virtually every serious Republican or conservative FOX commentator (Hannity partially excepted though he has not gone so far as to claim that Obama was born elsewhere) take the position that Obama is a natural born citizen.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

+2 # billy bob 2011-04-26 13:41

Most repugnicans strongly believe that the President of the United States was born in another country. Most of the repugnican candidates are trying to finesse this issue, just like the fact that they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security. They know very well that BOTH issues are major losers for them with the other 80% of the country. It will be fun watching them squirm for a safe place to hide in between their own party and the American public.

+2 # Wanda 2011-04-26 16:49

read it again. He said that under the "birthers" rules toward Obama's birth, McCain would not be a citizen.

+4 # Bobbie Pierro 2011-04-29 15:34

What gets me is that McClain had an awful record in college, was almost kicked out and downed at least 2 planes. George Bush also had a poor record at college as well as dodged going into the military. No one ever asked to see their records because they were afraid of what they would find.

0 # billy bob 2011-05-03 07:00

Maybe the President has more important things to do.

+20 # Caballero69 2011-04-26 04:19

John Jay in July of 1787 offered this remark - "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." It seems clear he was raising the issue of British subjects in particular infiltrating and subverting the government. This was a reasonable concern six years after the Revolutionary War ended.

Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in a dissenting opinion to the infamous Dred Scott case asserted that citizenship is acquired by place of birth. That is he believed Dred Scott was an American citizen.

Furthermore, section 1401 is a duly enacted law and clearly falls within the elastic clause of the Constitution's first Article. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the birther contention has no serious Constitutional basis.

My surmise is it is based on bigotry. The irrationality about Obama resembles the wild claims made shortly after the Civil War regarding Black elected officials in Reconstruction Governments. That was definitely based on bigotry.

-10 # charsjcca 2011-04-26 06:27

Caballero69: On January 6, 2011, members of our U S House of Representatives read a redacted version of our constitution, intentionally leaving out the three/fifth clause. To follow your thoughts, Blacks were NEVER intended to be part of the American Dream. While there is no operating definition that sufficiently marks R-A-C-E, there is cultural evidence of creating classes of
citizenship in America that serves the status quo. It has been the task of officeholders to maintain the special class of the WASP community. They, then, decide who is to get what. As a person who identies himself as African in America, Blackfeet and White, I recognize that my White heritage is covered up by the perception of Whites who see me a certain way.

Back in the day, when the Freedom Rides hit America there was reported some 150,000 half-breeds such as Obama, Jarrett, Jackson and Jealous, who passed for White. The image being portrayed on TV of what was happening Down South forced many out of the closet and set off some social dynamics that sparked the civil rights movement (MLK). It did not spark the Black Power Movement (Black Panthers), a cultural subset of my choice.

Barack H. Obama still needs to say where he came from the womb. Barry Goldwater tried to finesse his place of birth also. I was born in Watonga, OK @ 1:05 AM, December 17, 1936.

+5 # billy bob 2011-04-26 13:35

What's a "half-breed"? Is that like 1/4 human, 3/4 badger, 4/5 wombat, 9/16 lemming? Just curious. The last time I checked we were all members of the same species and not in any way related to show dogs. Feel free to prove me wrong.

-20 # rock 2011-04-26 05:41

At least John McCain made all his records available for public viewing. President Obama is really having fun with this one!

+10 # billy bob 2011-04-26 13:32

Yeah, President Obama made all his records available as well back when he was still a candidate, but since when have facts gotten in the way when the right is on a mission to take down someone they didn't elect?

0 # billy bob 2011-05-03 06:59

Maybe his mind was on more important things.

+12 # lotuslover 2011-04-26 06:05

Inason--Many people do not have a "real" birth certificate showing hospital, doctor, footprint, etc. I am one who doesn't and never can. Should I be denied the right to offer myself for the office of president--even though I too have a Certificate of Live Birth issued by one of the State's of our Union? I hold a valid passport, drivers license, real property, and I've served in the Military (unlike many of the pro-america, conservative blatherers) So if a "full, real" birth certificate is required to run for the Presidency, I'm out. Simply because I was adopted as an infant and my birth records are sealed forever.

+19 # Terrapin 2011-04-26 06:24

Does any "birther" have a long term memory ... going back far enough to when the Rebubs were all too willing to throw out the constitutional clause in question to make the then rising star ARNOLD SCHWARTZNEGGER, born in Austria, eligible to run for president?

+2 # billy bob 2011-04-27 08:45

It's called "long term SELECTIVE memory".

+3 # lexx 2011-04-26 06:49

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz

+12 # Jim 2011-04-26 06:57

Your argument is that the birther position is absurd. Alas, wasted breath; the birthers thrive on the absurd. They are not detered by the rational or the factual because their message and their constituency is reached soley by the bridge of emotion, and the zone most familiar to their 'hearts' is that of fear, intolerance, closed-mindedness, hatred...you preach to converted folks like me, while the birthers go their volatile, giddy, angry way, lapping at the heels of Trump, Palin, Limbaugh.

The question remains: how does a rational, intelligent, articlulate, clear position penetrate the self-imposed blindess of the 'right'?

-22 # Thomas Higgins 2011-04-26 07:33

Interesting article. The birthers are on to something, but don't know what they're on to. The reason Obama has been keeping the birth certificate out of sight is because it will reveal the name of his real father. Anyone who looks at pictures of Obama and the Kenyan will realize there is absolutely no family resemblance.

Considering what oBomba is doing to this country with tax cuts for the rich, handout to immoral corporations, endless war, foreign country occupations, forced payments to the insurance companies, ect. I would to guess that his father could Ronald Reagen, George H Bush, or Satan. I would most embarrassed about the first two.
And what unnatural child birth like "c - section"?

0 # Marley Greiner 2011-04-26 14:30

See my reply above. If Obama's parents were married under law, his mother's husband is his presumed father.

+2 # aalauf 2011-04-26 08:20

I'm Confused. I keep reading that they have not brought the birth certificate foreward. So are these certificates posted online are all fake ? Or are we looking at another birther lie ?

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

+15 # AndreM5 2011-04-26 08:40

No confusion. The certificate of live bith is the legal state document in Hawaii and most other states. The denials are lies.

+11 # dolores cordell 2011-04-26 09:49

Most "birthers" are authoritarians. The Pres of the USA is clearly an "authority", so to avoid having to acknowledge the authority of a non-white man, you have to destroy the legitimacy of his authority.

The birther's racist position is so transparent you could read a Bible thru it.

+2 # KittatinyHawk 2011-04-26 11:44

too bad they do not read.

+1 # Buckles 2011-04-26 10:23

CNN has just had a report about Obama's birth, and will replay all on later tonites program with with John ? at `10:pm. Tea Baggers watch it you will learn something.

+2 # billy bob 2011-04-26 14:43

too bad they only watch fox.

+4 # Ted Arrington 2011-04-26 11:24

Yes, he is right. Moreover, this question was actually settled in 1968 when George Romney (Mitt's father) ran for President. George was born in Mexico of American parents. He ran in several primaries and his status as "natural born" was not seriously challenged. Why has Obama's been challenged? Because he is "not like us" i.e., he is black.

+3 # KittatinyHawk 2011-04-26 11:43

Why would anyone believe the tea garbage to be literate? GOP isn't nor are either Moral.
Media certainly has not kept up with more important information Like Wisconsin, Japan, Union busting...but we have 3 years of Birth Certificate bs. Talk about illiteracy...

+1 # wendy 2011-04-26 11:56

I was born in 1960 in the Hospital on the US military base in Heidelberg Germany. My father was a US Army officer serving his country. But I guess I can't be president either.

-1 # rock 2011-04-26 15:01

Incorrect.

+1 # billy bob 2011-04-27 08:41

You're right. It all depends on her party affiliation and ethnicity.

+4 # historywriter 2011-04-26 14:18

Could we just drop it now and get back to work creating jobs and stimulating the economy?
Let's treat it as the dead issue it is and get on things. (And yes, he and the Hawaiin dept. of health has reaffirmed his birth and birth certificate numerous times. I think I read the dept. of health basically said after a while --enough already! We aren't trotting it out anymore.

-1 # billy bob 2011-04-26 14:59

This could be a good source of revenue for Hawaii.

+4 # Jim 1940 2011-04-26 15:37

McCain is white. "He's one of "us"." (Republicans) Obama is black. "He wasn't even a 'person' for the Founding Fathers." ("Justices" Alito and Scalia) He's a non-person. He can't be President. (Right wing Repoublicans = "birthers.") IDIOTS all.

+6 # Lewis 2011-04-26 19:03

I have lived in China for 15 years. My wife is Chinese. I have two sons (ages 12 and 10), both of whom were born in Beijing. Each of the boys has Consular Certificate, stating that they are Americans who were born abroad.

Regardless of his place of birth, the President was either born on US soil, or is an American who was born abroad - either category is eligible to be the President of the United States.

-3 # billy bob 2011-04-27 09:08

"The president ought to spend his time getting serious about repairing our economy," Priebus said. "Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority — our economy."

PLEASE explain this to us repugs!!! I'm BEGGING YOU!!!

P-L-E-A-S-E !
P-L-E-A-S-E !!
P-L-E-A-S-E !!!

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.