You are hereBlogs / Wright N. Justice's blog / Supreme Court twice refused birthers

Supreme Court twice refused birthers


By Wright N. Justice - Posted on 23 July 2009

Cable TV, right-wing talk radio, and Republican Congressmen have now created what is being called the "birther movement". They continue to argue that Barack Obama is not legitimately the President of the United States because he either a) wasn't born in the U.S., b) has no proof that he was born in the U.S., or c) revoked his U.S. citizenship while living in Indonesia.

I never imagined that being ignorant and illogical would be so popular.

Let's examine this properly:

Article II, clause 5 of the Constitution says that "no person except a natural born citizen" shall be eligible to be President of the United States. A "natural born" citizen is one who is not naturalized.

In other words, a citizen of another country who immigrates to the U.S. and becomes a naturalized citizen is not "natural born". The problem quickly arose of what to do about the children of citizens who were born while the mother was traveling or working in foreign countries. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Congress states that those children are natural born.

So to summarize, Barack Obama must be either a) born in the United States, or b) born of an American citizen who is abroad. In either situation, he is "natural born".

Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state on August 21, 1959. Barack Obama has a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii that indicates he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. He is a "natural born" citizen of the U.S.

Further confirming evidence is found in the newspaper announcements of his birth in both Honolulu newspapers.

Many American citizens vacation or work overseas, and they often take their children with them. Those children do not "revoke" their U.S. citizenship by attending school in another country.

"Birthers" also want to argue that Barack Obama has "dual citizenship", since his father was Kenyan, and is therefore prohibited from serving as President of the U.S. There nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would exclude a person with dual nationality from serving as President of the U.S., so long as he is "natural born". Further, there is no evidence that Mr. Obama ever sought Kenyan citizenship to the exclusion of his U.S. citizenship.

One last desperate argument made by "birthers" is that the document issued by the state of Hawaii is not a "Birth Certificate", but is rather captioned "Certification of Live Birth". I don't see the difference, and neither did the U.S. Supreme Court. (Yes, the one that was packed by George W. Bush with right-wingers.)

Twice in December of 2008, the -8373">U.S. Supreme Court rejected legal challenges to Mr. Obama's qualifications. This has already been litigated, and the "birthers" lost last year.

It's over, "birthers". You are starting to look like you have a slippery grip on sanity. It's time for this foolishness to end.

The 8/2/09 Sunday Houston Chronicle contains several letters on the subject of the "birther" movement. These were largely in reaction to Nick Anderson's funny cartoon showing "birthers" emerging from their pretend spaceship and demanding to be taken to "your so-called leader." Two of the letters defended President Obama, while the other three demanded proof that he wasn't from Kenya, Indonesia, Mars or whatever. I find it interesting that neither President Bush nor Clinton, nor for that matter any previous president, was ever asked to provide proof of his US citizenship. I wonder what suddenly makes it OK to challenge Obama's nationality? Hmm. This "birther" business gives off the toxic aroma of right wing hysteria and racism.