It doesn't, although the US has an interesting law that you lose your US citizenship if you stand for public office in a foreign country.Evo said:I don't believe that holding multiple national status would prevent him from being President as long as he can prove that he was born on US soil.
Evo said:I don't believe that holding multiple national status would prevent him from being President as long as he can prove that he was born on US soil.
turbo-1 said:Philip Berg (the lawyer who filed suit trying to block Obama's nomination because he has "proof" that Obama is a foreign national) should be counter-sued and perhaps disbarred.
Come on turbo, a birth notice in the newspaper means nothing.turbo-1 said:Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was a birth notice in the newspaper. For the conspiracy-loons that claim Obama is not a citizen, how do they explain a decades-old birth notice in the paper? All the claims that the nuts have been making about Obama's birth certificate (it's been Photoshopped, it doesn't have an embossed seal, it doesn't bear a signature, etc, etc) have been proven wrong. Philip Berg (the lawyer who filed suit trying to block Obama's nomination because he has "proof" that Obama is a foreign national) should be counter-sued and perhaps disbarred.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Presumably there a form to fill into apply to be president?Evo said:Has Obama furnished his hospital birth record yet?
Yes, I believe that this was a result of the 14th ammendment.LowlyPion said:No. I believe even in the case of some imagined dual citizenship he still need not prove he was born in the US. His mother being a citizen at his birth is apparently sufficient to establish his citizenship from birth - which seems to be the real standard.
Since it's been questioned, it's curios that he hasn't provided it.mgb_phys said:Presumably there a form to fill into apply to be president?
Is it like the DMV, do you have to show a drivers license or a utility bill to prove your address?
Evo said:Come on turbo, a birth notice in the newspaper means nothing.
No, they just take the information from the birth certificate. They don't investigate the birth certificate for accuracy.LowlyPion said:It certainly means something however. While it may not be sufficient proof per se, without a doubt it stands as corroboration to any representation provided in a birth certificate.
And what does this have to do with Obama? I thought the Swift Boater scandal had to do with Kerry.Of course the Swift Boaters can expand the scope of their allegations to be the result of a more elaborate fraud.
Evo said:Since it's been questioned, it's curios that he hasn't provided it.
Evo said:And what does this have to do with Obama? I thought the Swift Boater scandal had to do with Kerry.
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
LowlyPion said:Metaphorically speaking these people are serving the same Swift Boat masters as the campaign against Kerry.
Wow! Why would someone fake a birth notice in 1961? Just in case Obama wanted to run for president someday? That's just nuts. You are giving way too much credence to the GOP attack-machine and their surrogates.Evo said:Come on turbo, a birth notice in the newspaper means nothing.
It's a discussion of the Berg lawsuit Ivan.Ivan Seeking said:Cripes Evo! I look in for the first time in two weeks and the first thing that I see is a bunch of damned nonsense. From Turbo's link.
This is followed by nine photographs of his birth certificate.
turbo, a lot of newspapers post information from birth certificates. It's not a validation of anything on the birth certificate, so I don't know why you keep saying it is proof of anything other than a birth certificate exists. Also, I will state again, that I am not supporting the Berg lawsuit, I have already stated that I think Berg is a nut, but it is a real lawsuit and it was brought up here for discussion.turbo-1 said:Wow! Why would someone fake a birth notice in 1961? Just in case Obama wanted to run for president someday? That's just nuts. You are giving way too much credence to the GOP attack-machine and their surrogates.
seycyrus said:I also note that Rove and Cheney were dragged into this as being behind it all. Another metaphorical connection...
LowlyPion said:Ideologically and tactically speaking, I'd say they deserve some of the limelight.
turbo-1 said:"Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama are pleased to announce the birth of their son on August 4th, 1961..."
seycyrus said:How about the ghost of Nixon? I think a lot of the blame can be attributed to him!
:rofl:LowlyPion said:... the 44th President of the United States.
Now that would raise some red flags as to authenticity.
Evo said:... but it is a real lawsuit and it was brought up here for discussion.
I'm not sure that having traveled abroad actually disqualifies you from being US president.LowlyPion said:He's traveled abroad has he not? He has a passport doesn't he?
Especially because it would have scuppered his chances of plaing cricket for Yorkshire.Wow! Why would someone fake a birth notice in 1961? Just in case Obama wanted to run for president someday? That's just nuts.
Sadly, Berg will probably not be counter-sued for this.LowlyPion said:Therein lies the difficulty. Any libel can be forwarded in a filing with the court. Civil filings are allegations after all that have not necessarily been established as factual. A filing can become the vehicle to breath life into even the most unbelievable fiction and then later dropped through abandonment even, after whatever ulterior purpose to the libel has been achieved.
Evo said:Wasn't McCain's birth in Panama first brought up in 2004?
The point is that a newspaper printing information from a birth certificate is pretty iron-clad evidence that a birth-certificate existed as of August 13, 1961.Evo said:turbo, a lot of newspapers post information from birth certificates. It's not a validation of anything on the birth certificate, so I don't know why you keep saying it is proof of anything other than a birth certificate exists. Also, I will state again, that I am not supporting the Berg lawsuit, I have already stated that I think Berg is a nut, but it is a real lawsuit and it was brought up here for discussion.
turbo, I don't disagree that the conspiracy theories about the birth certificate being faked are ridiculous. I've never even mentioned that, so I don't know why you are trying so hard to convince me of something I've never mentioned. I brought up what was in the Berg lawsuit where Berg says (in so many words) that Obama's mother filed the birth certificate once she got back to Hawaii. I was stating what was in the lawsuit.turbo-1 said:The point is that a newspaper printing information from a birth certificate is pretty iron-clad evidence that a birth-certificate existed as of August 13, 1961.
Years back, when I had misplaced the original photostat of my birth certificate, I had to apply to the town office in the town where I was born. I had to pay a fee to get a certified copy (this is what the Obama campaign has) and the town clerk pulled the town's photostat of my birth certificate, typed the relevant information on security paper, embossed it and signed it to attest that it was an accurate transcription of the basic information on the photostat in their possession. It looks very much like Obama's birth certificate. I needed it to get a passport, and used it again more recently to identify myself to the Social Security Commission when applying for disability benefits. Original birth certificates are closely-guarded and are stored in fire-proof safes. For obvious reasons (too easy to fake/doctor) the municipal governments do not give out photocopies of the originals.
Some bloggers' assertions that Obama's campaign could have gotten a valid Hawaii birth certificate and washed it in solvent, then typed in Obama's personal information show just how ignorant and ill-informed those people are. I did service/consulting work for the paper industry, and one of my clients was one of the largest producers of security papers in the country. If you tried to alter any printing subsequently applied to the papers that they made (with alcohol, acetone, and any number of other solvents) the security features would release VERY colorful dyes that would ruin the document. We're not dealing with very sophisticated conspiracy-theorists, here.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcertObama_Birth_Certificate said:This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.
People ARE questioning the birth certificate. That's the point. Do you think that in 1961, someone could waltz into a municipal office and file a fraudulent claim of a live birth without documentation? That's what Berg is claiming and it's ludicrous. I was born 9 years before Obama, and if you weren't born in a local hospital, your parents had to present a report from an attending physician or family doctor (in the event of a home birth, for instance) before you could be issued a birth certificate. Berg's assertions are transparent and false.Evo said:I didn't think anyone on here was questioning the birth certificate?
Who "here" has been questioning the authenticity of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate? My memory is not that short.Evo said:If you read the snopes comments, there are questions about his citizenship that are unresolved (see my posts above). His Hawaii birth certificate may not be legitimate due to the fact that he appears to have been born in Kenya, then brought to the US where his mother then filed for a US Birth certificate, well, that's not legal (if true) and he may be an Indonesian citizen. Nothing like this has ever happened before in a presidential race. Did you read the lawsuit? Sounds like they have proof that they will furnish to the court.
Evo said:I was stating what was in the lawsuit.
In this case it is a fact that the lawsuit has been filed and discussion of it is allowed. On the other hand if there was an unsubstantiated claim of a lawsuit, that would not be allowed.LowlyPion said:I might note that references to non-peer reviewed articles aren't seen as discussing good science in these parts. You might also accord allegations brought before a court in a civil case the same status as being non-peer reviewed. They are dubious facts to entertain until proven at trial.