The Federalist Blog

sbd wrote: “Lynch v. Clarke, a New York court reaffirmed the common law.”

No it didn’t. The court wanted to adjudicate under new York law but there was no New York law at the time! So the court relied on common law. New York a few years later invalidated Lynch when expressly prohibited children born to “transient aliens” to be citizens. This was the entire basis of Lynch, a child born to temporary aliens.

sbd wrote: “Once again, the common law was invoked to define this language”

Liar! The common law was never once mentioned in the congressional debates on “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Natural law and national law was invoked, something that had nothing to do with common law.

sbd wrote: “the Justices “detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction’ was used.”

Liar! They avoided the history of the clause. The majority said: “debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

The truth is they debated England’s common law, not America’s because they were tiny incompetant morons who had little respect for law or the Constitution.

sbd wrote: “the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law view of birthright citizenship.”

BIG LIE! The “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” No double allegiance = no common law.

In Reply to JeffM:

I don’t know the specific British laws, but according to FactCheck, Obama’s ius-sanguinis-citizenship automatically turned into a Kenyan citizenship, which expired when he was 21.

But this is only about the citizenship, and I don’t know if these processes also included an expiration of the allegiance to/subjection under the British crown. Isn’t monarchic subjection/allegiance in perpetuity, no matter what happens to your citizenship?

In any case, the only relevant thing here would be Obama’s status at birth.

As stated by Justice St. George Tucker;

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

http://www.ObamaNotQualified.com

In Reply to Obama is a CRIMINAL!!!:

Your post is what’s crazy. All you do is scream out allegations without any evidence. You allege that Obama is a liar, a defrauder, a traitor committing treason “” and you don’t present any evidence whatsoever.

Even if Obama is found ineligibile, it still doesn’t mean that he’s a criminal. He’s simply ineligible. He used to be a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law, so it’s probable that he and his attorneys think they can show that he’s a “natural born citizen”. But that’s not fraud or high treason. That’s simply an opinion that has to be scrutinized by the SCOTUS.

However, if his actual birth certificate shows that he wasn’t even a “native born citizen”, then this would be fraud and/or treason for sure. But we’ll have to wait and see.

PS: And what about John McCain’s connections to known terrorists, enemies of the country and other unsavory citizens? Or even war criminals who introduced torture, against international laws, like the current Preznit?

In Reply to Joss:

Why are you so intent on establishing that it only matters what Obama’s status was at birth?

If that is so, or perhaps more importantly, if five of nine justices of the Supreme Court agree that it should be so, it may be that those five justices will simply rule that the plain language of the Constitution does not support the conclusion that dual citizenship at birth by way of the foreign nationality of one parent does not negative natural born citizen status otherwise conferred (such as by virtue of having been born within the United States when one’s other parent is either a native-born citizen or a naturalized citizen of the United States). Inquiry complete, next case please!

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but in my way of thinking, you are unwise to place all of your legal eggs in one basket.

By contrast, I favor presenting the justices with a number of plausible scenarios, together with corresponding public policy arguments to make such scenarios at least minimally palatable to one or more of the individual justices. The point should be to set up or preserve an arrangment in which We the People are guaranteed (to the extent that this is possible) that the individual occupying the office of POTUS has no reason to place the United States at any sort of undue disadvantage, but rather is unstintingly patriotic, and therefore unrelenting in taking whatever actions are necessary to promote the best interests of the United States, consistent (if at all possible) with international law and other important considerations. So what good does it do to demand either the moon, or nothing at all, when you don’t necessarily need “the moon” to obtain your objectives?

Mr. Donofrio may be pursuing the approach he has selected for one or more of any number of reasons, as is his right as a litigant and plaintiff. That does not mean that others should not take his basic point and elaborate on it. To my mind, this includes suggesting the possibility of appropriate exceptions to his general rule that dual citizenship at birth negatives what would otherwise be constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. The justices of the Supreme Court need grist for their mill. Let’s not shy away from providing it.

My theory, as discussed in an earlier comment shown below, starts with the premise that 1) the Supreme Court may be unwilling to lay down a hard and fast rule that dual citizenship at birth is sufficient to negative what might otherwise be constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status, and 2) the court will be equally disinclined to conclude that any act taken by such a person’s parents or guardians, or by such a person themselves, prior to such a person reaching adulthood, can be such as to strip such a person of the qualifications necessary to ascend to or occupy the office of POTUS.

Based on that premise, I suggest that the court may be willing to entertain public policy arguments to the effect that, once an person with dual citizenship at birth becomes an adult, there may be circumstances under which such a person can take deliberate action which will have the effect of stripping them of their previous status as a natural born citizen, without working an actual denouncement of U.S. citizenship. In other words, such a person may remain, for all other intents and purposes, a U.S. citizen. Only now he or she will be POTUS-ineligible.

That’s it–no ham-handed condemnation of the person in question, no singling out anybody because of how they look or what their name is, just an appropriate measure of prudence in trying to identify those among us who are trying to have it both ways as adults of full age, and the hard-mindedness and intestinal fortitude to hold such individuals at least minimally accountable for their actions, for the sake of preserving Constitutional order.

What circumstances might I be talking about? I can’t say for sure, obviously, but I would presume the Supreme Court would be keenly interested in any acts taken by an individual with dual citizenship which, on their face at least, would appear to demonstrate, not only less than total fealty to the United States (which seems common for many individuals who never held dual citizenship), but also an intention to avail himself or herself of certain benefits, privileges, or protections associated with their foreign citizenship that are unavailable to other U.S. citizens. I would think that this would suffice to demonstrate that such an individual failed to emerge from childhood with a level of respect for our way of life in the United States commensurate with the privilege of ascending to or retaining the highest office in our land.

At the risk of sounding like a person who believes traditional, time-honored religious teachings should have some bearing on modern society, I would suggest that the following biblical quote from 1 Corinthians 13:11 (taken from the American King James Version) is probably germane to this discussion: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

In Reply to Hugh:

You wrote: “Show us by what constitutional authority the SCOTUS can “assign” the Congress to a author a Constitutional Amendment! If the SCOTUS rules against Obama he cannot not become President. Any attempt to “assign” would be certain judicial activism on the part of the SCOTUS.”

Not necessarily. But you found the part I’m the least sure about. Although, I think I remember that the Constitution assigned to Congress (to the legislature) the authority or even obligation to pass citizenship and naturalization legislation. Since the SCOTUS is the judicative, they could do the same in this case by demanding a new Amendment, if the case can not be fully resolved. But this is purely hypothetical, and I was only looking for a possible win-win scenario. I don’t think it’ll ever get that far.

You wrote: “Obama, a new founding father? That is absurd!”

Of course that’s absurd. He hasn’t achieved anything yet to earn the title of a “new founding father”. I was just saying that an Obama-taylored new grandfather clause would automatically make him a “new founding father”.

You wrote: “His campaign says his ‘certification of live birth’ as shown on the Internet is valid proof when ‘certified vault copy of his birth certificate'”

But that’s neither lying nor treason nor anything. Only if his real BC says he was born in Kenya, then he has committed election fraud. Do you have any proof that this is the case? No, you haven’t.

You wrote: “Moreover, the “certification of live birth” is a forgery.”

If a few experts stand up with their good names and say it’s a forgery, then yes, I’d be willing to believe that. But that guy with his infotainment loser-generated content YouTube video and the Darth Vader voice saying it’s all a forgery, all a lie? You seriously don’t think that’s sufficient or in any way verifiable!?!

You wrote: “Also, his Selective Service information on the Internet shows clear evidence of tampering.”

Yes. As with any other candidate. Welcome to politics.

Your wrote: “Obama is either behind these issues or he has not provided the clear evidence to prove otherwise.”

The first part is an argument from silence without any evidence to back it up “” the second part is clearly correct. Therefore there is a definitely chance that he hasn’t been honest, that he’s been lying and committed fraud. But we’ll only know if he produces the relevant documents. And afaik, nothing can force him to do that at the moment.

In Reply to Publius:

Quote: “Why are you so intent on establishing that it only matters what Obama’s status was at birth?”

I’m just following Donofrio’s lead here. “Natural born citizen” can only refer to the status at the time of his birth, not any later status, e.g. at the time of his nomination.

Quote: “it may be that those five justices will simply rule that the plain language of the Constitution does not support the conclusion that dual citizenship at birth by way of the foreign nationality of one parent does not negative natural born citizen status”

Of course. There’s a big chance that this is what they will rule. I’m just thinking of an alternative interpretation, as any attorney should do, if he wants to be fully prepared.

Quote: “but in my way of thinking, you are unwise to place all of your legal eggs in one basket.”

Yes, that’s very risky. But at the moment I can’t find another solution of how to counter Donofrio’s case in a more elegant or slimmer way. So at the moment I think that the defendant only has this one basket against Donofrio. Maybe another possibility will pop up in the next few days, let’s wait and see.

Quote: “So what good does it do to demand either the moon, or nothing at all, when you don’t necessarily need “the moon” to obtain your objectives?”

Fair enough. I’m however always also looking for the Occam’s razor solution, and that’s the sole reason behind deducing a definition of “natural born citizen” from the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t collide with the Presidential qualifications clause. In court this might not be a convenient strategy, so you’d have to add many more arguments (like I did with the John Jay letter). But if your very fundament is not sound in itself, you’ll have a hard time winning a case. Any additional arguments could then be easily picked apart.

Quote: “The justices of the Supreme Court need grist for their mill. Let’s not shy away from providing it.”

Yes. You need to behave as they expect you to.

Quote: “My theory, as discussed in an earlier comment shown below, starts with the premise that 1) the Supreme Court may be unwilling to lay down a hard and fast rule that dual citizenship at birth is sufficient to negative what might otherwise be constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status, and 2) the court will be equally disinclined to conclude that any act taken by such a person’s parents or guardians, or by such a person themselves, prior to such a person reaching adulthood, can be such as to strip such a person of the qualifications necessary to ascend to or occupy the office of POTUS.”

Yes. And it may be a good theory. If they didn’t want to follow a clear-cut super-slim defense argument, then the defendant would need another approach. But wouldn’t your argument be slammed by Donofrio? He’s arguing that “natural born citizen”, which is a prerequisite for becoming POTUS (no way around that), only refers to the status at birth (as the “born” already implies in the term). I personally agree with him on that, completely. So anything that comes later in a candidate’s vita would be irrelevant. There’s a good chance that the SCOTUS would rather follow Donofrio’s argument here.

Quote: “there may be circumstances under which such a person can take deliberate action which will have the effect of stripping them of their previous status as a natural born citizen”

This approach would possibly save Obama’s presidency, possibly not, but in any case it would infringe upon the inherent meaning in “natural born citizen”, namely that the term describes a status present at birth, and at birth only.

Quote: “just an appropriate measure of prudence in trying to identify those among us who are trying to have it both ways as adults of full age, and the hard-mindedness and intestinal fortitude to hold such individuals at least minimally accountable for their actions, for the sake of preserving Constitutional order.”

I understand. But one would have to establish strict rules, and there are so many possibilities in a man’s life, so many different paths to go, that I find it hard to believe that it’s possible to create a Constitutional framework to evaluate Presidential candidates in this manner. It would remain a free-floating, time- and resource-consuming process, prone to bias against candidates etc.

Quote: “but also an intention to avail himself or herself of certain benefits, privileges, or protections associated with their foreign citizenship that are unavailable to other U.S. citizens.

But what would these benefits be? Who would decide which to include in an argument and which not? Some people would argue that using one’s foreign citizenship to receive a matriculation for foreign students would be something obtained by fraud, at least for someone who wants to be a patriot, who wants to become President. Others would argue that it’s not something obtained by fraud, but something that he was entitled to BECAUSE he had that dual citizenship.

Quote: “I would suggest that the following biblical quote from 1 Corinthians 13:11 (taken from the American King James Version) is probably germane to this discussion: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.””

🙂 Okay, I then argue that breaking the Constitution would not be a fatal or evil move, if it results in good leadership””with a historical source on “illegitimate rule” (= “tyranny”). I counter with Cicero, who paraphrased a sentence from Euripides, agreeing with Julius Caesar, who had quoted it before, in order to defend his allegedly illegitimate rule:

“If you break the law, then for the price of a tyranny most fair. Otherwise be pious and obey the laws [and believe in God].” (Suetonius, “Divus Iulius” 30; Cicero, “De Officiis” 3.82; Euripides, “Phoinissiai”, 542 sq.)

In Reply to Joss:

Great post. I appreciate having your thoughts on this.

You said: “”Natural born citizen” can only refer to the status at the time of his birth, not any later status, e.g. at the time of his nomination.”

I say: I agree that one cannot acquire the status of “natural born citizen” after the fact of birth. Such status can only be conferred on an individual based on the circumstances prevailing at the moment of birth. But as you can see, my argument hinges on the premise that one who holds dual citizenship at birth bears the special risk of losing one’s status as a natural born citizen by virtue of certain (admittedly, as yet unspecified) disqualifiying acts taken as an adult. Again according to my theory, once lost, “natural born citizen” status cannot be regained.

Just like any other candidate, an individual with dual citizenship must have been a U.S. citizen since birth (i.e., no “discontinuities” in citizenship such as would necessitate re-naturalization for U.S. citizenship to be regained). However, dual citizens who one day may seek to become president must keep in mind that if they wish to retain dual citizenship into adulthood, they will need to forego “dipping their toes” into any “pool” of advantages or privileges that may be available to them based on any foreign citizenship they retain by default. So long as they are diligent about this, they should have no trouble when the time comes to decide whether or not to run for president. If they are not, well then…they may have to lie in the bed they themselves have made. Not our problem.

So to be a valid presidential candidate or president, a dual citizen will need to:

1) demonstrate that he or she was born in the United States to mother or father who was a U.S. citizen at the time; and

2) at least declare (to the best of his/her knowledge, and subject to such new information as may later arise or be discovered) that he or she has undertaken no act or acts as an adult sufficient to demonstrate divided fidelity as between the United States and another country in which citizenship is or was then held.

If it were up to me, I would throw in a third “prong” and require the individual to affirmatively declare any and all foreign citizenships held, and either show how and when such citizenships have previously been legally renounced, or if one or more of them are still held, formally renounce the same at some point prior to ascending to the office of POTUS (not necessarily prior to being elected).

Joss, please see my comments following yours.

In Reply to Hugh:

You wrote: “Show us by what constitutional authority the SCOTUS can “assign” the Congress to a author a Constitutional Amendment! If the SCOTUS rules against Obama he cannot not become President. Any attempt to “assign” would be certain judicial activism on the part of the SCOTUS.”

Not necessarily. But you found the part I’m the least sure about. Although, I think I remember that the Constitution assigned to Congress (to the legislature) the authority or even obligation to pass citizenship and naturalization legislation. Since the SCOTUS is the judicative, they could do the same in this case by demanding a new Amendment, if the case can not be fully resolved. But this is purely hypothetical, and I was only looking for a possible win-win scenario. I don’t think it’ll ever get that far.

————————————————————-

Joss:

I do not see how the Supreme Court could ever demand that Congress solve this issue now. The Constitution says whatever is says now, supported by court decision precedents, statutes, etc. I emphasize “now” as critically very important.

The SCOTUS will not allow the rules to be changed in the middle of an election. Remember the State of Florida Supreme Court changing the rules about the Florida 2000 vote count concerning Gore vs Bush. The SCOTUS said no to Gore for good reason.

People are already calling Obama the “President-elect” and Obama has even created the “Office of President-elect” when in fact Obama cannot even become President-elect until the Electoral College meets and votes.

Constitutional amendments go through a legal process passed by each of the States. I have not currently reviewed that process.

The SCOTUS, and all members of Congress, individually and corporately, are compelled to uphold the Constitution.

So, there cannot be any valid Constitution change as to the natural born citizen clause currently. The SCOTUS needs to decide what those words mean and confirm it.

Furthermore, I do not trust Congress to fix it. Because most assuredly and sadly there will be a public outcry to eliminate the natural born citizen clause. And Congress would quickly give approval to “what the American people want.”

This issue is so important that is should not be left to public opinion, or what Congress desires, or wants, or what Congress thinks the public wants. This is such an important issue that, if the natural born requirement is changed, it should be resolved only through Constitutional Amendment. This is appropriate since each of the States would be required to deliberate over and decide the issue by vote. It is a very serious matter. The Framers thought enough about it and considered it so significant that they included it in the Constitution as a Presidential requirement.

Therefore, what Obama has done or appears to be doing, with all his denials and refusals to provide others the documents that properly pass legal muster in effect weakens the Constitution, dishonoring it’s Framers, giving fodder to those opponents of original intent.

Based on Obama’s on actions and what little I know, (and I don’t know the evidence perfectly) I believe Obama to be a deceiver and a usurper, opening America up to a Constitution crisis. Character and integrity are most important.

In Reply to Bill G:

That’s a good question. I think they already understood the implications. They probably read Donofrio’s application and just thought “What the”¦?!” They must know that this is dead-serious, and I can’t think of a reason why they would reject it.

Quote: “Or can they merely refute Donofrio’s claim that dual citizenship bars natural born citizenship, regardless of the unrevealed facts of the Senator’s birth?”

Definitely not. Maybe the defendants or the judges will find a way to defeat the whole thing, but they’ll need some REALLY good arguments, because Donofrio does have a case here. If they treat it with the respect it deserves, the Constitution and the country can only win, no matter how they’ll eventually rule.

But I think that the term “natural born citizen” must (ideally) be explained from the Constitution, i.e. in all probability the 14th Amendment. Saying (like some do) that the term is “self-evident” or that it needs no explanation because it’s a “natural state of existence”, wouldn’t make for a good argument in court. That’s why I tried my little theory, with as little extra-constitutional baggage as possible, although I can’t claim that it’s in any way correct or superior to others.

Beyond all the legal details is one simple fact. What about the right of the voters to have known all the relevant facts prior to the election? If any of these assumptions and issues about Obama’s citizens turn out to be true (Born in Kenya, Dual-Citizenship, Indonesian Passport, Kenyan Citizenship, British Citizenship, Foreign Student Application etc) Don’t the citizens have a right to know these facts prior to the election? Even if they do not disqualify Obama – The people should be properly informed. From my point of view – if any of these issues are true- it invalidates the election itself.

In Reply to Lincoln Lowery:

QUOTE: “All the parents of JINDAL, NADER, LIEBERMAN gave birth to them when they were not even naturalized citizens (takes more than 7-10 years process).”

I think Donofrio stated in one of the Plains Radio interviews that Lieberman is the son of naturalized citizens. I don’t know about Jindal, but Nader is definitely a “natural born citizen”, son of two naturalized parents.

QUOTE: “Foreigners giving birth here SHOULD mean the kids are foreign too.”

But it doesn’t. US have ius soli. As a child of two foreigners, but born on US soil, you’re automatically a citizen, but not a “born citizen” under the 14th Amendment, but 8 US Code §1401a “” I think.

But one question: Why SHOULD it mean that foreigners’ children are foreign, too?

I guess it comes down to what the meaning of the word “is” is. I’m sorry, but liberals have no regard for the law.

In Reply to Joss:

When I say “He (Obama) is already forcing us to accept his stance without proof” I mean giving proof in such a way the American can say yes and amen.

I know the Obama people want him, but he has to go through the door correctly. He cannot do it any other way and be eligible. We do not need to re-size the door to enable him to fit.

May I offer to you John 10:1-14. This fits since some are calling Obama “messiah”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

20th VP of USA, 21st President of USA

Chester Alan Arthur

http://www.answers.com/topic/chester-a-arthur

And Arthur was nominated by the REPUBLICAN Party.

Some ‘forensic’ comparisons:

1963 Hawaiian Long Form COLB: http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2252293c4604a0100a80270e5000e-pi

1962 Hawaiian Long Form COLB:

Obviously, the Long Form COLB’s have a whole lot more detailed information (including the birth Hospital) that the short form Obama posted (questionable authenticity) shows. Why hasn’t he posted his Long form COLB?

He might be a “Naturalized” Citizen, but there is nothing (to date) in the public sector to suggest he is a ‘Natural Born” Citizen, which is what the Constitution clearly requires for one to become POTUS.

Obama owes it to our country, and to the Constitution to go public with a copy of his 1961 Long Form original birth certificate (COLB).

In Reply to Sid Davis:

Canada was in the middle of UK and French Imperialism.

Canadian subjects were considered either UK or French Citizens then.

So if we stay rigid with the FATHER-clause and decide that Obama is considered UK/Kenyan at birth, so too was Arthur considered a UK/Canadian at birth.

President Arthur has just unleashed some genie.

In Reply to Joss:

Have you seen the conrfirmation of Pres. Arthur (born in USA but to Canadian Immigrants with Irish Heritage).

Canada and Ireland considered the Queen of England (UK) as their Head of State at that time.

Meaning any English, Irish, Canadian immigrant who came to america had been born into their jurisdiction.

So if Pres. Arthur (whose father was born into UK Jurisdiction) was considered NBC and served as president, I dont see how different this is from BHO.

The only thing is if BHO was born in Hawaii. so far there is nothing to claim he wasnt (Hawaii State has confirmed his COLB details as valid).

Looks like SCOTUS will make some of us here sad this Fri.

Was there ever a legal case validating that President Arthur qualified as natural born? The mere fact that he served does not mean that this was Constitutional. If this was never adjudicated, it may have no merit to a current judgement. It isn’t really a legal precedent, but just an interesting fact. SCOTUS is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not look for excuses to avoid their duty.

In Reply to Bill G:

In Reply to Bill G:

Case or no Case, it confirms that indeed America has at one time (its 20th VP and 21st President) been born into a foreign jurisdiction.

And America lived through it with no Legal dramas.

Same case today. This Arthur thing closed my doubts.

I know some fo you will ask me to re-focus on COLB and if he was born here. But at this stage, I have no reason to doubt the Hawaii SoS and governors.

In Reply to Mr. Paul:

The difference however would be that Arthur’s parents were most probably naturalized, i.e. “natural citizens” of the US, or in a more general term, “native citizens”. (Although not “native born” or “natural born”.)

So we do have a difference to Obama Sr, who remained a non-US citizen.

But there were apparently some rumors that Arthur was born in Canada, and that the family moved to the US shortly thereafter. And this brings me to a theory””just a theory, and based on circumstantial evidence ONLY””, which might make Obama eligible, or at least cast some doubt on the plaintiff’s position.

The rumor was that Arthur was born in Canada. Since there is no proof, we have to assume that he was born on US soil, like Obama. But this rumor actually tells us an important thing, namely that the parents’ immigration to the US from Canada MUST have almost coincided with Arthur’s birth, otherwise there would not have been any basis for this rumor. So, if Arthur’s birth directly followed their immigration, it’s feasible to assume that the parents had not YET been naturalized. Therefore Arthur was born on US soil, but to two resident aliens, two immigrants awaiting their naturalization.

his is VERY weak, I know, and it’s just a thought.

however, there are no federally financed programs for students of African ancestry that he would have sought to take advantage, african exchange students have to have $$ in the bank and cannot get school loans…..Barack Obama and Michelle just recently finished paying off their school loans……….just like any other natural born american

In Reply to Joss:

You got me there! I had not thought of that connection concerning the quote. As you are aware, I was actually comparing the necessity of going through the right door there and Obama going in some other way.

I will take that under advisement. Less friendly people would certainly jump all over!

I have just been reading about Chester A. Arthur!

🙂

Reading this newspiece in Hawaii’s official State paper from the Hawaii officials confirms to me that its the Hawaii State that made alterations (redactions) to the copies they gave to BHO to prevent against possible scammers or info-hackers.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081101/NEWS05/811010345/1001/localnewsfront

Obama’s certificate of birth OK, state says

Health director issues voucher in response to ‘ridiculous’ barrage

By Dan Nakaso

State Health Department employees continue to be barraged by requests from people demanding to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, including some who have called the department’s registrar of vital statistics at home “” in the middle of the night.

“This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”

So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama’s birth certificate and found it to be valid.

Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?

“I hope so,” Fukino said. “We need to get some work done.”

Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu “” and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.

Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” Fukino said in the statement. “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. … No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

The issue has generated attention from around the world “” and court challenges across the country.

Obama critics in Ohio, Seattle and Philadelphia have tried to get their state officials to remove Obama’s name from their election ballots until his birthplace could be confirmed. Judges, so far, have dismissed all of the suits.

A New York Internet author named Andy Martin has a Circuit Court hearing date set for Friday in Honolulu “” three days after Tuesday’s presidential election “” on his lawsuit to get a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Hawai’i’s Supreme Court denied Martin’s request on Oct. 22 to expedite the hearing.

In Hawai’i, birth, death, marriage and certain divorce documents can only be released to people with a “tangible interest,” such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives.

As a result, Fukino said she does not believe Health Department officials could release Obama’s birth certificate to the public even with his permission, although she would need to get a legal ruling to be certain.

Bloggers and Obama critics allege that Obama actually was born in Kenya, but have provided no documentation. Obama supporters and satirists, such as Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, counter that he actually was born on Superman’s home planet of Krypton.

Obama’s campaign has posted a copy of the Honolulu birth certificate on its Web site at http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate. The nonpartisan Web site http://www.Factcheck.org says the document appears to be authentic.

But the Web site documentation has only generated more fuel for skeptics.

They point to the lack of an official state seal on the document, although Health Department officials say seals often are placed on the backs of birth certificates.

Bloggers and other skeptics also wonder why a large black rectangle appears next to the words “CERTIFICATE NO.”

Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said the blackened portion is a department file number that was redacted to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system.

Reach Dan Nakaso at dnakaso@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Found another quote from Bingham. This one is from the year 1862 (Congressional Globe pg. 407 37th Congress):

“Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not subjects of any other sovereignty, are native born citizens, whether black or white? There is not a text-book referred to in any court which does not recognize the principle that I assert.”

The provision he is referring to is Article IV, Section II, citizens of the states are citizens of the united states. What is interesting is no one denied it.