Breaking: WH releasing long-form birth certificate
posted at 9:13 am on April 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Well, I’m certainly glad this happened the day before I left the country on vacation. CNN and pretty much everyone else is abuzz with the news that Barack Obama and the White House have tired of playing with conspiracy theorists and will release the long-form birth certificate after all:
The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.
The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.
Haven’t seen the actual form yet, but I’ll be sure to add it when I do. So far, news outlets are only showing the CoLB that they’ve had for almost three years, but we should be able to see the original shortly.
The big question is this: will it make any difference? The conspiracy theorists have long speculated that the state of Hawaii’s law that allows parents to get a birth certificate after having a child abroad (true) gives them the option to declare Hawaii the birthplace (not true). Others insist “natural born” means born of two American citizens, which is not only not true but would have disqualified Michael Dukakis in 1988, whose parents were both Greek immigrants. I’m going to guess that this will only shake off those with minimal or moderate attachment to the birth certificate issue, and that the industry will somehow muster onward after this bleak day.
Update: Ah, CNN has the PDF here. And here’s the image:
Note that the long form doesn’t have any mention of religion at all, which was one theory as to why Obama was supposedly “hiding” it, nor does it list anyone else as Obama’s father, another speculative bit of nonsense peddled by the birthers. The place of birth box is checked as within city or town limits, signed as thus by the attendant to the birth.
This conspiracy theory should have died three years ago. Now, maybe we can focus on all the ways Obama is failing as President.
Update II: Some of those who pushed this issue over the last two-plus years are now crying foul, saying “Why did he wait this long to release it?” Why would Obama have wanted to release it? After all, it made for a perfect way to paint his opposition as lunatics. Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t wait until after the GOP primaries. He could have used the bump more then than now.
You know who the biggest loser in this might be? CNN. They’re in the middle of their in-depth investigation of the birther movement, and now their unaired episodes are moot.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 21 22 23
Ditto.
Well said. Thanks for your contribution.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Well said.
Thanks for your contribution.
Note my editing, emphasis’ and paragraph offset for highlighting purposes, within your actual quote.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Exactly.
Perhaps this is a “known unknown”, unless smart people are allowed to further investigate this without being demonized.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Good idea for a lead into further investigation.
Thanks for your contribution and hard work on this comment thread issue.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM
It does matter to smart people.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Ditto.
Thanks for your contribution.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Ditto. Agree 100%.
Thanks for the contribution.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Right.
This is an issue of candidate certification by each individual state, not Obama’s.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Mega dittos.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Well, you spelled everything right.
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM
Interesting that they themselves admit that it doesn’t have to be an EXACT copy of the original.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Touche.
I will remember to harp on your human error over at the Daily Caller.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:29 PM
Good point.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:52 PM
Good point.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM
If you look at the pattern you will quickly realize that is the same screen from Ms. PacMan back in the 70′s. Should be obvious that whoever created this fake was some dope smoking hippie programmer from back in the day…. /sarc
“you will not take my birther conspiracy until you pry it from my cold dead hands…”
Bradky on April 29, 2011 at 2:05 PM
Funny…!
And true.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM
Take your own hint.
You and crr6 playing footsie makes this forum look like a ex-date forum…
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Nah, Jim Treacher did a great job pushing back against crr6. She was accusing him of being some type of Birther simply because he had disagreed with the notion that Birthers were just as bad as Truthers. She unsuccessfully attempted to get Good Lt to fully support her notion that Treacher was a Birther.
blink on April 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM
Why does Treacher have to be so defensive?
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM
Nice going there, AP….by rabidly categorizing what are really not Top Pick blog posts in the Top Pick column, you are hastening the time that this post will be gone..!!
Nice, but epically (and historically) transparent you are there.
/sarc
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Sounds good.
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM
Problem?
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Why do you ask?
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM
Okay, I admit it…that was funny.
MadisonConservative on April 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM
An utter waste of digital broadband.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM
Not funny and I was just curious. I thought Treacher was above such trollish crap, considering that he has moved up in the world – or maybe not.
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM
I wonder why anyone should bother listening to a Non-American about an issue which is wholly the business of Americans?
Seriously, why are you butting into the discussion on an affair which is none of your business?
You don’t live here, you don’t vote here, and you ought not to be trying to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Why don’t you go talk about “global warming” or some other issue of which your input might safely be considered within the sphere of your concern?
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM
I think you’re confused, Lamp.
crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM
I had always assumed that the only way he wouldn’t be a citizen is if he was born in Canada like cn6. Which I had believed was a strong possibility, and which I am still somewhat suspicious about. If he were born in Washington or Hawaii, then he would be a “citizen.”
Having a foreign Father though, erases the possibility of his being a “Natural born Citizen.” He is a “Natural born Dual Citizen.”
The poor authors of the 14th amendment would be aghast at how badly their amendment has been misused to justify things of which they never dreamt.
The 14th Amendment would be more properly titled the “Former Slaves citizenship” Amendment, because that was it’s actual intended purpose. It was never intended to be seen as repealing article II, and it was never expected to be completely misinterpreted to allow “born on soil” to equal automatic citizenship.
They used the language they did because slaves did not have citizen parents, and therefore could not pass citizenship down in the usual way. (By Blood.) They had to address the legal standing of former slaves as non-citizens in such a way as to grant them citizenship, so they settled on the “Well they were born here weren’t they?” Argument.
But that wasn’t enough, because ANYONE could be born here from a foreigner and thereby have citizen offspring, so they added “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, because at that time, Citizens and Subjects were “Subject” to the jurisdiction of their own governments.
Former slaves were “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but foreigners were not. They thought the distinction was sufficient to qualify former slaves (and Indians later) and exclude foreign parent birth.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM
They woefully underestimated the stupidity and wickedness of subsequent Liberal politicians who saw an advantage in swelling the ranks of Democrats by recognizing American births of foreign parents as automatic citizens.
At this time in History, the problem of birth by split nationality parents was really not a problem or even on their radar. Women automatically gained “naturalized” citizenship on marriage to an American Male. Any Children of the birth were automatically born to two American parents.
After 1920, (And after the 19th amendment) Women were recognized by the courts as having new rights, and therefore were recognized as being able to pass on citizenship to their offspring on their own, the same as American Males already could.
Now it was possible to have births to dual citizens from split nationality parents. They would still be American citizens, because they could inherit that characteristic from either parent, but they no longer met the Original meaning of “Natural born citizen.” Born Specifically American, with no divided loyalties.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM
“Enlighten me!” Are you an American or not? Others said you were a Canadian, and I saw no denial as of yet. Settle the issue then.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM
Wotta grouch!
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Citizenship yes, but Natural born citizenship? He’s a natural born Triple-Citizen. He can Claim British (boy, the founders would really love THAT one!) or he can claim Kenyan, or he can claim American. H3ll, he can probably even claim Indonesian.
Yeah, no divided loyalties there. He actually acts just like what you would expect for a muli-citizen. Unconcerned about America’s best interest, and totally engrossed with his concern for other countries.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM
I’m American.
Everything you say is wrong or stupid. Go away.
crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Only room enough for one of you, eh?
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM
I’m actually surprised you have the temerity to show your face in this thread again. I thought you’d have performed internet-seppuku by now.
crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Yes, I think John Henry tried to beat the steam drill. But sometimes the steam drill just can’t be beat.
The Clinton’s certainly didn’t have more influence in either Chicago OR Hawaii. Since the BC is in Hawaii, barring some seriously illegal and high risk of being caught burglary, I don’t see how they could have pried it out of him regardless of what they did.
Their best hope was to demand he produce it, then Scream bloody murder if he didn’t. The problem with this strategy is that he had already become the darling of the Black constituency, and this would have alienated a large quantity of the people she needed to win. It would have sealed her loss.
Her loss was a foregone conclusion. There was so much dirt on her she would have been a greasy spot. This is why Rush wanted her to be the nominee. She would have been trounced. The Media would not have worked nearly so hard for Hillary as they did their beloved social cometary candidate. I think that made all the difference in the Democrats winning.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Sure you wouldn’t rather be a Canadian? You’ve already got their political opinions?
Okay, I accept you at your word for it. That subject is settled, or should you perhaps produce a birth certificate?
:)
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM
Her negatives are high and set in stone for the 2012 cycle.
You mean attacking an out of control,unconstitutional and corrupt Federal government? Guilty.
Am i supposed to be enthusiastic about the crop of candidates we have? Trump? Romney? Huck is running, no? zzzzzzzzzz
I think John Kasich could win, but he’s not running.
toliver on April 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM
DL I think you are mistaken on several points.
1st. CRR6 is an American, I believe. A 2L at an American law school. CRR6 contends that it is a high ranking (top 30) law school, but as you would expect other commenters may disagree with her assessment. CRR6 is also a she. I believe you are confusing CRR6 with David Rywall who is Canadian.
2nd. Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is widely divergent from every court in the U.S from the lowly state trial courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Your interpretation also differs from pretty much every trained legal professional in the U.S. While you may contend your interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong, it is not likely to carry the day in any court in the land.
The U.S. Supreme court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark addressed the question of what does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean? The Court stated:
If the Supreme Court isn’t good enough how about some of the senator’s statements on the record during the debates on the 14th amendment.
The words of the 14th amendment are clear. You are born a citizen of the U.S. if you are born in the U.S and subject to its jurisdiction. The only people in the U.S. that are not subject to its jurisdiction are members of an embassy due to diplomatic immunity. Are you seriously saying that resident aliens or even illegal aliens are not subject to the U.S. jurisidiction? If an illegal alien kills you, does the U.S. have jurisdiction to arrest, try, and convict said illegal alien. If yes, than the illegal alien is under u.S. jurisdiction. For a person with diplomatic immunity, if they kill you, the U.S. lacks jurisdiciton to arrest, try and convict that person. That is the common (and legal) understanding of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means in the 14th amendment. Your intpretation is contrary to this accepted legal principle.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Your failure continues to amuse the rest of us.
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM
You do know what “First Principles” are? You also know what “Fallacy of Authority” means?
The Legal system has turned the “Fallacy of Authority” into a methodology. Precedent, is merely the opinions of previous courts on similar questions. The idea that a previous court may have gotten something wrong is not really addressed.
I am not interested in arguing what a court THINKS original intent was. I am interested in arguing WHAT original intent was without the filter of another person’s opinion.
If you think Court Decisions are infallible, then explain Dred Scot v. Sanford. Or Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM
Those are pretty good, and they do support your argument. However, an Honest person will also report information that does not support your argument. (If you are aware of it.)
You quote Senator Howard, *I’ll* quote Senator Howard.
How about Sen. Lyman Trumbull?
Sen. W. Williams:
And of course Senator John Bingham also opined on this issue, (very strongly on my side) but I have to go and don’t have the time to look for the quote.
I won’t be back till tomorrow at the earliest. (and i’ll probably be hung over.) :) Till then.
DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Yes, I’m sure the lurkers are supporting you via email.
; )
crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Oh, sweetie. Petulance doesn’t look good on you. Please continue!
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM
You are arguing what the legal interpretation of a clause of the constitution is. However, you demand that I not refer to legal precedent in my legal argument. Is it just because the legal precedent favors my argument or do you have some other reason to require that I not rely upon your rules.
If we were arguing philosophy or engineering, I guess I could agree that “Fallacy of Authority” is applicable. But it is not applicable for a legal argument. The binding precedent of prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court is law. It is “common law” but it it is still law and is required to be followed by officers of the court, such as myself. Your appeal to the “fallacy of authority” ignores the fact that the Supreme Court isn’t just some authority, but rather its interpretation of the constitution has the force of law.
Your whims on how to argue legal issues are not commonly accepted and are not applicable in a court of law. When arguing legal points I apply the rules of applicable to the legal system. When arguing philosophy I would argue using the rules of philosophy.
You have attemtped to engage in a discussion in the legal interpretation of the 14th amendment. Having been proven wrong by applicable common law, you have attempted to salvage your argument by crying “No Fair. You can’t use common law and precedent to prove your legal interpretation.” When engaged in a sword fight, you can’t cry out “no fair he’s using a sword.”
Ahh. Now I understand where your argument style is coming from. ;) Keep hydrated (glass of water after every drink) and have a bannana before going to bed and your hangover will be much lessened.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM
Touche!
Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Wanna talk about it?
Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 8:38 PM
So… will birthers now tell us that Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindall and Marco Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS, since they were born here to legal immigrants, some not-yet naturalized citizens?
If so, is there any similar case of cranks building such a huge political funeral pyre for themselves?
Will such folks also explain why John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, which remained Panamanian property under lease, did not disqualify him for POTUS, given that he was born a Panamanian as well as US citizen?
(crickets)
fulldroolcup on April 29, 2011 at 8:39 PM
“Still doesn’t make a difference his father was a british subject. The Natural Born Clause requirement is different than Citizenship requirement. The framers were very clear on the Natural Born Clause both parents must be citizens and the requirement comes from the blood of the father.”
Not to make the rubble bounce, but: where, exactly, were the framers clear on the definition of “natural born citizen”?
fulldroolcup on April 29, 2011 at 8:47 PM
I asked you before if you understood what “First Principles” means. Your reply indicates that you do not. Let me explain.
“First Principles” means derived from original information, as opposed to being a parroting of analysis performed by others. In simple terms, it means checking their work yourself rather than just “taking their word for it. ”
You see, basing your opinions on OTHER people’s opinions is what is refereed to as the “Fallacy of Authority.” It means you don’t know something for sure, (because you didn’t do the work yourself) but you THINK it’s true because some “expert” Says so.
Relying on declarations by “Experts” is how people centuries ago believed Heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. How did they know? Because Aristotle said so.
He was wrong.
Do your own work.
DiogenesLamp on April 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM
Yes, it is well understood by most people that the Legal system has it’s own peculiar way of doing things. In the legal system PROCEDURE (otherwise known as “ritual”) is everything. Most of us sit and watch with amusement as the legal system repeatedly produces kooky and irrational outcomes because they insist that methodology is more important than results. In Science, if a procedure consistently yielded results like the legal system, they would regard it as a failure.
I Design and build things. (Electronic things) The rules I use aren’t subject to opinions. They are consistent and inviolable. They operate in the realm of Objective reality, just as the legal system operates in the realm of Subjective reality. I am accustomed to dealing with REAL reality. Not “Declared” reality.
I argue that reality is not subjective but objective. It does not change merely because someone’s opinion changes. Where the legal system refuses to acknowledge objective reality in favor of opinions declaring something to be so, it is the legal system which is broken, not reality.
Now you argue that because they have the power to enforce their decisions (no matter how ridiculous those decisions may be.) that those decisions must be accepted as “FACT.”
They may be forced upon us, but that does not make them correct. You cannot dictate fact by fiat. Might does not make right.
I only have interest in arguing what is actual fact, and if a court declares it such, so much the better, but I am not interested in deviating from true and actual fact for the pleasure of the court.
Once actual facts are established, the people should be persuaded to them. The courts will follow eventually.
DiogenesLamp on April 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Um, yeah. Try reading that a little more carefully.
Hint: It support’s NJ Buckeye’s position, not yours.
crr6 on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 21 22 23