Printer Friendly

The persistent question of Barack Obama's citizenship.

It has been alleged that presidential aspirant Barack Obama is ineligible to become president because, it is claimed, he was not born in the United States--but rather born in Kenya to a Kenyan father, making him a Kenyan citizen. The story has gained credence for several reasons:

* His paternal grandmother in Kenya has reportedly been audiotaped speaking to an Anabaptist reverend and bishop saying that she was in the delivery room when Obama was born. The reverend and bishop have both signed affidavits claiming they have the tape and will testify in court.

* Obama has refused to release an official birth certificate. Instead, he has released a "certification of live birth," which not only shows evidence of tampering but wouldn't normally be considered a legal document anyway.

* Obama will not release his medical records or his records from Occidental or Harvard College. It is speculated that he will not release these records because they indicate he is not a citizen and may, in fact, have applied for some type of U.S. government aid for foreign students.


These are the accusations that lifelong Democrat and former Democratic candidate for office Philip Berg has made in the case Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, further alleges that even if Obama were born in the United States, when Obama's mother was remarried, she moved to Indonesia with her new husband and renounced her and Barack's U.S. citizenship. The basis for this claim is the fact that the government of Indonesia during the four years Obama was enrolled in school there required that one had to be a citizen of Indonesia and renounce citizenship in other countries in order to attend school.

Though as of yet unverified, the claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen rings true if for only one reason: by refusing to supply the requested documents, Obama alienated some potential voters. On October 24, Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania dismissed Berg's lawsuit "for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction." The court did not rule on the facts of the case and, in fact, did not consider them at all.

Surrick ruled that even if all of Berg's claims were true, the case must be dismissed because the plaintiff, Berg, was not "entitled to relief" because he had no legal "standing." In other words, Berg was not legally recognized as a legitimate plaintiff against Obama because Obama did not "injure" Berg in some way--whether physically or financially, either directly or by way of damaging his reputation. But Berg should not have had to prove standing because the Constitution is a legal contract between the government and the people, and any party to a contract has a fight to enforce the contract.

This does not mean that the legal fact-finding endeavor is at a dead end. Berg has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and if that fails, he can wait until Obama takes office and then attempt to get the information using the Freedom of Information Act. (Berg has attempted this already, but he did not adhere to the rules governing how FOIA requests must be made, and he requested information from a state agency when the FOIA only applies to federal agencies--such as the executive branch.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Inside Track
Publication:The New American
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Nov 24, 2008
Previous Article:Marriage defined by voters in California.
Next Article:What happened to the third-party presidential candidates?

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters