Time to Accept Obama and Get on With It from Planck's Constant

If one goes to OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL at World Net Daily we see that the issue of Obama's eligibility to serve as President has not died down. I will admit that before the election I too wondered whether Obama was Qualified to Run for President. However, since then I have found many of the arguments made against his citizenship as being naive as to legal grounds. I'll give a few examples.

Allegation: Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" requirement.
The facts: The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

It happens that our first 7 Presidents; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson were in fact British subjects and not born in the United States. However they met the second requirement that they were citizens at the time they ran. So please, let's stop with this "natural born" nonsense.

Allegation: Regarding Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

The facts: Parents cannot deprive the US citizenship of a child. The parents can be citizens of any other country, make him go into the military, renounce their own citizenship, etc. However, what is determinative is what the child does on reaching his majority. I offer for your consideration Perkins v. Elg Elg v. Perkins, 307 U.S. 325: "There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..."

Allegation: There also are questions raised about Obama's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

The facts: In the same case cited above: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, 169 U.S. page 668, 18 S.Ct. page 164, 42 L.Ed.
As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.1 And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, at citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

Second.—It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.

As for restricted travel to Pakistan, I have my passport from 1980 and there is no ban on travel to Pakistan nor can I find an authoritative link saying there ever was one.

I know some of my readers would like to reverse the last election, but one has to pick battles one can win. I singled out these particular wastes of time on legal grounds; there may be other relevant issues still remaining, but I think if you bought a car that turned out to be a lemon and you let the time to dispute it expire, then you stop wasting energy in court and figure out a way to drive the lemon efficiently. That is to say, when life hands you lemons, break out the tequila and salt.