[justiceseeker93]

I have so far seen no logical explanation for what seems to be Obama's determination not to release the original documentation of his birth. Whatever it is, I doubt it affects his constitutional eligibility to be president.

No logical explanation? Wouldn't a long-form birth certificate listing a non-citizen as his father and/or stating that he was born outside the US more than enough of a logical reason for going to such expense and extremes to keep the BC under wraps? After all, if he released the incriminating documentation showing he was constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, he likely would be out of the White House in short order, and could face criminal charges of fraud.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Sherman Logan]

Wouldn't a long-form birth certificate listing a non-citizen as his father and/or stating that he was born outside the US more than enough of a logical reason for going to such expense and extremes to keep the BC under wraps?

He has claimed a non-citizen as his father all along, so that certainly can't be the reason.

If it were to show he was born outside the US, then you might have a point.

A debatable one, as I, in common with a good many, believe there are only two categories of US citizens, citizens-at-birth (incorporating native born) and naturalized citizens. Not three, with the third being native born as a special sub-group of citizens-at-birth. I'm unclear whether a child born outside the US to a native-born American woman and a foreign father is a citizen-at-birth or must undergo some sort of naturzliation process.

I'm familiar with all the counter-arguments about the meaning of "native-born." I just disagree with them. Until the Supreme Court rules on the definition of "native-born" all further discussion is pretty much academic.