At the risk of contradicting myself, which I'm about to do - the whole question of Obama's citizenship seems less a matter of law than of public scrutiny, that is, if the question itself became common knowledge, if the electorate becomes aware of the situation, therein lies the real damage - if any.
Otherwise, I seriously doubt the law itself will unseat the president- elect. Mainly because the question of dual citizenship has been challenged and defeated many times; dual citizenship is recognized by the US, particularly because a number of foreign countries do not allow renunciation of citizenship, such as in the cases of naturalized US citizens. Meanwhile, I'm assuming Obama can prove he's a natural born citizen, which would essentially render Berg's questions moot. The only potential violation I see is in the "use" of an Indonesian passport, specifically to enter a country (Pakistan) that had been declared off limits to US citizens (dual or not) by the US Department of State. Nonetheless, even if Obama were found to be in simple violation of the directive, it would not adversely effect his US Citizenship. Which brings us (me) back to square one: production of a valid birth certificate. Let's assume, as Berg asserts, that Barack was born in Kenya, the home of his natural father. Several days later his mother, a US citizen, registers his birth in Hawaii by affidavit or signature. A court is likely to recognize Obama's status as a citizen based on the time (year) and intent - rather than question the certificate itself, assuming it meets Hawaii's standard. Which it apparently does, as verified by Hawaii's current governor. In fact, the more I think about this case, the more I believe it should fail on legal grounds - with or without "standing." Berg asserts, for example, that Obama failed to swear an oath upon his return from Indonesia, when he reached the age of majority. But Obama left and returned as a minor and was not a willing or knowledgeable participant regarding Indonesian law. In order to make such a charge stick, the court would be required to call in the State Department - and the State Department would need to produce proof of Barack's "un- American" activities - as a 5-yer-old. Barring that, the court would have to rely on Indonesian law, in effect, strip Obama's US citizenship based on association rather than outright collusion - again, as a minor. We may not want Obama as president, but that's political... and we're in the minority. Berg’s suit should be thrown out. Beyond the “law,” which is ambiguous at best in these matters, I would rely more on intent. Certainly Barack’s intent was and is to be a US citizen, and to afford him anything less would be… un-American. Not to mention making a mockery of this country. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
