My position is straightforward
1. If, as the COLB and the statements of the Department of Health of Hawaii show, President Obama was born on US soil then he is a natural born citizen
2. If he were born abroad, he would likely not be a natural born citizen since such children become citizens by statute, not through common law
3. If Obama acquired an Indonesian citizenship then he still would not have lost his natural born citizenship status
I find arguments based on dual citizenship status to be significantly flawed, and believe that the only way for the President to be ineligible is if he were born outside the United States.
While there is overwhelming data supporting his birth on US soil, there are a few contradictory statements made by people who were not present at his birth but who have come to the conclusion that President Obama is a Kenyan, is of Kenyan Blood, or considers Kenya to be his ‘home country’. None of these instances really are relevant until it can be shown conclusively that President Obama was born on Kenyan soil. This requires that a Kenyan birth certificate is found which is duly attested to by Kenyan officials according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
While I personally have accepted the facts that show President Obama born on US soil, I also understand why some may doubt this. For this, I personally would have hoped that President Obama would once again release his Certification of Live Birth for inspection. However, I can also accept that other considerations may preclude the President from taking such a precedent setting step.
I also accept the fact that those who doubt Obama’s eligibility may attempt to raise the issue with Congress, the Courts as well as State Governments. Ideally, these attempts would combine with other efforts to improve the tractability of our votes, by for instance proposing a federal standard for voting devices that would guarantee that votes are counted, counted correctly and that votes can be tracked and recounted independently from the devices used.
I also believe that those people who strongly believe in State Rights, accept that the State of Hawaii may determine what documents are to be presented to be used in determining the location and time of birth of one of its state citizens. As such, I find bills which attempt to specify what is acceptable to other states to be foolish and in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of our Constitution. Anyone in support of State Rights should understand the internal contradiction in these bills.
And finally, I am fully open to the possibility that I am totally wrong in my position.