What's really disturbing about this kind of nonsense is that it dsitracts from the real issues surrounding the election of Barack Obama-- like the fact that almost 60% of voters for Obama could not correctly identify which party was in control of congress for the last two years!

What that tells us is far more frightening for the future of American democracy than suspicions about the birth place of Barack Obama.

You want a conspiracy theory, how about why would the very risk-averse Obama in his picks for cabinet go so far out on a limb with a hack like Eric Holder for Att Gen?

Unless, that is, he wants someone with a proven record of doing the president's wishes without regard for appropriatness and legality, and someone who already spent most of a decade mastering the legal obfuscating techniques available to the Att Gen for delaying, off-putting and otherwise covering up for illegality within the administration.

If republicans had any balls or sense this is the fight they would be gearing up for -- filibustering Holder, and for all the right constitutional reasons.

But, since most Republicans are lacking in the balls department, and others, such as McCain, are particularly lacking in the sense department, they are probably preparing the congratulatory confirmation vote as we speak.

Sorry Eric, you still haven't addressed the objection to your position.

Your last post took the position that it doesn't matter where Obama was born. The people challenging it are nutters and that's that. Now, you're taking the position that the State of Hawaii should determine when candidates meet the "natural born citizen" requirement. That is absurd. There is no justification for giving Hawaii such authority over the rest of the country as you argue here.

In my opinion, the State of Hawaii is the highest authority on who was born in Hawaii. If they state that Obama was born there (so far as I have seen, they have not made this explicit claim, instead using the more Clintonesque "the document is valid" language), then the Supreme Court should take that as pursuasive evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen and determine that the current president elect is qualified to be sworn in.

This is not just about Obama and the "nutters" and so long as you pretend it is, you're going to keep getting people like me objecting.

I suppose I should add that the argument is that there is a constitutional requirement and therefore there should be a mechanism for enforcing it--that's why I get so annoyed by people dismissing it as Obama Derangement Syndrome. Obama is only incidentally involved in the real question at issue.

It's my opinion that the Supreme Court is the natural body to enforce this provision for three reasons--the chief justice does the physical swearing in, the Supreme Court is the least political branch and, since Marbury, they have relegated to themselves the authority to settle most constitutional questions.

Where did I say that it doesn't matter where Obama was born? Of course it matters. Hence all these posts.

However, the state of Hawaii certifies he was born there (read the certificate!), which ends the inquiry unless someone can actually prove otherwise.

Whether Hawaii's records include the name of the hospital is not, I think, of constitutional significance.

I didn't say "the State of Hawaii should determine when candidates meet the "natural born citizen" requirement" -- it doesn't have to. It only certifies his birth. "Natural born" means born in the United States, and Hawaii is a state.

Donofrio claims his father's Kenyan citizenship makes him other than natural born. It's a frivolous position, but it has nothing to do with Hawaii's birth records.

There is a mechanism in the form of the Supreme Court. Refusing to hear frivolous claims is part of the process.

One thing I've noted about conspiracy theories is that once adopted they subsume the thought processes of the conspiracist. Literally every event is incorporated into the theory.

Further, once adopted the theory becomes unfalsifiable. Evidence against it becomes evidence in support. Particularly damning evidence becomes proof of the coverup.

So if the State of Hawaii is certifying that Obama was actually born there, then obviously Obama has something on them. What could it be? What kind of lever might he posses to coerce Hawaii?

And before you begin speculating, remember that a bona fide conspiracist would not discard any theory just because it was unwieldy or ludicrous. Anything goes. Also bear in mind that speculation weighs the same as physical evidence.

To put this as simply as I can for the obtuse out there: So long as one of the parents is an American citizen, and the child otherwise qualifies as a natural born citizen of the United States, the other parent's status means bugger all.