On the question of Obama's elegibility to be President of the US

The two-year old controversy about whether Obama is elegible to be President of the United States as a "natural born Citizen" is still alive because of the President reluctance to provide definite proof. He would do a service to his country by making public the document that many are asking for.

The arguments presented in a report published in the Headlines section of this Web site under the title " Was Obama Constitutionally eligible to be President of the US? " deserve further thought and clarification.

Tempted by such a "mistery", I have been looking for proper answers to the questions thus presented, and found that the Congressional Research Service, on April 3, 2009, circulated among members of Congress a memorandum regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. This document in fact confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be President, and that status remains undocumented to this day.

It is so because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.

No one may actually say that President Obama is not a "natural born Citizen". But many people have presented evidence that casts a doubt about his eligibility on this respect. For President Obama, it would be very simple to dispel these allegations by making public his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The short form he presented sometime ago only proves that he was registered in the United States but not that he was born in the United States.

It is quite difficult to believe that President Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" and that he was thus -and still is- inelegible to be President of the United States. It is quite difficult to believe it because such an argument would have been decisive at the time of his campaign to be President by those more interested in defeating him - the Republican party.

In fact, the argument was raised at that time against Republican candidate McCain by his Democratic foe. McCain promptly proved that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at that time a US territory. However, the campaign about Obama's ineligibility to be President only started seriously after he was elected and has not taken real weight until now. Why his adversaries had waited so long to challege his legitimacy?

Nevertheless, Americans should be really concerned about this campaign for one single reason: President Obama would easily put an end to these allegations by simply providing to the media a copy of his full birth certificate instead of the document he published some time ago that only validates that he was registered in the United States but does not certify that he was born in the United States. Instead of opting for such a simple sollution to this controversy, he has hired legal advise and spent so far over 2 million dollars to fight a legal request to make public his full birth certificate.

Given Obama's reluctancy to provide the required proof of his eligibility, a case has been presented before Federal Courts that is presently known as Kerchner vs Obama and was filed by attorney Mario Apuzzo who argues that "I believe we presented an ironclad case." Therefore, this case has reached the Supreme Court. Apuzzo asserts that "we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to gran us a writ of certionrari".

That means that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of that procedure it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. Such a decision is expected by Wednesday, December 1st.

Apuzzo observed it is an "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject and that the President was not born in the United States or any of its territories. According to Apuzzo that a hearing on the merits is also a death knell because it would allow discovery by which they could ask Obama for his full birth certificate.

For more information on the details of these arguments and allegations, I suggest that readers open THIS LINK

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.

The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status."

Perhaps it is because there are no merits to this case. Therefore, case closed!