Even after the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, Fox Business guest Alan Keyes still falsely claimed the certificate Obama originally released was inadequate proof of citizenship and that there is a "serious" legal question surrounding whether Obama is a "natural born citizen."
Keyes Is Wrong To Claim Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Insufficient To Establish Citizenship
Keyes: Certificate Obama Originally Released "Was Not The Birth Certificate. ... It Did Not Establish The Facts That The Constitution Required." From the April 29 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:
DAVID ASMAN (host): Well, and also something else that it does, Alan, is it proves that a lot of people who said there is no difference between the certificate and the certification of birth, when in fact it finally proved that there was a big difference because there were two documents. And I had people on this show who said there's no difference, they're the same thing.
KEYES: Well, not only a difference but the vital difference, and that's the only point many people like myself were making. What was shown on the Internet was not the birth certificate. It did not include a doctor's signature, it did not include the place of birth, it did not establish the facts that the Constitution required. The document just released, if it is properly authenticated, establishes those facts and could have been released long ago. I see nothing in it that justifies this big battle to withhold it from the public. It was quite literally, unless you think it through, it looks like the action of an irresponsible and insane group of people to have put the country through this and to have damaged the Constitution in the esteem of the people. For the sake of what? I don't understand it. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 4/29/11]
FactCheck.org: Short-Form Certificate "Meets All Of The Requirements From The State Department For Proving U.S. Citizenship." From FactCheck.org:
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. [FactCheck.org, 11/1/08]
Wrong Again: Keyes Claims There Is Question Of Whether Children Of One U.S. Citizen Are "Natural Born"
Keyes: "There Is A Serious Argument To Be Made" That "It Requires Both Parents To Be Citizens To Be Natural Born." From America's Nightly Scoreboard:
ASMAN: Well, let's get to the issue, and I agree with you. I think it's the main issue right now because certain -- it could keep the president off the ballot in certain states, these 11 states that have pending these changes in language, either to their constitution or their laws, that might keep the president off the ballot. Is that likely to happen in any state?
KEYES: Well, I've got to confess, I don't think it is likely to happen because -- let's take a look. The sequence of events ought to be this way. We've seen now a long-form birth certificate with the necessary information. After all this time, there's a lot of distrust in the country. It ought to be put through some kind of process of authentication. Assume it's authenticated, that settles the issue of fact. Then I think an advisory of opinion ought to be sought from the Supreme Court on the matter of law, because some are trying to contend that it requires both parents to be citizens in order to be natural born. I happen to think, by the way, that argument is incorrect, but there's a serious argument to be made on both sides. I myself believe the court would conclude his mother being a citizen satisfies the "natural born citizen" requirement and he would not be in any danger. But you would have established a good, solid, stable, positive precedent that would allow us to deal with this matter in the future, and I know it's not popular to think about posterity these days, but I think we ought to. We owe it to the future to deal with this matter in a responsible way. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 4/29/11]
Congressional Research Service: Any Child of One Citizen Parent Or Born In U.S. Is A "'Natural Born' Citizen Eligible To Be President Of The United States." From a Congressional Research Service memo:
As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well-settled from common law principles of jus soli ("law of the soil") extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence, as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent statutory law, that all persons born "in" the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States "at birth. As such, any person physically born "in" the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of the United States.
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that "natural born Citizen" means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. [Congressional Research Service, 4/3/09]
Asman And Keyes Reject Notion Of Birther Racism
Asman Serves Keyes Softball To Dismiss Allegations Of Racism Against Trump For "Demanding All These Records." From America's Nightly Scoreboard:
ASMAN: Let me just ask you one Donald Trump question because he's been called a racist for demanding -- for demanding all these records. By that logic, Alan Keyes would be considered a racist. Do you consider yourself a racist, Alan Keyes?
KEYES: Well, I think playing the race card on something like this is part of what led a lot of Americans to be deeply suspicious of the whole thing. They just got into a mood that just said, answer the question. Stop trying to distract from the real issue. And I think a lot of people are now -- because I thought this would be over with long ago, through this very action, and I think it's a good thing that it has occurred. I hope we can follow up on it in an orderly way. People will be questioning it on the Internet. Have something -- the House, anybody can do it. Get an expert, certify that it's so and the country moves forward, and i think it should have happened two years ago. It was insane to put us through this, and I think the key question is why was it done. And I have an answer, it's not popular. But I think we have a president who gave speeches about how he thought the Constitution was too constraining and shouldn't have to be followed in many instances, and I think this was purposefully done to try to set a precedent that said you don't have to look at the words. If you win an election you can disregard this or that provision. That isn't so, and I'm glad it's been proven not to be so. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 4/29/11]