Should the Supreme Court hear arguments on Obama's citizenship?

[angus]

could someone more knowledgable about these matters than me comment on what they think the likelihood of the Court actually hearing this case is?

I second the request.  All I know is that he was born in the United States, is over 35, hasn't committed any felonies (at least not any that stuck), and hasn't renounced his citizenship or taken any titles of nobility. 

I am aware that some refer to the rule that states that a "natural born citizen" is one who is defined either as a person born in the US of two US parents, or born on foreign soil of two US parents who are on US official business, or born in the US of one US parent who has lived in the US at least ten years, and at least five of those years should have been after the parent's 16th birthday.  This was apparently the law applicable to those born from circa 1950ish to 1980ish, and therefore applies to Obama, who was born in the same years as my older brother.  And since his mother only lived in the US for two years (after her 16th birthday) when she birthed him, then there may be some issue.  This is apparently a continuation of a New Jersey case that has hounded him for a long time, and does seem to have some legitimacy.  Is that what this is all about? 

Anyway, I voted NO, and I hope it doesn't become an issue, mostly because I think it would violate the spirit in which the law was written, though perhaps not the letter of the law.  I know sometimes the spirit and the letter come into conflict, and in this case I'd side with the spirit, but I could respect those who disagree and side with the letter, if only they knew what the letters said.  So, does anyone know what the letters say?

[angus]

The requirement for years of residence after the age of 16 applies only to those born outside the United States.

I guess that's what I always thought as well, which is why my main question is the same as yours:  Would someone please explain the facts of the lawsuit, if there are any?

[angus]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Please, everyone who's going to be stupid, please read that first

I'm going to be stupid, so I read your post.  It contained no surprises.  Just lots of stuff we all already knew, and nothing particularly relevant to the New Jersey case which is being continued in the current (federal) lawsuit.

My question, like Stranger's and Ink's, still stands:  what's the basis of the lawsuit?

The only thing I have dug up which seems legit I posted, although Stranger claims that it doesn't apply, but as I understand the law it may, but then I may be confused and I haven't read the text of the law, just someone's interpretation.  (Among them, the same snopes.com, by the way, to which you referred us stupid types in your post.  It's not clear to me whether Snopes is actually a lawyer, or really anything other than a group of geeks with little more than time on their hands.  So the question still stands.)  But snopes aside, I still hope the letter of the law doesn't keep him out of office.  I doubt that it will.  (I'm not saying it is legit.  Like snopes.com, I'm probably not a lawyer either, I'm just saying that it's the only thing I could find that comes close to having any actual bearing on this case, and even it seems flimsy.)

The internet has really become a double-edged sword, hasn't it?  Used to be no nitpicking.  Lots of bitching, but not this amount of minutiae.  Nowadays, with the availability of obscure writs available at the touch of a button, we're seeing all sorts of nitpicking.  It started with Bush and Cheney "being from the same state" back in 2000 and therefore not a legitimate ticket.  Anyone remember that?  Now it's--well I think it's--that Obama's mother hadn't lived in the United States for five years subsequent to her 16th birthday.  I guess we should just be prepared for this amount of scrutiny from now on.  It's not a disadvantage, really, since it'll keep folks honest, but it's so distracting.