To recap, for those living in a cave: there are some people who claim that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States, on account of the fact that he is not a natural-born citizen. Article II, Sec. I mandates that:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case alleging that Obama was born in Hawaii, but with dual citizenship at birth, which makes him not a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1. Other litigants have alleged that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and that a “certificate of live birth” does not mean that one was actually born within that state, merely that one was born on a particular day and to particular parents.
Right-wing web sites, from Patterico’s to Michelle Malkin, and even to the National Review, have derided those who believe that this is an issue worth litigating. Understandably, they do not believe that there is much merit to this case (the sole merit having been inadvertently provided by Mr. Obama, who has refused to turn these - or almost any, in fact - documents over), and they do not want to see their own side turning into Cindy Sheehans. (Can you see it now? “Code Aloha Blue: Coalition for Truth About Obama’s Birth. First protest, 21 January 2009 outside his home in Hyde Park.”)
Nevertheless, the well-meaning conservatives are missing some crucial issues, and failing to see why so many Americans are upset about this. This is not Trig Palin Truthism; there is no requirement in the Constitution that a VP candidate have not faked her own pregnancy, or reveal her medical records for Andrew Sullivan’s eyes. There is, however, an explict requirement that one be a natural-born citizen of this country before assuming the office of the President.
As a matter of constitutional law, there are several requirements for President, but no enforcement mechanism. Normal, rational, non-conspiracy theorists support these lawsuits because they provide the only enforcement mechanism for ensuring that one of the three major constitutional requirements for the Presidency has been fulfilled. People who have to show a birth certificate before being hired to make caramel macchiatos are gobsmacked by the notion that a presidential candidate doesn’t have to do the same. A lawsuit of this nature isn’t about invalidating the election, or even about Barack Obama; it’s about ensuring that basic, explicit constitutional requirements mean something.
As Simon pointed out, this particular clause has not been committed to another branch of government (i.e. the Executive, the Senate, or the Congress) for enforcement. Like the rest of the Constitution, it is silent on enforcement of its various provisions. David Horowitz would seem to solve this by committing the question to the voters:
The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Mr. Horowitz is absolutely correct that there would be turmoil (and probably rioting in the streets) if the election were invalidated because of a “technicality.” Problematically, though, Mr. Horowitz paints this as an issue of invalidating the will of the voters, despite the fact that the relevant provision of the Constitution has exactly that aim: to refuse to permit an individual - popular votes and election results, real or hypothetical, be damned - to take office unless certain requirements have been met. Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, this is it not just a limit on governmental power (as would be the Bill of Rights, Art. I, Sec. 9 and 10, etc.), but also a limit on the power of the American people to elect certain individuals to high office. Are we now all radical libertarians who would read our personal policy preferences - to refuse to allow the Court to constrain the will of the people - into a Constitution that does not support it?
The Founding Fathers drafted this part of Art. II, Sec. 1 as a doomsday scenario, much like the Second Amendment: they were willing to disqualify talented, able, and wise individuals to ensure that a person with divided loyalties (or, even worse, loyalties that are not to America) may not preside over it. In the error between being overinclusive and underinclusive, they chose to the latter, for the sake of avoiding a potential take-over of this country. It is not Barack Obama that the Founders worried about, nor is it necessarily Obama that aggrieved Americans complain about: rather, it is the possibility of someone, later, who is not a natural-born citizen, who is not loyal to this country, and who does not have America’s best interests as his own interests that frighten them. Obama need not be the Manchurian candidate in order to (perhaps inadvertently) pave the way for one.
Of course, any intervention by the Supreme Court - even if it were to put Mr. Biden into the White House - would be attacked by the left. This would be the second time in less than a decade that the Supreme Court would play a role in the election, which will only increase the politicisation of that branch of government. (One does not even want to imagine what confirmation hearings would be like after this.) It is certainly prudent for the Supreme Court to avoid this particular cesspool, but that hardly means that any one who brings a lawsuit like this, or anyone who supports those attorneys, is a tinfoil-hat-wearing whack job.
As with many messy legal matters, the most just solution for the instant problem can create many more problems later. Anyone who heeds the calls to stop the nuttery cedes the issue - not just about Obama’ s birth, but about the meaningfulness of that provision of the Constitution. A better solution would be for Michelle, Patterico, and Horowitz to call upon their opponents in this battle to find other, more constructive ways of avoiding this problem in the future. One possible solution would be for citizens to lobby their state Elections Boards (and legislatures) to pass laws which would require that candidates supply definitive proof of eligibility before being put on the ballot. Some states, such as Massachusetts, do this for state elections (for those who remember the Romney kerfuffle). In light of the allegations of voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and possible voting by illegal immigrants, it would behoove Americans to push their states for more rigourous polling measures. A voter ID law, coupled with a requirement for candidates to prove their eligibility, may unhinge certain groups, but that is certainly preferable to this business of litigating elections before the Supreme Court.
Sphere: Related Content
All I’ve got is a “Certificate of Live Birth”…does that mean I have to give up my dream of making Caramel Macciatos?
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!
Hee hee.
Well, the Constitution is silent on that, so it’s just a matter of statute. You can always make caramel macchiatos from home, but you can’t sell them in interstate commerce without the approval of the feds.
To be slightly more serious: private citizens who are applying for jobs need to demonstrate their eligibility to work in the US, not their citizenship. A COLB may suffice for one of those “Column A, Column B” things. Will have to check on that.
If it turns out that you can’t make caramel macchiatos, we’ll take up a collection for an espresso maker so you can run a black market on tasty coffee drinks.
Thanks for a non-hysterical voice in this debate. I am VERY disappointed in Patterico, Malkin, Morrissey, and Horowitz, who have gone out of their way to spit on people who are asking a perfectly legitimate question: If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he so determined to hide it?
Even worse than heretofore conservative stalwarts joining in name-calling and petulant comparisons of those who disagree to kooks who insist Sarah Palin is not the mother of her youngest son are Horowitz and Allahpundit’s suggestions that the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution should be ignored for expediency’s sake. Remember that the next time they criticize the SCOTUS for legislating from the bench rather than insisting that Congress either pass law that stands up to the Constitution, or begin proceedings to amend it. And if Obama is a man of his word and will nominate only judges who will tip the scales of justice toward less-powerful classes, we will get plenty of practice criticizing Federal courts in coming years.
L.N. Smithee’s last blog post..NorCal Lefty: ‘Our Beloved Hateful Gay Talkhost is Gone! BRING BACK THE KIDDIE PORN ADDICT!’
No teresa, it means you can have all the caramel macciatos you want because we live in a free society. But until you cough up vault birth certificate that you need for your passport, drivers license, or social security number, then you cannot run for POTUS. Or maybe the Great ONE will change that part of the Constitution and then you can. But if you value your freedom to drink those macciatos you better want a POTUS with no dual citizenship and allegiance to any other country but the U.S.
After 9/11 where we were attacked by radical muslims, we have elected a man with the name of Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama who we know nothing of and he refuses to show any documents to prove he even belongs in America let alone in the White House. It has been said that Obama was given the green light to defraud the American people by the Bilderberg’s wealthy elite. They would stand behind him. That is simply scarier than hell.
B smith,
WEll, when they issued my the birht certificate at birth, they must have told my parents it was valid…and the Social security people thought it was valid…and the nice federal government employees who issued my passports must have thought it was valid…
…but not valid enough to be president, I guess…I wonder where you get one of those?
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!
L.N.,
Thanks for commenting.
I think some of the problem is one that has beleaguered con law thinkers for ages: those who bring cases before the Supreme Court are not the poster children for those cases. Thus, when you say that a particular cause of action has merit, or the case is reasonable, people automatically lump you in with the kooks who brought the case. (This also happens in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, and libertarians were massively afraid that some nutjob drug-addicted felon would bring a Second Amendment case in DC before they could litigate the issue with a Dick Heller type as their point man.)
Horowitz pays lip service to defending the Constitution, but that’s immediately after he says we should ignore it. He doesn’t even make a good argument for ignoring it: after all, the point of such a provision is to invalidate the results of an election (or to prevent an election from happening), not to serve as a guideline to voters. I mean, I could understand if he said to fight this in the states so BHO can’t be on the ballot in four years (and make the entire Democratic Party look like bloody fools), or to reduce the infighting over S. Ct. nominees, but this whole “play nice” thing doesn’t make any sense.
Teresa,
Are you talking about a birth certificate, which can only be issued to someone who is born in that state, or a certificate of live birth, which states like Hawaii will issue to anyone? Also, if your parents are at least 19 and citizens for at least two years (IIRC), their kids - no matter where they were born - would be citizens and eligible for the Presidency. I presume that yours, unlike Obama’s, also has a seal on it (mine does, too), and a signature.
On that note: I fished out a copy of my birth certificate. It contains the following information and items (a non-exclusive list):
*county, city or town, and name of hospital (if not in hospital, then number & street)
*registered number
*full name
*sex
*single or multiple birth, and, if the latter, birth order
*date, time
*Father’s full name, his birthplace, age at time of birth, and occupation;
*Mother’s full name, birthplace, age at birth
*residence
*various certifications: physician or other attendant at birth (with check boxes for M.D. attendant at birth; attendant, other than MD; post natal only; or attendant, CNM) - his signature, full name, and address. Signature, relationship, and date of informant (that would be my mum).
*Date received in clerk’s office.
*Raised seal (back to front) and stamp with signature and town on the back.
Roxeanne,
Thanks, for the offer, but I think I’ll just settle for teaching martial arts and my writing business…
I wouldn’t want to take charity away from the more deserving.
I just find the claims that people have to produce a birth certificate to work at common jobs to be a little weird (I never had to, just the SS card). Your site was not the first I’ve seen it at…so I thought I would ask.
Obviously (from your response), I mistook hyperbole for a real objection. sorry…
It seems strange that there is something out there more official than the one issued to my parents by the clerk of court…and the one issued by the clerk of court is not considered valid proof of citizenship.
I’ve seen complaints, too that the certificate produced was printed by laser printer, but then again, so was mine, since I had to get it re-issued. Seems the wrong date had been printed on it at one time, and it didn’t add up with the records and my other documents, so they had to re-print it and send me a new one.
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!
Teresa,
Here is the I-9 form. You can be employed with just a passport, or you can show a government-issued ID with one of the “Column C” things. Column C includes, inter alia, an original or certified copy of a birth certificate, complete with an official seal (which Obama’s does not have, apparently), or a social security card. So your SS card is fine for employment (except as President of the United States). Many people, though, would use their birth certificate and driver’s license when applying to the local Starbuck’s, which is why I made my comment about the caramel macchiatos. That, and caramel macchiatos are tasty, and it’s always fun to talk about good food.
As for your birth certificate or certificate of live birth: I know nothing about MN law, what they issue, and whether or not yours has a seal on it. I just know that most of them have certain information (like signatures and seals), and, oddly, Obama’s does not.
He could make the pain go away, but, IMHO, he’s acting like a high school drama queen by pulling out all the stops and refusing to just get it over with by producing the damn document.
I don’t have my copy…it must be at my parent’s place…but since I needed it for a few of my other documents, I definatly don’t recall it having all of that information on it…’cause I had to ask my folks about where they were born, and other stuff like that. I remember it had the county I was born in, the date (the wrong date on the printed certificate, the correct date on the records)and my parent’s full names, as well as my mother’s maiden name…but that’s about it, I’m pretty sure.
Guess I can’t prove I’m a citizen either. Lucky both my parents are citizens…and my dad was born in California, so maybe they give out the right kind of certificate…or my mom in Iowa. if I could prove that ONE of them was a citizen…I’m probably OK.
AS long as I can scrape together all of the proof before my deportation hearing.
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!
Teresa,
The things that states decide to put on birth certificates obviously vary by state. What would be odd, though, would be to have a birth certificate without any type of certification (e.g. raised seals, signatures, etc). I’m sure that yours has both signatures of the attending physician, of the registrar of your birth town, and the town’s seal.
You’re also a rational person. If you needed to prove your citizenship, you would probably produce a signed, certified copy of your birth certificate.
Don’t forget Glen Beck who has told off anyone wanting to speak about Obama’s eligibility. Beck is going to Fox news and Fox news Ailes has said no more attacks on Obama for awhile. Also Saudi Prince Alaweed has a lot of control and ownership on Fox.
How can anyone make a comment like I am sure Obama was born in Hawaii? Based on what? How do they know that?
How can supposedly investigative reporters say this is not important? I use to love Beck and Malkin. This time they have abandoned America and the Constitution. Now I read or listen and what they say means very little.
I am willing to say I was wrong about Obama once he proves that I am. Is that so difficult for Beck and Malkin to understand. Make him prove his eligibility before saying there is nothing to these lawsuits. Didn’t they ever ask themselves, why is Obama not forthcoming? Or because Obama has lied about everything they are saying, oh well, one more thing Obama is hiding?
The scariest part is if there is a group of people making this happen for Obama and they have this much control, we are doomed. Obama will have us in marxism within two years.
Anyone see all the information as of late about Ann Dunham not being a citizen either? One of her family pictures gave it away. She went to school in Beirut and they think she may not have been born in the US.
Teresa, I have a short form BC and a long form stating where I was born, the hospital and the doctor. As a genealogist I have the vault form for most of my relatives also.
And some baptismal records which in the old days the preachers kept copies of.
All you do is go to records and ask for the vault BC and they hand over a copy with the seal.
Obama is hiding something regardless or he would hand it over. Along with his senate records he says is lost. Along with his Columbia records he refuses to hand over.
For a man like Obama who insisted Hillary hand over everything he sure feels he is exempt to hand over anything.
I found one of my kid’s birth certificates.
It is called “Certification of Vital Record”
It has his name, sex, date of birth, time of birth, city, county, and the parents names. My maiden name is in parentheses. It also has the date it was filed, the date of issue, and the place of issue. I think the seal is raised, but it is difficult to tell as the paper is thick and havily textured, so the seal doesn’t really feel any more “bumpy” than the paper…
The picture of Obama’s birth certificate on the internet (here) http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.
Obviously, there’s no way to tell if the seal is raised on the computer screen…but it pretty much looks like what I was issued for my kids as proof of citizenship…except it is green, not pink and blue.
It has similar information, though. It tells the island he was born on, the time, date, place of issue, name, birth date, birth time, etc…same stuff as my kids’.
I’m inclined to believe the State of Hawaii when they say it is valid.
And if it isn’t valid cause of the information it has on it, and what it is called…then mine and my kids aren’t either.
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!
Teresa wrote: “I’m inclined to believe the State of Hawaii when they say it is valid.”
Well, Teresa, “the State of Hawaii” didn’t say that. Here’s what she said, and this is ALL that she said:
*******************************
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
*******************************
That’s IT.
She did NOT say anything about the birth certificate’s content, or even that the 1961 document matches what Obama has posted online. That is conjecture made reporters, such as the anonymous reporter for the Hawaii Business News that began its report on the Fukino press release thusly: “The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.” As I have just shown, that’s journalistic malpractice.
Obama refuses to present what he said is NOT a forgery in court, but he did allow/invite FactCheck.org to inspect what his campaign says was posted on the “Fight the Smears” site. No one at FactCheck suggests s/he is an expert on forged documents, but they said, in effect, “Looks good to us!”
This is a common tactic of Democrats, primarily the Clintons; when controversies occur, and the truth is not your friend, say something misleading that SOUNDS like it settles an issue, ACT as if it settles the issue, and RIDICULE everyone who says — rightly — that the issue has not been settled.
L.N. Smithee’s last blog post..NorCal Lefty: ‘Our Beloved Hateful Gay Talkhost is Gone! BRING BACK THE KIDDIE PORN ADDICT!’
Shrug. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes burdon of proof of citizenship…and leave it up to the Supreme Court.
Teresa’s last blog post..Bill Donohue is persecuting Catholics!