Eventually this 'mystery' will assume the massive mythical status to place it among other conspiracy theories. One would hope it would simply die. It is a major distraction, siphons energy away from tackling real issues and gives false hope to those who despise the thought of an Obama presidency. They can continue to labor under the delusion that there may still be a magic one-shot legal 'pill' to prevent his inauguration.
While I do agree that all candidates seeking the office of President or Vice-president should be required to present his birth certificate and provide other proof as to its authenticity, the law does not require them to do so.
Should Obama, in the interest of demonstrating a model for transparency that he has proposed, offer his birth certificate for complete inspection? I think it would certainly put the subject to rest with many normally rational people, would be a good faith indication that he has nothing to hide, but would not silence the extreme fringe who are going to dispute any authentication of the document. To believe in the birth certificate's authenticity would be an admission that he is going to be president, a reality that is far-too frightening for some to accept. For that reason alone - the need for self-delusion - the story will continue to fester like a cancer in the blogosphere.
It is also just as reliable to predict that no action will emerge from the avalanche of blog postings or thinly-constructed legal challenges. Obama has won the brass ring, short of a confession of fraud from the man himself, nothing is going to pry it from his hand.
If we can learn anything from this story it is that, in the interest of maintaining legitimacy, the office of President should require more transparency in how candidates prove qualification under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Is it a major imposition to require proof? Is it actionable not to require proof? No positive law exists to require affirmative documentation, but we can't honestly be expected to accept anecdotal hearsay as evidence that qualifications have been met. For a nation of laws this controversy exposes a weakness that must be addressed.
As it stands, the candidate affirms - under penalty of perjury - that he or she has met the qualifications. We already have evidence that perjury charges do not pose a serious behavioral incentive for sitting presidents, much less suitors to the office.
What I hear frequently is, 'What is the harm?'
'Why does it even matter? If he was born abroad, but is, for all intents and purposes, an American, should we even care?' say the apathetic or pragmatic, conservative or liberal, take your pick.
'What could we even do about it if he did pass off a fake?' is another response to avoid dealing with a larger issue.
The harm is that, in a society in which people submit themselves to the rule of law, they expect that law to be respected and applied evenly and without prejudice. There should be no reward for those breaking the law, and there should be safeguards - where possible - to protect our system from people who are unafraid to break laws. When we start treating laws as optional, or applicable only when it is easy to comply, laws simply cease to exist.
There is a need for top to bottom reform of our elections process, and defending Article 2, Section 1 is a good place to start. For now, this writer will assume that the document is real and continue challenging the man instead of attacking his paperwork.
###
Cross-posted at Unequal Time http://unequal-time.blogspot.com
Posted by thesenator2012 at December 02, 2008 11:34 AM | Email ThisI would like the one true answer and it is the Supremes or the electoral college to make the call. The Supremes are at least sitting down and discussing it- they may not hear the case in the end.
Posted by: swatter on December 2, 2008 12:27 PMThe most damning item, IMHO, is that Obama, while a young man, traveled abroad using an Indonesian passport. Neither the USA nor Indonesia recognize dual citizenship. As far as Indonesia was concerned, Obama was one of theirs.
Obama could clear this up in an instant IF he has proof. Offer it as evidence to the Supreme Court (where the case is pending) and case over. His failure to act raises suspicion that he is hiding something.
Posted by: Seabecker on December 2, 2008 04:32 PM#1 - The Supreme Court should rule on it, but Obama's attorneys will argue that there is no requirement for a candidate to positively prove qualifications under Article 2, Section 1.
#2 - If the Supreme Court was to rule him unqualified to hold the office of President it would throw us into a constitutional crisis of sorts. There is no specific course of action in dealing with this. It would probably fall to the 25th Amendment which would result in President Biden. Yay.
#3 - In any challenge, remember that the law is no longer interpreted in a constructionist way. If the popular opinion tends toward, "So what?" I worry that the Constitution will cease to have meaning.
I agree with everyone who says that this stinks to high heaven. We just need to be careful about what kind of Pandora's box we're opening and think this through four or five steps ahead before assuming that things would be as simple as proving his illegitimacy and having him removed from office.
Posted by: Bryan Myrick (thesenator2012) on December 3, 2008 11:08 AMWhat got us in this mess is a lack of procedure for candidates to PROVE they are qualified. For the last time, hopefully, I will say that there is NO mechanism, legal or otherwise, to require a candidate to prove their natural citizenship and there is NO mechanism by which a candidate's assertions of natural citizenship can be directly challenged. We need to move on and work toward establishing that mechanism, instead of plunging the system into a constitutional crisis.
This is the same kind of nihilistic, self-absorbed circus act that the Dems launched in 2000 and it seriously damaged the legitimacy of the government.
Let's face it. Obama probably got away with one, but he's only the president in a system that has the ultimate check and balance--our voices. So watch him like a hawk. Stay vigilant. Work to create a system to prevent it from ever happening again. Make sure he doesn't silence opposition. But as soon as this issue pops out of your mouth in public conversation it is going to make your potential ally turn and walk the other way because it is a fringe issue that has not been sufficiently proven. It starts to sound too much like "Bush Lied, People Died," or the ridiculous claims that Bush "stole" the elections in 2000 and 2004.
To use a sports analogy, we can't become the team that spends the whole year crying about the foul committed in the first quarter while our opponent pays attention to playing the game.
Posted by: Bryan Myrick (thesenator2012) on December 4, 2008 10:17 AMNo, but we can be the team that discovers the other side used an ineligible player... causing the other team to forfeit each game where they used the player in question.
Happens all the time. And my scenario is a much more apt analogy, don't you think?
Posted by: Hinton on December 4, 2008 06:00 PMI will cut to the chase. This crusade some of you are embarking on will engage your mind, tantalize your impulse to feel cheated and tickle all of those little brain cells that want to believe that the Obama presidency - and all it represents for you - will be made illegitimate. In the meantime, the country will move on without you, and Obama and the Democrats will get to work making all of your nightmares come true.
I am choosing a different course, and trying to persuade others to follow a more pragmatic way of reassembling the country in a way that promotes values that will sustain us instead of weaken us.
Posted by: Bryan Myrick (thesenator2012) on December 4, 2008 07:39 PM