Mad Magazine Dishes on Obama’s Birthplace

fox ^ | 3/23/11 | Bob Unruh

[zeugma]

Does anyone else think that it is just oh so coincidental that both presidential candidates had "eligibility issues" last election cycle? Obama couldn't hardly have asked for a more perfectly matched opponent, could he?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Most conservatives, and probably, liberals as well, believe a carefully crafted amendment could achieve the goal of our framers and founders to protect us from foreign intrigue.

This conservative certainly would like to see a "carefully crafted amendment" proposal. The trouble is, we already have a prohibition

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

By law, gifts to the POTUS are gifts to the U.S. government, not the person. It should have needed an act of Congress to entitle Mr. Obama to accept any honor, let alone a million bucks, from the government of Norway - or any body which is a creature thereof. Which is precisely the mechanism that Alfred Nobel's will provides for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not only Obama, but Theodore Roosevelt before him, accepted the Nobel Prize without a by-your-leave to Congress. It is for America, and not for the government of Norway, to pass judgement on our elected (or appointed) officials.

Theodore Roosevelt promised to use his prize money charitably, and Obama has done the same - promised, that is. TR never followed through on that promise. What exactly has Obama done with the million bucks?

But that is the least of it, as you have implied. How do we amend the Constitution in such a way as to cause the Constitution to be taken seriously? 'Tis a puzzlement.

And that is why, when people speak of constitutional amendments for this or that specific thing (e.g., defense of marriage) which actually should require no further constitutional language, my response is always to ask what might be done to modify the incentives facing SCOTUS. One fantasy of mine would be a constitutional amendment which did precisely nothing - nothing but fire a shot across the bow of SCOTUS by stipulating that the current members of the Court, by name, are the members of the Court. That action would do nothing - except make the point that the states actually do have the authority above that of SCOTUS. All it would take would be majority votes in 38 states . . .