Posted on 02/14/2012 12:51:08 PM PST by Kukai
OPINION –Opponents of Barack Obama have long questioned the legitimacy of his citizenship. They claim that Obama’s birth may have taken place outside of the United States. If Obama were born in Kenya, as some claim, he would be in violation of the Constitution’s requirement in Article 2 Section I that a candidate for president must be “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
To this end, the so-called “birther” movement has spent much of the last four years demanding that Obama provide his original birth certificate as definitive proof that he was actually born in the U.S. After inexcusable foot-dragging, the Obama administration last April released a copy of the president’s certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii.
Not surprisingly, birthers are dismissing the Hawaiian birth certificate as a fraud and have redoubled their demands for clear proof of the president’s eligibility to hold office.
Now a judge in the state of Georgia has given the controversy a new twist by agreeing to hear a case challenging Obama’s ability to appear on the ballot in several states unless he proves his eligibility. Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had earlier labeled the hearing as “baseless, costly and unproductive.” During the packed hearing in a Georgia courtroom on Jan. 27, 2012, the defense table was conspicuously empty as neither the president nor his attorneys were present.
The case is noteworthy for a couple of reasons:
First, the birth citizenship question is not as remarkable as the allegation that the president initially exerted considerable pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State to drop the matter, then openly ignored the subpoena summoning him or his legal counsel to the Georgia courtroom. The question this raises is whether the president is still subject to the laws of the land or whether he can simply ignore the legal process at his whim.
Secondly, the mass media has shown a clear reluctance to lend any degree of legitimacy to the issue, by refusing to cover it at all. This may be one of the strongest indicators yet of how the press increasingly exists to sell the agenda of the political class rather than informing the public. The questions around Obama’s birth citizenship could be examined thoroughly and objectively without creating a bully pulpit for the president’s detractors. But the silent treatment on the part of the press serves to raise more questions than it puts to rest.
There is far more important question that deserves serious consideration; what if both the president and the birthers are wrong?
From the standpoint of proper government, the president should be subject to the very same laws and legal protections as any American citizen. He is not a unitary executive who is permitted to act above or outside the law when he pleases. If a president’s policies include engaging in unjust wars, torturing or killing without due process or infringing upon liberty, those policies don’t become more or less legitimate based upon where he was born.
The birther movement appears to be straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The president’s birth citizenship issue is a classic example of technicalitarian thinking. This is the belief that the problem with government is that someone in a high position isn’t following a technicality of the written law. Where are the concerns about the real abuses of executive power listed above? These are actual policies and powers being claimed by the current administration, not just some magic loophole by which Obama got elected.
Suppose that the birthers were proven correct. Barack Obama was removed from the presidency. How would our national situation have changed? We’d still be a nation mired in debt and war. Government would still refuse to recognize constitutional limits on its powers. Our popular culture would remain a moral cesspool. Not one of these problems had their genesis in Obama. Not one of them would go away if he were removed from office on a technicality.
The bitter truth is that Barack Obama’s presidency is a result of, not the cause of, our societal decay. Those who are serious about correcting America’s problems would be best served to begin by fixing the person we see in the mirror.
The author has chosen to ignore that the real question is whether the “natural born citizen” requirements were met.
No, the real question is why did a free people willfully elect a communist, muslim, homosexual fascist tyrant upon itself?
Until that question can be answered, no other question even matters.
If the “natural born citizen” requirement is considered just a technicality, does that mean the U.S. Constitution just a compendium of technicalities?
The 2 are NOT the same.
Yes, yes it does...
Blame everyone except the Dem Party Liars. (ie Pelosi et al) The article is saying that societal decay did this. It was Fraud that brought this on. Yes society is decaying, but that did not elect this Quisling.
Public schools have been brainwashing children for decades. This is the end result. Astonishingly, from what I've seen, public schools seem to be doubling down....at least the ones that are still open.
You win and thank you for your post.
The first “Birther” was a Hillary Clinton activist.
The entire Birther argument requires Judicial Supremacy, in order to win.
Judicial Supremacy is a LIBERAL idea!
Violating the constitution is a ‘technical problem’?
The dummies still don’t see that this ‘technical problem’ is the cause of an anti-American, anti-constitution, Muslim with dual allegiance attacking USA from within!
This proves the keen insight of our founding fathers when they require ‘natural born citizen’ who has sole allegiance to USA to be our president/VP, to avoid invasion by foreigners (including people with ALLEGIANCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES)!
This is the most basic of the constitutional provision. When such a basic provision is violated, how can we uphold all the other provisions?
All those ills the author refers to come from violating the constitution - gov usurping power from the states and the people, legislating from the bench, taxation without representation, budget not balanced as required by the constitution......
It is true the constitution has been slowly dismantled. Letting a usurper thump his nose at article 2 nbc presidential requirement is the last straw!
Do you know what you are talking about?
There certainly is ‘judicial supremacy’ going on now on the issue of obama elig - The courts/judges are the ‘supreme’ powers qaushing every legitimate challenge for 4 years!
This manifest ‘judicial supremacy’ surely is a liberal idea!
He has divided loyalties to this country (if any loyalty at all). He bows to foreign leaders, some are our enemies. He thinks the U.S. is a MUSLIM nation. He has absolute contempt for Christians, who by the way founded this country. This IS a CHRISTIAN nation.
He has loyalties to Fascists, Communists, and Islamists. He fills his administration with them and supports them around the world at the expense of our traditional allies, like the UK & Israel.
I will oppose Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as fervently as I have Obama, if they run for president or vice president.
THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS.
Can't really contradict that; can only add that it has accelerated the decay.
The Courts, in the birther cases, are NOT willing to over rule Congress (for a change!)
Congress had full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of John McCain.
Congress has full Constitutional authority to determine the eligibility of Obama.
Congress determined that BOTH were eligible!
Bithers are asking the Courts to interfere -— Birthers are therefore supporting the idea of Judicial Supremacy, which is a very liberal idea. Do not forget that the first “Birthers” were PUMA Clinton activists!
BTW, Congress HAS restricted the authority of the Courts, in the past:
Because a significant fraction of the population is morally corrupt, miseducated, and either unable or unwilling to bear the strain of original, independent thought.
It's really quite as simple as that.
Even if 0bama had been proven in 2008 to be a native Kenyan, removing him from the election would simply have cleared the decks for Her Royal Thighness, President Hildebeeste I.
And you better believe she would have been just as bad as Zero has proven to be.
That and the overwhelming fact tha some 53% of us voted to fundamentally transform America. Obama wasn’t shy about telling us what he wanted to do and a good portion of the dissatisfaction with him is that he hasn’t gone far enough.
Sobering at the least.
Congress has NOT openly, bindingly ‘determined’ on constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate!
Congress has the authority to clarify what exactly natural born citizen is as intended by the founding fathers, but they have not done a thing about it!
Congress has tried many times to change the definition of nbc but failed every time!
A few senators, including obama and hillary, passed a non-binding resolution 511 in April 2007 to ‘resolve’ that McCain is a nbc elig to be president, because he was born overseas to 2 USA citizen parentS! But that does not overrule the original definition of nbc as intended by the founders.
Congress has NOT addressed the obama elig question at all, much less ‘determined’ that obama is elig!! Get the facts!
On the contrary, the Dems passed resolution 511 for McCain to compromise him and the Republicans so they are not at liberty to challenge obama’s elig!
The supreme court is taking a pass (Clarence Thomas hinted so) on this issue, not because they are not willing to overrule congress (there is nothing to overrule!) , but because they would rather not be responsible for ousting obama!
GET THE FACTS!
The article’s author brings forth a false premise presuming that the court case in GA would result in removing Obama from office. The case was/is about his eligibility to appear on the 2012 GA election ballot. The states and not the federal government are the final arbiters of who may be included on their ballots. (He could, in theory, be removed from office, but that’s not likely to happen, even if he were found to not be an NBC.)
As for the “where would that leave us” question, I submit that a free-market approach to energy, education and many other areas, as espoused by many here on FR, would go a long way toward eliminating debt and lifting us out of our economic malaise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.