State Screen
Email This Post
Print This Post
Battles over Obama’s birth won’t abate.
(Quick note to Barry: I can put a halt to this issue. Send me two notarized documents, one that allows me to review government documents in Hawaii related to your birth, and the other allowing me to review any record at public/private facility in which you were born. I may dislike your policies, but I will report faithfully to the people what I find.)
It was an odd moment in American history whereby one became ineligible for the highest office if they were not whelped on U.S. soil (later amended). Hence the hell people have raised over Obama’s location of delivery. Were it proven that Obama was not born in a U.S. state or territory, then he would be automatically disqualified for office.
Obama has not helped his own case. The evidence presented and analyzed to date has a number of possible inequities and some methodological insufficiencies. For those who think Obama is ineligible, nothing short of opening Hawaii’s records vaults will suffice. Before he was elected, a Pennsylvania lawyer (and a Democrat at that) went to court to challenge Barack’s birth, but was told that as a citizen he did not have “standing.” For laymen this means the court did not believe that The People had the power to challenge the qualification of a candidate, a ruling that is clearly inane and which sadly reflects the shabby state of American jurisprudence.
Which begs the interesting constitutional law question “Who does possess the power to challenge a candidate’s eligibility?”
Aside from The People, all that remains is politics. Congress certainly could not be the source of qualification challenges since whatever party is in power would control the decision to seek redress. This removes control over the country from people and to parties, which have a vested interest in keeping and growing their power. Thus, if The People and congress are disallowed or inappropriate sanctioners of suitability, who does have the power and authority to keep ineligible individuals from induction?
Seems like the states will have a go at it.
Arizona, which is pushing states rights in a way unseen in a century, may well enact a law that requires any presidential candidate to prove their eligibility in advance of an election. Much like being required to show your ID at a polling place before voting, the goal is to assure that a candidate has the right to hold office before having the state spend a dime to include his name on a ballot. By establishing a process in advance, and one designed to avoid partisan manipulation, a states-rights barrier is being erected. Since each state is authorized to conduct elections as they see fit, this is a viable alternative to ex post facto objections.
It also sets-up the inevitable and interesting legal challenge.
The federal courts will be in a bind. Since Congress is clearly inappropriate for challenging qualifications of candidates, and since the courts have already declared The People to lack standing to do the same, that leaves only the states as a destination for dispute. To invalidate states’ claims to that authority would effectively mean that nobody has the power to challenge a candidate’s credentials, which in turn would open the office of president to shenanigans (well, more so than normal).
I’m demur on the scope and precision of the Arizona initiative. It may or may not be well drafted. But I support its enactment so this aspect of constitutional law can be vetted. After all, transparency helps to reassure The People and renew faith in their government.
(Quick note to Barry: My offer stands. Send me two notarized documents, one that allows me to review government documents in Hawaii related to your birth, and the other allowing me to review records at any public/private facility in which you were born. I will faithfully report to the people what I find.)
Comments