An end to fringe mainstreaming?

posted at 12:29 pm on September 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

For every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction — except in politics, where the reaction usually outstrips the action.  With the resignation of Van Jones for his 9/11 Truther flirtations (his version) or outright advocacy (which the evidence indicates) and the humiliation of the traditional media deliberately leaving themselves and their consumers behind the New Media on the story, the reaction will come, but not soon.  Instead, we can expect the media to hold Republicans to the standards the conservative punditry imposed on Van Jones, and to be a lot more aggressive about it than they were with Jones himself.

What exactly does that mean?  In the next Republican administration, we can expect a great deal of scrutiny for Presidential advisers.  For one thing, it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt.  The two conspiracy theories are different, but they both are entirely speculative and imagine dark conspiracies at the highest orbits of power, and neither have any actual direct evidence for support.  Anyone who signed a Birther petition can expect to get bypassed for political appointments in a Republican White House with a halfway-decent vetting team, strictly on the basis of politics, in the wake of Jones’ resignation.

The media and the leftward parts of the New Media will get to work in the meantime on advisers and staffers of Republicans in Congress, and in the New Media itself.  They will use the Van Jones Standard to launch attacks on high-profile conservatives, looking for everything from John Birch Society membership to militias and Birtherism as well.  They have done this all along, but the Left and the media will find much more enthusiasm for these efforts in order to trade Van Jones’ scalp for one or more on the Right.

To some extent, this isn’t a bad trend.  The nation could improve with a little more disavowing of conspiracy theorists and political extremists, although they tend to degrade into very damaging witch hunts more often than not.  However, with the Democrats in charge of all the electoral organs of the federal government and the amateurish vetting at the White House, conservatives will have a much more target-rich environment than the Left for at least the next year.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

The question is a circumstance not considered by the founders — a person born a dual citizen.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM

That’s not true. The Founders were familiar with the concept of dual loyalties. They rejected the notion. It is clear, since they did not accept the notion of American dual citizens (the War of 1812 was, in good part, about just this notion), that any dual citizens were specifically excluded from the class of ‘natural born citizens’ when they wrote it. It was only later that the US accepted the idea of a new class of citizen, the American dual citizen. It doesn’t make any sense to assume that this new class was automatically included in the already defined class of ‘natural born citizens’.

It is impossible to know what the SCOTUS will rule on this, but the argument that dual citizens are not natural born is pretty straightforward and obvious.

Beyond that, the average person would probably be appalled by the idea that a dual citizen could be President. It just offends the senses, and everyone knows it.

The SCOTUS probably doesn’t have the guts or integrity to take the case (any of them) but they should. They can throw it for The Precedent if they want, anyway, to slime away from making the hard decision – and clearly the correct one. Then it would be up to us to introduce a Constitutional amendment redefining ‘natural born citizen’ to correct the situation.

But ignoring this, intentionally or otherwise, insures a great deal of harm to the system, which is not in great shape as things currently stand. It is encumbent on every generation to maintain the Republic and not allow the easy slide into democratic lawlessness. Too many prefer the easy way – closing their eyes and pretending that no problem exists.

progressoverpeace on September 7, 2009 at 2:50 AM

You must be. Or you wouldn’t have come here.

Cheshire Cat on September 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM

Well it is very hard whenever you’re here, so I do come a lot whenever you’re near. Getting into your Puss and hearing your purring is always arousing because you’re just so alluring.

Loxodonta on September 7, 2009 at 3:42 AM

My friend, you are a broken pencil: lacking a point.

MadisonConservative on September 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM

And my dear, you are like a fish out of water as all you do is flop aimlessly around.

MB4 on September 6, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Without the two of you, Hot Air would be like a fish without a pencil.

Loxodonta on September 7, 2009 at 7:23 AM

You know you have lost the relevancy battle with this happens,

You’re both morons. Settled!

crr6 on September 7, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Seriously, when you see this, it’s time to agree to disagree. It’s totally unacceptable for crr6 to be the rational voice on any thread.

Cindy Munford on September 7, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Might as well have called it “Dealing with the MSM 101″. Damn good teacher.

MadisonConservative on September 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM

So did the assignment prove that there is no MSM bias? It must have since you are so eager to be the Captain of the Shut Up Squad.

Cindy Munford on September 7, 2009 at 7:38 AM

For one thing, it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt.

Unless they turn out right! Just saying

jims on September 7, 2009 at 8:25 AM

the troll traffic will lessen as they flock to see Michael Moore new third class movie. don’t you know that they love this fat pig?

bluegrass on September 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM

The Other McCain, “Do We Need To Purge? I Don’t Think So.”

Ed,

Look just how far you keep going to vindicate your difference of opinion, to castigate if possible the very force of grassroots based upon your preference for tiff rather than the St. Augustine that’s established.

You don’t like the grassroots and wish to remake them in your own progressive image. That’s not how it works in the conservative movement that disapproves of the progressive Leftist “liberalism”.

maverick muse on September 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Too many prefer the easy way – closing their eyes and pretending that no problem exists.

progressoverpeace on September 7, 2009 at 2:50 AM

Yes, and they readily accept whatever so long as it provides a no conflict zone; thus, they present a following for personality cultists. A dime a dozen.

maverick muse on September 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM

maverick muse on September 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

It must be in the eye of the beholder because I don’t see Ed’s remarks as you do. Anyway, if he was really against differing view points, wouldn’t he ban them? I love your posts but I love his also.

Cindy Munford on September 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Yep; The Democrats and media are flat out trying to color, or write their own history; And they want to cut off dissention on radio, and the internet; When that happens, local newspapers will start circulating again with the TRUTH; And then there’s always short wave radio to get the TRUTH out; We can’t be stopped or silenced; THE TRUTH SHALL BE DISSEMINATED.

Cybergeezer on September 7, 2009 at 10:37 AM

They have done this all along, but the Left and the media will find much more enthusiasm for these efforts in order to trade Van Jones’ scalp for one or more on the Right.

Come and take it.

alliebobbitt on September 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM

So did the assignment prove that there is no MSM bias? It must have since you are so eager to be the Captain of the Shut Up Squad.

Cindy Munford on September 7, 2009 at 7:38 AM

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

MadisonConservative on September 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

he was patriotic enough to register for the draft at age 18.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 2:19 AM
>>>>

He didn’t. What was posted has been proven to be a forgery.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

That’s not true. The Founders were familiar with the concept of dual loyalties. They rejected the notion.

If the founders did not allow dual citizens, the term natural born citizen did not need to either exclude or include dual citizens. Thus, the term does not address the situation of dual citizenship, just like the 4th does not address wire taps on our phones.

dual citizens were specifically excluded from the class of ‘natural born citizens’ when they wrote it.

Well, shoot, if they were specifically excluded, just cite your source and we are done. The problem is that you cannot, because they were not specifically excluded, they were not specifically anything. That is why you are running around reading into statements made before or after ratification to lend context to the inherent ambiguity.

It was only later that the US accepted the idea of a new class of citizen, the American dual citizen.

Exactly, a new situation not considered by the founders…

It doesn’t make any sense to assume that this new class was automatically included in the already defined class of ‘natural born citizens’.

So say you. However, I imagine you are a small minority. Most people find this nativist provision of the Constitution to be unreasonable. There have been numerous proposals to amend this provision — all have loosened the restriction, not made it tighter. Public sentiment is more in favor of the possibility of a President Schwartzenegger than are against it. Thus, people think you are crazy for trying to exclude dual citizens too. (BTW I don’t think you are crazy. I think you are probably right, but that will not buy you a hearing before SCOTUS)

It is impossible to know what the SCOTUS will rule on this, but the argument that dual citizens are not natural born is pretty straightforward and obvious.

Yes, but it is not obviously correct.

Beyond that, the average person would probably be appalled by the idea that a dual citizen could be President. It just offends the senses, and everyone knows it.

You are just wrong on this. Most people would want to do away with this qualification all together. If the provision were in anyway ambiguous they would want in interpreted to be less restrictive, not more.

Like I said, I am sympathetic to your argument and if I was on SCOTUS, I think I would vote in your favor. However, I see it as a question of first impressions and reasonable minds could go either way. Given that, and the fact that the weight of public opinion is against you, I see no real chance of success. However, I will go down fighting to defending your right to argue this position as something other than a crazy racist conspiracy theory… You should moderate your opinion and accept it as an unanswered esoteric question of Constitutional Law which just coincidentally might have a dramatic impact on current politics. That will enhance your credibility immeasurably.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 11:16 AM

He didn’t. What was posted has been proven to be a forgery.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Uhhhh, no. The allegation of forgery has been proven to be a forgery. Don’t believe everything you read on the internets.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Uhhhh, no. The allegation of forgery has been proven to be a forgery. Don’t believe everything you read on the internets.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Whaaaaat? Debbie Schlussel is NEVER wrong!

MadisonConservative on September 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

<blockquote<No, he was a NATIVE BORN citizen if born on American Soil…. and a Natural Born Citizen if born on American soil, of US Citizen Parents.

Or at least that is the definition that the Founders, and the guy who wrote the 14th amendment had.

Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:38 AM

You’ve just introduced another term, NATIVE BORN, which I don’t find in any law. You are now tossing red herrings. Sadao Munemori was a natural-born American citizen. I certainly feel so, and you, given your statements that the Supreme Court has yet to rule, cannot prove me wrong.

unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM

How can an allegation of a forgery be proven to be a forgery? Are you saying that what was posted on the internet is not what was actually received through the FOIA request – that the person who requested it lied? If so, can you give me a link that shows the real document received through a FOIA request?

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM

he was patriotic enough to register for the draft at age 18.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 2:19 AM

He didn’t. What was posted has been proven to be a forgery.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Uhhhh, no. The allegation of forgery has been proven to be a forgery. Don’t believe everything you read on the internets.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Unless, of course, Bob Owens of Pajama’s Media is also part of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

And please note the first comment to this article:

It doesn’t matter if he (hussian obama ) is not ineligible, he’s unqualified.

With some, it doesn’t matter which of the many rumors is proven wrong, there’s always something else that “proves” he’s unqualified.

Also, tommylotto: The fact the Obama registered for the draft says nothing about whether he was “patriotic” now or then, but merely that he was obeying the law at the time.

Loxodonta on September 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

The Bob Owens article was from Aug 18, 2008. I believe that is before the FOIA request was made and fulfilled. The forgery itself came from the selective service office, so Bob Owens having the SS confirm that he registered doesn’t mean a thing, if it’s based on a document they themselves forged.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The last activity on Obama’s selective service form was 9-4-08, 2 weeks and one day after Bob Owens posted that he had been given Obama’s registration number. Stephen Coffman’s FOIA request was made on Oct 13, 2008. He was sent a form that they printed out on Sept 9, 2008 – 5 days after some kind of change had been made to the document.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The selective service number that was given to Bob Owens around Aug 18, 2008 doesn’t show anywhere on the forms the SS administration printed 3 weeks later and sent to Stephen Coffman in November of 2008. The SS administration did know that Coffman was investigating the issue early in 2008.

The last activity on the form was 09-04-08 but the form claims that the original registration was done on 09-04 of 1980 – the exact same digits as the day they “revised” it except for the 0 and the 8 being reversed.

This information is included in Orly Taitz’ dossiers filed in the legal cases. I’ve looked all over the internet to find anybody who says Coffman’s FOIA documents that Orly submitted to the court are forgeries and can’t find anything. I’d be very interested to see your documentation, tommylotto.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:31 PM

The question is a circumstance not considered by the founders — a person born a dual citizen. There is no authority on this question

I think it was. Again, “dual citizenship” with Britain in 1783 would have meant accepting personal fealty to King George III – how is that compatible with an oath of office under the Constitution? The explicit constitutional ban on all titles is particularly telling, as is the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Act in 1803.

Chris_Balsz on September 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Ed,

I miss your point about the Van Jones incident will exacerbate the leftist media’s scrutiny of Presidential advisors…I think we can go all the way back to Watergate to see the level of scrutiny and derision that will be cast on all things Republican by our MSM…They brought down Nixon, the man who ended the Vietnam War opened up China and began an era of detente with the Soviets…For what? An amateurish break-in of Democratic campaign headquarters. It reads like a college fraternity prank and my god, they brought down a great President…Fast forward to 2004. I will never forget the entire White House press corps picking through President Bush’s pay records from 1973 trying to “uncover” the AWOL smoking gun. Again, I don’t get your point about how media scrutiny will increase for Republicans? They have been playing dirty pool for decades already.

Nozzle on September 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM

What is at work here, I suspect, is that those[faux conservatives] who travel in intellectual circles — where the influence of liberal academia is pervasive –almost inevitably become intimidated by the prestige-claims of liberalism. . . [Those self styled] “conservatives” whose two basic instincts are cringe and flinch. — the other McCain

MIDDLE OF THE TARGET!

And as long as the “cringe and flinch” wing aka Frum, Brooks, and their weak-knee associates are allowed to continue with their charade, the GOP will continue to be the toothless tiger that John McCain presented during the last electoral circus.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I have to say that the newspaper clippings of the birth announcement convinced me that he was in fact born in Hawaii.
Dollayo on September 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I find it rather odd that an announcement was made in the newspaper for a birth resulting from the shotgun wedding of a nineteen year old schoolgirl and a Kenyan national. The Kenyan happened to have been a polygamist, hmmmh…And, according to Wiki both families were against the marriage. So, call me stupid but doesn’t sound like your normal happy birth announcement to me…Doesn’t prove much to me.

Nozzle on September 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Sadao Munemori was a natural-born American citizen. I certainly feel so

Typical unclesmrgol.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Sure was a good thing when some Republicans started ‘disavowing’ McCarthy. I don’t see the media taking the Jones route, they work too hard to whitewash the things people might learn mixed in with some of the non-sense out there.

numbeddown on September 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Trust me, I have read up on this issue just as much if not more than you, and certainly with a less biased mind.

Well, I don’t trust you. I think you’re talking out of your ass.

I am sympathetic to your theory, but that is all that it is — a theory.

The birth certificate issue is a theory. What I’m talking about is a straight up legal matter.

There is no authority for the proposition that someone born a citizen is not natural born.

Really? Here’s a chart showing the varies “types” of citizenship as outlined by the Constitution. Clearly there has always been a distinction between a “natural born citizen” and various other citizens.

We see this clearly, for example, in the

Wong Kim Ark case.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

Donofrio writes:

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

- he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

So this is definite court precedent indicating that there is indeed a difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.”

Furthermore — and the following is most damning to your errant claim — the original framers themselves saw a difference. On June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton submitted the following draft concerning Presidential requirement:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

Five weeks later John Jay wrote Washington to suggest that, in order to more strongly deter Presidential foreign influence, the natural born requirement should be added:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

So if there really is “no authority for the proposition that someone born a citizen is not natural born” as you claim, why wasn’t Hamilton’s original draft sufficient? Why did Jay object to it and insist that, in order to “provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government” the language “natural born” should be added?

We know that a sole US citizen born on US soil is natural born.

Not according to the Laws of Nations, the definition the Founders relied upon:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

So your claims are bunk.

You must maintain that natural born citizen means something other than citizen at birth, but that is just speculation.

I have just demonstrated above that the fact that there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” is rooted in far more than mere “speculation.” But of course you can believe whatever you want to believe. It’s never stopped the liberals.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 4:10 PM

I agree Ed Morrisey.

That doesnt mean that Britherism shouldnt go ahead full steam, by folks are not likely to get Republican appointments, or be operatives in the government.

And Id like to see all these documents that have been sealed away from public scrutiny, strangely enough, unlike previous presidents. Heh?

EscapeVelocity on September 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I think it was. Again, “dual citizenship” with Britain in 1783 would have meant accepting personal fealty to King George III – how is that compatible with an oath of office under the Constitution? The explicit constitutional ban on all titles is particularly telling, as is the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Act in 1803.

Chris_Balsz on September 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Tommy wants us to believe that the Founders would have had no problem whatsoever with dual citizens subject to foreign influence holding the POTUS. Yet this is clearly nonsense, as the Founders were very much weary of foreign influence. Take Washington, for example:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

If this doesn’t show clearly that Washington was no fan of dual citizenship (especially when applied to the POTUS), nothing does.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 4:22 PM

I am not a Birther and never have been. But I question the wisdom of equating a credentialing challenge to a President with one that posits that the President deliberately permitted the murder of thousands of Americans. We are talking apples and oranges here, and the assertion that they are the same fruit is absurd on the face of it.

People believe in ghosts, angels, and ufos. Irrationality is not the same as implied extreme malice. Birthers and Truthers are not an equivalent phenomenon.

DaMav on September 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM

It could get interesting come 2012 when the states have their respective primaries. Which will be the first to demand a long form BC before allowing the candidates name to be place on the ballot?

ConservativeTony on September 7, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Ed,

For the most part I prefer your posts to AP’s. Having said that, get off your high horse! Declaring us birthers to be irrational, lacking of any evidence, and therefore unfit for public office is somehow worthy of your scorn because, check this, the state run media is going to work overtime to expose our birtherism.
Ed, the lame-stream/old/lost/former/state run media can take jump in the lake. They DO NOT have any affect on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Ed, I believe Barry Dunham is not eligible to hold the office of President. In my mind, there are exactly three questions for his eligibility.

1) Where was he born? I have a birth certificate. I have provided the true and certified copy of it to federal officials on several occasions.
2) Who has standing to bring a case in federal court challenging Barry Dunham’s citizenship? If in fact he was born abroad, he is a british citizen, as his father was a subject of the british crown when little Barry was born.
3) What passport did the adult Barak Obama use when he was ‘visiting’ relatives in Pakistan? As a US citizen travelling on a US passport, Barak Obama would not be able to legally travel to Pakistan in 2002, as that country was interdicted at the time. If Barry Soetoro, formerly of Indonesia used his Indonesian passport then Barak Obama denied his citizenship and committed several federal crimes by travelling under an assumed name on a foreign passport.

Further Ed, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution against All enemies Foreign and Domestic. There was no expiration date on my oath. I find your juvenile arguments to be obnoxious and unwarranted.

NEVER AGAIN!

Blacksmith8 on September 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Soooooooooooo, does this mean that Michael Moore will no longer be given a seat of honor next to former presidents at the Democratic National Convention?

Does this mean Democratic candidates will no longer be speaking at the DailyKos Convention?

Riiiiiight.

Special K on September 7, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Typical unclesmrgol.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM

OK, since you think that my feelings do not match the law, present proof that this particular Medal of Honor winner is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 8:21 PM

And that’s precisely the problem. There’s no way this guy is eligible to be president.

justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM

I disagree, and the courts are on my side. The birthers couldn’t even get a judge to certify for trial.

unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Unclesmrgol, the judges all agreed** that it’s none of anybody’s business if the leader of the free world is eligible for the position.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly. If the stealing of our nation is not our business, then what can ever be our business? How can government belong to the people if it’s none of our business if we have no eligible, legal president?

If you are on the side of the courts thus far it doesn’t speak well of you at all, because the answer of “None of your business” is the only thing the judges have ever said on this issue.

**Except Judge Carter, whose hearing will be tomorrow, and the judge in Kerchner v Obama, who has gone beyond two deadlines already in deciding whether the case should be pursued. He had already given extra time for the defendants to get good legal representation because they were facing very serious charges.

justincase on September 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Those are all good arguments, and ones that I tend to agree with, but I recognize that they are mere arguments in a close legal question. Here is some additional reading for you. You see, many very smart well read people think that the term natural born citizen just means anyone who is a citizen at the time of birth. There is no definitive authority that can disabuse someone of that common sense interpretation. You are relying on nuance that runs counter to the common sense of the modern reader of the Constitution.

Like I have said, I tend to agree with you. However, I refuse to make a definitive pronouncement. And you should too. You will seem more reasonable. Just ask the valid legal question and present your valid arguments, but recognize that the phrase is open to other interpretations.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Asking that to show satisfaction of the U.S. Constitution’s requirements for someone to be POTUS, Obama do the same thing that John McCain did and produce his original birth certificate and hospital records is NOT fringe stuff.

Phil Byler on September 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Look. Even if Obama were born on the freakin’ moon, now, at this moment (and actually at any moment past his January inauguration IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The man is the President of the United States. A dirty socialist, sure, but President he is.

Get over it, and do better in 2012, is all I’m saying.

Serr8d on September 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Here is some additional reading for you.

There is a lot there, and quite frankly I don’t know what you expect me to get from it. If you want me to read something in particular, please point it out. Most of those cases I am already familiar with. All I really see are arguments for plain “citizenship,” not “natural born” citizenship. And as I have already demonstrated, the two are not the same.

Like I have said, I tend to agree with you. However, I refuse to make a definitive pronouncement. And you should too. You will seem more reasonable.

Look, I appreciate the advice, but I’ve seen enough to know that I’m right about this. That doesn’t mean anything is settled, of course — the SCOTUS needs to rule on this. But I am certain that the Founders’ intent was that only persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens shall be eligible to hold the office of the POTUS per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Just ask the valid legal question and present your valid arguments, but recognize that the phrase is open to other interpretations.

tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Only if you’re a relativist and don’t believe there’s any absolute interpretation.

Anything is open to any kind of interpretation if you ask the right person. Look what the liberal activists have tried to do (and have done) to the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments, to name but a few examples. I’m not interested in being tolerant of wrong-headed “interpretations” of this particular section of the Constitution anymore than I am in being open to interpretation twisting in the 2nd Amendment. Neither should you.

Again, the courts need to rule on this. That’s their job. But I am fully confident that if they do their job right, they’ll come down on my side of the fence. Whether we can expect solid, Constitutional Supreme Court decisions on an issue this big in a day and age of rampant bench legislating and liberal judicial activism is another matter. I am at least confident in Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Where ever the others fall, who knows.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Look. Even if Obama were born on the freakin’ moon, now, at this moment (and actually at any moment past his January inauguration IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Says the defeatist who doesn’t care all that much about the Constitution.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:17 PM

OK, since you think that my feelings do not match the law, present proof that this particular Medal of Honor winner is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 8:21 PM

1. Why does it matter? Was he ever the President of the United States? No? Then who cares.

2. I don’t have all of the information I need. Certainly he was a citizen, but whether or not he was natural born depends upon whether or not his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Were they? I’ve had trouble digging up that information. Maybe you’ll have better luck.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Says the defeatist who doesn’t care all that much about the Constitution.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Listen, ya loon, Obama was inaugurated. What would you do if you could prove (and you can’t) that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else? Are you going to call for his impeachment, or his removal from office? Do you realize that we would have Civil War II?

If we learn anything from this, it is that we must vet the Media. There’s where the ‘birth’ of our failure is; there’s the problem with this country. We’ve lost the media to the Left.

Serr8d on September 7, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Listen, ya loon, Obama was inaugurated. What would you do if you could prove (and you can’t) that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else?

Listen, ya idiot, why do you think my aim is to prove Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere else other than Hawaii for that matter? Oh, I know, because you’re one of those ignorant morons who doesn’t know that there are two very different controversies raging here, one over where he was born (that being more of a conspiracy theory), and one concerning his constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS (a legitimate legal matter).

I’m not a “birther.” For all I care he was born in Michigan. There’s far more to this than his place of birth. You’d know that if you had simply taken the time to do a bit of research.

Are you going to call for his impeachment, or his removal from office? Do you realize that we would have Civil War II?

What are you saying? That the extent of our pursuit of the truth and defense of our Constitution depends upon the reaction we expect to receive from the Left? That’s pretty cowardly and unprincipled.

“I know the Marxist revolutionaries are trampling all over our Constitution and tearing it to shreds, but we shouldn’t say or do anything about it because if we do they very well may get mad and riot!” Yeah, better to just keep quiet and let them have their way…

*rolls eyes*

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Serr8d on September 7, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Here. Educate yourself. Or shut up.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM

forgery has been proven to be a forgery

I’m confused…

Hammie on September 8, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Look. Even if Obama were born on the freakin’ moon, now, at this moment (and actually at any moment past his January inauguration IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The man is the President of the United States. A dirty socialist, sure, but President he is.

Get over it, and do better in 2012, is all I’m saying.

If this is true, then the our current government is nugatory and it’s time to go East and push the entire District of Columbia (at least all the legislators there) into the ocean and start a new Constitutional Congress to rebuild this country in the eyes of our founding fathers. I want to start with the 12th Amendment – The election of our President and Vice President is supposed to be two separate ballot votes.

Hammie on September 8, 2009 at 12:43 AM

The 800# Guerrila…

NO COURT will find that the first black president of the U.S. is unqualified after having been elected to the office by 90% of black voters. Furthermore, no Democrat controlled Congress will recall him either — unless incontrovertible evidence is discovered that is so damaging, that spillover from failing to impeach, would negate an incumbents chances for re-election.

Barring major miracles, our best hope (prayer) is that the Blue Dogs have a non-Obama epiphany after seeing their constituents mobilizing against them. Such short-term rebalancing of power may provide a temporary holding action against the ultra-Left-wing machine’s scorched earth agenda. Hopefully, the dawgs paw in the dike will hold until a more permanent shift to the conservative right is affected in the 2010 election cycle. In prayer, passing the ammo…

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM

News commentators and Internet bloggers invented the word “birther” as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility

Therefore, those who oppose “birthers” must be “Frauders”

Hammie on September 8, 2009 at 12:57 AM

. . .Educate yourself. . .

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Thank You,
and a respectful salute too 2Brave2Bscared!
For taking the time and effort, to layout the legal
issues in such a patient, concise, and coherent manner.

Also,
am now enjoying the writings and links on your web pages.

http://amnation.com/vf

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM

This is a great post Ed. I didn’t read it until now. But yeah, I pray and wish to god that these idiot “birfers” would all fall into a black hole. But I don’t blame the plebeians, I place the blame on the fink demagogues like Orly Taitz and World Nut Daily. I like the fact that I can make fun of Truthers, code pink, and barney frank. But when the libs rebut with Birfers, glenn beck, and that crypto-nazi Ron paul–then I’m beat with tu quoque.

But will the pseudo-racists and devoid-of-reality right-wing southern hillbillies believe that Barry was indeed born in hawaii and that both his parents don’t need to be US citizens—probably not.

So thanks birfers for making conservative look like fools.

EMR on September 8, 2009 at 5:08 AM

Let’s see now, a birther says we haven’t seen anything but a fake internet copy of a birth certificate, being reasonably necessary for legitimate occupation of the Whitehouse, while a truther says the most horrible evil a man could do -in a sense -worse than treason, conspire somehow to destroy your own people and property in an aggressive act of war.

The fact that there is no proof of either, does not result in equally evil accusations or potential wrongs, any more than finding a buck on the bank floor and pocketing it equates to blowing the safe open with dynamite.

The game of finding any common variable and then calling things identical needs to be confronted -and the person saying such need to be brought down along with the deceit.

Don L on September 8, 2009 at 5:55 AM

In the next Republican administration, we can expect a great deal of scrutiny for Presidential advisers. For one thing, it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt. The two conspiracy theories are different, but they both are entirely speculative and imagine dark conspiracies at the highest orbits of power,

It’s too late to try to participate here (nine pages of comments, haven’t read them)…

BUT, allow me to at least add this declaration: the “Birthers” are not conspiracy-theorists, nor does the issue of Barack Obama’s Constitutional qualifications or lack thereof for the Presidency exist in any “conspiracy theory” or debate about theories of a conspiratorial nature.

It’s just a case of qualifications, as yet unsubstantiated.

Lourdes on September 8, 2009 at 8:44 AM

Anyone who signed a Birther petition can expect to get bypassed for political appointments in a Republican White House with a halfway-decent vetting team, strictly on the basis of politics, in the wake of Jones’ resignation.

You can’t be serious.

Lourdes on September 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM

Obama and his team are enjoying this “controversy” for they know it drives Conversative/Republican base batsh*t.

To bad, Obama cannot “man up” and produce the documentation like every other POTUS before him. What a jackass.

Gee…isn’t Obama “cool” (sarcasm turned way off)

SmallGovtGuy on September 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, these birthers are nuts…It’s not like our President was born to a father who was an alien from Kenya named Barack Hussein Obama. Who happened to have been a polygamist at the time he married a nineteen year old schoolgirl in Hawaii. And, the mother quickly moved out of Hawaii and later lived and worked in Indonesia while the father eventually went back to Kenya, saw his son only once and now all the principals are dead…I couldn’t imagine that a problem with a birth certificate could arise from this situation. Wait a minute!!!!!

Nozzle on September 8, 2009 at 3:31 PM

I got another one for all you brain pilots out there who think that Obama’s background doesn’t matter, and that we have bigger fish to fry. And a message for those of you at Hot Air who like to color well within the approved lines, we’re not going to provide any hard evidence here. We’re just going to promote thinking.

• Question with boldness

• Hold to the truth

• Speak without fear

Here honey, hold my beer. Watch this…

http://radiopatriot.blogspot.com/2009/09/question-with-boldness.html

Radiopatriot on September 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I’ll admit,

I’m a “truther”

I want to know the truth of what’s contained on Barry’s Birth Certificate.

franksalterego on September 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Glenn Beck is about to EXPOSE something & people are going to JAIL this week.

Glenn Beck & Brian Kilmeade on today’s Fox & Friends:
.
BK: Tell us about this week.
.
GB: This week… by the end of the week you will see that something that everybody feels in their gut is wrong, but nobody has really exposed it, is going to be exposed this week. And you will see by the end of the week that people will go to jail. We’re sitting on, what’s happening in this country right now, I’ve said this for awhile, I believe, is one of the most important stories in American history. You’re going to see the beginning of it and people will go to jail.”

NightmareOnKStreet on September 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM

1. Why does it matter? Was he ever the President of the United States? No? Then who cares.

2. I don’t have all of the information I need. Certainly he was a citizen, but whether or not he was natural born depends upon whether or not his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Were they? I’ve had trouble digging up that information. Maybe you’ll have better luck.

2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Typical 2Scared2Bbrave — uh, 2Brave2Bscared.

1. I care, because Munemori’s situation is even worse than Obamas — he’s got two noncitizen parents, but he was born in Los Angeles. A poster child for natural-born-ness if I ever saw one.

His parents arrived during the time of the Alien Exclusion Acts, and as Japanese would not have been permitted to apply for citizenship. It wasn’t until the Magnuson Act in 1943 that this restriction was overturned.

2. My definition of natural-born derives from the 1790 immigration act, which is the only use of the term “natural-born” in American law:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted as a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

The meaning of “as natural born” is quite clear. It means that such individuals will be treated as if they had been born on American soil. Hence, my feelings are borne out by the only piece of legislation in our country’s history (other than the Constitution) to mention the term.

Of course, the 1790 act restricted those who could be “natural-born” to being free white (not indentured or a person of color), restrictions which stood in later legislation until removed by the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

unclesmrgol on September 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM

My definition of natural-born derives from the 1790 immigration act, which is the only use of the term “natural-born” in American law:

unclesmrgol on September 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Oh, you mean the same act that was five years later repealed? You’re an idiot.

Five years later, Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795. The wording of the 1795 Act was essentially the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizens” was deleted and replaced with “citizens”.

Thereafter, Congress has passed laws that convey American citizenship to certain people at birth, but Congress never again passed any law that explicitly clarified, defined or extended the meaning of natural born citizenship. Senate Bill S.2128 was supposed to define “natural born citizen”, but it was never enacted. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in 2004, where it has remained ever since. In 2008, the Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding Presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

2Brave2Bscared on October 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9