Jon Meacham: Let’s undo the Birther “horror” by repealing the natural-born citizen clause

posted at 10:16 pm on April 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

In case you were wondering what the guy who used to edit Newsweek is up to these days, wonder no longer. I agree with him about the natural-born requirement, incidentally: It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution, especially in light of the original intent he describes. But … “horror”? Are the delicate flowers who populate PBS’s viewership so delicate that they recoil at the very idea of The One being asked to show his birth certificate? The beginning here sounds like a parody of bien-pensant liberalism — almost physical revulsion at what’s not only a minor thoughtcrime, but one rejected by all major Republican candidates except Trump (who isn’t really a major Republican candidate). Good lord, man. Get a hold of yourself.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.


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 2 3 4

2024: Turkish born U.S. President orders US troops into Israel. Need I say more?

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:16 PM

“Dismantling” the Constitution? No, I didn’t say that. That’s you hysterically overreacting to my claim that the natural-born clause is antiquated. If you have an argument for why it should be retained, make it.

Allahpundit on April 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM

No. Your post. Your statement. Back it up in your own words.

Connie on April 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

So what does happen if the Congress passes a resolution making Obama… a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States?

Nothing. They did the same for McCain, and it had no effect in law. To amend the US Constitution, you need approval of an amendment by 2/3 majorities of both the House and Senate, and then ratifcation by 38 states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Nothing. They did the same for McCain, and it had no effect in law. To amend the US Constitution, you need approval of an amendment by 2/3 majorities of both the House and Senate, and then ratifcation by 38 states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Couldn’t they then attempt to proceed as if it was settled law as the section (natural born) is question hasn’t gone before the supreme court?

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:20 PM

AP, the burden is on you – as it should be on anybody making a similar suggestion – to make the case that a part of the Constitution should be repealed. The burden is not on those with an opposing view to make the case that it shouldn’t.

“It’s antiquated” simply isn’t sufficient reason, any more than “it’s antiquated” is sufficient reason to repeal any of the amendments that were passed before, say, the turn of the 20th century.

greggriffith on April 15, 2011 at 11:20 PM

null and void.
Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Beautiful words that actually convey true meaning w/o interpretation or (god forbid) nuance!

dmann on April 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Anchor Babies

redridinghood on April 15, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Panic in the progressive ranks, about Arizona and soon a bunch of states actually making it necessary to prove “natural born” citizenship.

So much for the meme that Soetoro has a birth certificate, he was just provoking “birthers” by withholding it. It’s getting pretty obvious he simply will not release it no matter what, even if it costs him reelection.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM

If he DOES release it it could very likely cost him his freedom. A friend of mine pointed out a year ago that if he knowingly usurps the office of Presidency, and swears the oath of office, he has effectively committed treason. He would have by his “affirmative act” of taking the office that he KNOWS he’s not eligible for, INTENTIONALLY committed treason against the nation.

Yeah, i’m thinking he may not show that birth certificate no matter what he is threatened with. I likewise think some people in Hawaii and the DNC may be going to jail if that thing ever gets into the public eye.

I literally expect him to order Nuke strikes on the country before he releases anything which will put him in prison.

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:25 PM

“Dismantling” the Constitution? No, I didn’t say that. That’s you hysterically overreacting to my claim that the natural-born clause is antiquated. If you have an argument for why it should be retained, make it.
Allahpundit on April 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Without the NBC clause some covert anti-American could destroy the country by making it insolvent.

Basilsbest on April 15, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I’m in the military and I will never serve under a Commander in Chief thats isn’t a Natural Born Red Blooded American. I demand it, my family demands it, and everyone of my buddies demand it. But if you are willing because you think it’s “antiquated” then I offer you my rifle and canteen.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I don’t think Meacham’s suggesting that we should ignore the constitution. The constitution includes provisions for Amendments with good reason.

The focus on Obama’s birth certificate has probably reduced the chances of an Amendment allowing voters to choose a Foreign-Born President being passed in the immediate future, because the Birthers would claim that the real reason for such an amendment is to prevent anything Obama did from being voided.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:28 PM

So much for the meme that Soetoro has a birth certificate, he was just provoking “birthers” by withholding it. It’s getting pretty obvious he simply will not release it no matter what, even if it costs him reelection.Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Nemo dat quod non habet.

Basilsbest on April 15, 2011 at 11:29 PM

the Birthers would claim that the real reason for such an amendment is to prevent anything Obama did from being voided.
Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:28 PM

If Obama hasn’t proven the need for a NBC clause, nothing will.

Basilsbest on April 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM

2024: Turkish born U.S. President orders US troops into Israel. Need I say more?

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:16 PM

2025: The white far-left American President orders US troops into Israel. He won the 2024 election because Republicans were unable to nominate their best candidate: the Latvian-born Governor of North Carolina.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM

There are two reasons for providing proof of citizenship via a birth certificate; One, is age, the president must be at least 35, our current president acts like he is 25 or less, and two, there is no good reason to not have the requirement to be natural born.

Dasher on April 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM

For those who keep mentioning the “Arizona law” I saw an argument from a law school somebody that it’s probably going to be thrown out in court. Using the same argument states are relying on to repeal ObamaCare, he claimed. States rights or something – Hawaii says the “short form” is legal and Arizona cannot say it is not. He also made the point if it not thrown out then the gay couples married legally in Vermont or Massachusetts are going to appear in your state where gay marriage is not recognized and they sure as hell will be legally married in your state then.

Marcus on April 15, 2011 at 11:32 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:25 PM

My thought, backed by an awful lot of evidence, is that he was adopted and had his name legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”, with his birth certificate amended to that. Which would have made him guilty of felony perjury.

But treason – I think a very solid case could be made for that.

I agree, he’s not going to release his documents. He’ll fight it out in court, and when he loses he’ll simply not run for a second term. Even a single felony purjury conviction will hand him up to five years, treason would put his life on the line.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I agree, he’s not going to release his documents. He’ll fight it out in court, and when he loses he’ll simply not run for a second term. Even a single felony purjury conviction will hand him up to five years, treason would put his life on the line.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Obamacare was declared unconstitutional and he ignored that. Why wouldn’t he do the same for this?

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM

A poor argument because even the Latvian-born Governor of North Carolina would have no skin in the game.

I’m in the military and I will never serve under a Commander in Chief thats isn’t a Natural Born Red Blooded American. I demand it, my family demands it, and everyone of my buddies demand it. But if you are willing because you think it’s “antiquated” then I offer you my rifle and canteen.
Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:26 PM

But As i said before, I offer you my rifle and canteen.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:38 PM

You do not want a president of the USA who is not a real American, and natural born citizen insures that.

There is definitely something wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, when you spend millions to defend against a $40 charge.

tarpon on April 15, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart, huh?

kingsjester on April 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM

“A Republic. If you can keep it.”

Yeah, a lot smarter than most in government nowadays.

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Jon Meacham: Let’s undo the Birther “horror” by repealing the natural-born citizen clause

It’s not just about the birth certificate, it’s about ALL of his records.

disa on April 15, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Obamacare was declared unconstitutional and he ignored that. Why wouldn’t he do the same for this?

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Because he has no power to put his name on Arizona’s, or any other state’s, ballot.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:40 PM

That’s the dumbass who drove Newsweek into the ground, right?

Why would anyone listen to him, he’s a flipping moron.

OxyCon on April 15, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Yeah, and Allahpundit agrees with him. That ought to give us a clue.

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I’m in the military and I will never serve under a Commander in Chief thats isn’t a Natural Born Red Blooded American. I demand it, my family demands it, and everyone of my buddies demand it. But if you are willing because you think it’s “antiquated” then I offer you my rifle and canteen.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Sadly, for some people, life doesn’t exist beyond the East River, and the worst thing that can happen is that Starbucks is out of their favorite flavor. Some “conservatives” share these same values as liberals. In some areas…… there isn’t much difference. They lead small lives, haven’t traveled much, know little about their fellow Americans who they largely view as “the enemy” while they worry about illegals and guys like Nidal Hassan getting a fair shake.

They really have no sense of what this country is, who they are and who we are, and it probably makes sense that the whole Natural Born thingy seems a bit silly. What the hell? Isn’t there a film opening to attend? There’s always something more important for them. As long as they are entertained and can find some reason to feel superior to the rest of us life is good.

But keep doing the hard work, Amadeus, I’m sure they appreciate it. //

Cody1991 on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

The Trumpster is kwazy, yes, but it’s the kind of kwazy the Left fears & loathes: the tactical use of bullshit to tell the greater truth.

It’s right out of the Progressive Playbook; see the chapter on Ridicule and Alinsky, Saul

Bruno Strozek on April 15, 2011 at 10:34 PM

By Jove! I think he’s Got it!

The “birther” issue is humiliating for Obama. Laughter rocks the highest throne people.

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Riddle me this Batman, there are 350 plus million Americans, Why in Gods name would we need a foreign born leader.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

AP, the only way to change that section of the Consitution would be to hold a constitutional convention at which time all and everything in the document would be able to be changed. If you disagree with the content. Sorry. Move to a location which has one you like better. We would be a lot better off if our government followed it to the letter.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

If Obama can’t or won’t satisfy Arizona that he’s eligible, then he’s made himself unelectable in all the states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

I sincerely doubt it.

The Arizona law is flawed, requiring things that aren’t in the Constitution. Unless I missed the clause of the US Constitution declaring that in order to serve as President, a person has to know who his or her biological father is.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Couldn’t they then attempt to proceed as if it was settled law as the section (natural born) is question hasn’t gone before the supreme court?

The Constitution is law, until it’s amended. The Supreme Court can’t change it. Even the President has no role in amending the Constitution. It takes an amendment approved by 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate, plus ratification of it by 38 states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Dismantling” the Constitution? No, I didn’t say that. That’s you hysterically overreacting to my claim that the natural-born clause is antiquated. If you have an argument for why it should be retained, make it.

Allahpundit on April 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM

No, YOU need to make the argument that it’s antiquated.

disa on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Hypothetical:
A child is born in the US to two citizen parents. They divorce while the child is young, and the mother, who has custody, remarries a foreigner, and they live in that foreign country as citizens (perhaps dual) of that country. Once the child becomes an adult, he returns to the US, and chooses to relinquish the foreign citizenship. The child, now adult, is once again a US citizen. Is he eligible to be president once reaching the age of 35?

rslancer14 on April 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Well gee, its worked for us for over 200 years. I don’t see a need to change it.

reddevil on April 15, 2011 at 11:48 PM

2024: Turkish born U.S. President orders US troops into Israel. Need I say more? Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:16 PM

More relevant. 2007 BHO agitates for oil rich Iraq to be conceded to Al Qaeda and Iran. 2009 President BHO remains silent during anti-islamic theocracy uprising in Iran. 2011 President BHO supports removal of America ally Mubarek and deploys American military assets in support of al Qaeda backed rebels in Libya. 2009-2011 President BHO aggressively moves America towards insolvency.

Basilsbest on April 15, 2011 at 11:48 PM

I agree with him about the natural-born requirement, incidentally: It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution, especially in light of the original intent he describes.

Dude. You are wrong.

Kenosha Kid on April 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Antiquated…?

d1carter on April 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Hypothetical:

A child is born in the US to two citizen parents. They divorce while the child is young, and the mother, who has custody, remarries a foreigner, and they live in that foreign country as citizens (perhaps dual) of that country. Once the child becomes an adult, he returns to the US, and chooses to relinquish the foreign citizenship. The child, now adult, is once again a US citizen. Is he eligible to be president once reaching the age of 35?

rslancer14 on April 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM

How about this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956

People come here to give birth because they want one person in their family to have a citizenship claim.

Shall we consider any/all of them as presidential candidates because the Natural Born requirement is so outre?

Cody1991 on April 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM

I agree with him about the natural-born requirement, incidentally: It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution, especially in light of the original intent he describes.

LOL, Allah is so very close to pulling a Charles Johnson on us.

Daemonocracy on April 15, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Unless I missed the clause of the US Constitution declaring that in order to serve as President, a person has to know who his or her biological father is.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

The burden of eligibility is on the candidate to prove, not on the state to disprove.

The Constitution demands natural born citizenship, the candidate is obligated to produce the evidence to satisfy the state, or the state can deny access to their ballot.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Couldn’t they then attempt to proceed as if it was settled law as the section (natural born) is question hasn’t gone before the supreme court?

The Constitution is law, until it’s amended. The Supreme Court can’t change it. Even the President has no role in amending the Constitution. It takes an amendment approved by 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate, plus ratification of it by 38 states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Then why hasn’t Obama been required to prove his eligibility as called for in the constitution? The courts have avoided this question like the plague while claiming that no one has any legal standing.

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM

The many pluses of the nbc clause and disobedience of it:

Exposed possibility long form bc doesn’t exist.
Possibility it shows something Obama doesn’t want seen.
None of the above and refusal to release shows naked contempt.
Possibility ruling class knew and did nothing — reveals complicit bastards.
Father not a citizen — evidence of ruling class lawlessness.
Foundation for states to mount lawful resistance (Arizona).

Explanation of how this isn’t a fringe issue can only intensify it as the election approaches. The people were tricked the first time and continuing this charade nakedly will expose them further.

Tea Party should hold Congress accountable.

Feedie on April 15, 2011 at 11:54 PM

“Dismantling” the Constitution? No, I didn’t say that. That’s you hysterically overreacting to my claim that the natural-born clause is antiquated. If you have an argument for why it should be retained, make it.

Allahpundit on April 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM

You’re kidding right? I would argue that there hasn’t been a good Amendment to the Constitution since the first 10 except for this last one limiting Congressional pay. And THAT was wrote by the Founders 200 years ago!

Every attempt to screw with the founding document has made things worse. The 14th amendment had a noble purpose, but it was so badly written and so badly thought out that it is the main source of federal oppression today. It has justified things that none of it’s proponents would have even DREAMED about.

As for the Article II requirements; Need I point out that had they been followed we would not now have the current usurping “Destroyer in Chief?”

You may not see things as dire as I perceive them, but this man has stomped on the accelerator when the brake should have been used a long time ago. I fear a crash because we permitted a moron to drive the bus.

If we have a second great depression, it will not be so benign as the first. The people we have now are of much lower moral character and will resort to violence at the first disruption of their convenience.

I simply cannot write all the reasons why we should have adhered to the Article II requirements in just one message, and I am thinking that this is a topic that if the reasons are not obvious, they likely never will be.

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM

The courts have avoided this question like the plague while claiming that no one has any legal standing.

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Because t would look really bad if the first (half) Black President got lynched for Treason.

Kenosha Kid on April 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Unless I missed the clause of the US Constitution declaring that in order to serve as President, a person has to know who his or her biological father is.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

That’s more than likely one of BO’s problems. The other is that he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetero, given his name, and hasn’t legally changed it to BHO, jr. He’s a very lazy guy, and, you know, things just happen so fast.

Cody1991 on April 15, 2011 at 11:56 PM

LOL, Allah is so very close to pulling a Charles Johnson on us.

Daemonocracy on April 15, 2011 at 11:51 PM

or a Charlie Sheen

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Then why hasn’t Obama been required to prove his eligibility as called for in the constitution?

Because that would be racist.

The courts have avoided this question like the plague while claiming that no one has any legal standing.

The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–which is one of the courts one notch below the Supreme Court–has accepted a case and has scheduled oral arguments for May 2.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Anyone that thinks there shouldn’t be a NBC requirement for the President of the United States of America is a complete jackwagon. Allah, I love this site and generally most of what you write, and of course, I love the commenters, but your moronic statement really enraged me.

POTUS should not have or ever have had divided loyalties. That means born on US soil to US citizen parents. Exceptions made for those serving their countries in the military or embassies. Why would we need to look to foreigners to lead the freaking USA?!?! This isn’t the damn UN.

If you can’t see why we need a POTUS with sole, 100% loyalty to THIS DAMN COUNTRY and not some freaking foreign country, then I respectfully submit that you are either full of crap or you’ve lost your freaking mind.

God, I’m pissed.

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Riddle me this Batman, there are 350 plus million Americans, Why in Gods name would we need a foreign born leader.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

About 310 million, actually, but who’s counting? Certainly not Homeland Security. 20 or 30 million illegals here or there…What’s the difference? Such measures are antiquated anyway.

Django on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

“Hawaii says the “short form” is legal and Arizona cannot say it is not. He also made the point if it not thrown out then the gay couples married legally in Vermont or Massachusetts are going to appear in your state where gay marriage is not recognized and they sure as hell will be legally married in your state then.”
quoted from somebody up above. OK, say that happens. I heard this question, give me the argument against it. Say you live in Texas and the law is that you can openly carry a gun. Then you move to New York City, does that mean you can still openly carry a gun? If every state has to honor laws passed in other states, wouldn’t open carry laws come under this category? why not?

Redteam on April 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM

The birth certificate exists. The problem is that it states caucasion as race and unknown for father.

peacenprosperity on April 15, 2011 at 10:47 PM

A birth “record” exists. That much I’ll grant you. We do not know if it is a “certificate” or an “at home birth” affidavit.
If it is an “at home birth” affidavit signed by Madelyn Dunham, it’s total crap as proof.

It will quell no argument, but enrage it all the more.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Because t would look really bad if the first (half) Black President got lynched for Treason.

Kenosha Kid on April 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Now, now…. no need to be extreme. That won’t happen. We are, after all, the USA (at least for the next ten minutes).

We will buy Barry a country, give him an expensive send off and allow him to wreak havoc in a country where the UN will overlook his crimes. I still think Zimbabwe is the best choice. Rob. O. is getting old, and a replacement is due.

Cody1991 on April 16, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Riddle me this Batman, there are 350 plus million Americans, Why in Gods name would we need a foreign born leader.

Amadeus on April 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

I think you’re a troll or something, trying to make conservatives look bad, ready to go brag to your friends about how stupid Republicans are on some liberal website.

First, you insulted the military by suggesting that many will be deserters in the event a Foreign-born President were to be elected following a Constitutional Amendment.

Then, you say something objectively wrong about the number of Americans. The US population is currently estimated at a little over 300 million (without illegal aliens). And the number includes the tens of millions of citizens who immigrated legally.

Mister Mets on April 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM

First, Frederick Basiat would have been a better president than Benjamin Harrison.

Second, the clause was to prevent a Manchurian candidate. Well, it failed.

Third, why discriminate against naturalized citizens who may well understand Americanism better than many born here?

And, what about Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison? They were all British subjects! So there!

AshleyTKing on April 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM

God, I’m pissed.

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

I have to say it’s one of AP’s most “full of caca” statements. And the “hey, shut up, prove me wrong!” supporting follow-up ain’t so great either.

Django on April 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM

If Obama can’t or won’t satisfy Arizona that he’s eligible, then he’s made himself unelectable in all the states.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

THIS!

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:06 AM

I have to say it’s one of AP’s most “full of caca” statements. And the “hey, shut up, prove me wrong!” supporting follow-up ain’t so great either.

Django on April 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM

He went full retard on that one, for sure.

Rebar on April 16, 2011 at 12:08 AM

God, I’m pissed.

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Ditto, that. The stance HA has taken on this matter has always been dismissive and rather cheap, imho. It’s basically the line that many on the Right have taken as though they’re taking their cues from the MSM or they get the same talking points from the WH like Mika Z. Not exactly what one would consider to be hard-charging journalists or cutting edge.

I guess the threat of law suits trumps the search for truth regardless of the stakes.

Cody1991 on April 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM

The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–which is one of the courts one notch below the Supreme Court–has accepted a case and has scheduled oral arguments for May 2.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Reading that article didn’t exactly inspire me with confidence about the chances of anything coming out of that court case.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Then, you say something objectively wrong about the number of Americans. The US population is currently estimated at a little over 300 million (without illegal aliens). And the number includes the tens of millions of citizens who immigrated legally.

Mister Mets on April 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Aren’t you just the parsing little squish?

darwin-t on April 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM

I figure it’s got “unknown” for father….

‘Cause he’s been acting like a narcissistic bastard since first elected to office in Chicago, and it would be ironic to find he actually is one.

cthulhu on April 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM

It would be interesting to know if AP has a particular non-natural born American in mind for POTUS.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:13 AM

For those who keep mentioning the “Arizona law” I saw an argument from a law school somebody that it’s probably going to be thrown out in court. Using the same argument states are relying on to repeal ObamaCare, he claimed. States rights or something – Hawaii says the “short form” is legal and Arizona cannot say it is not. He also made the point if it not thrown out then the gay couples married legally in Vermont or Massachusetts are going to appear in your state where gay marriage is not recognized and they sure as hell will be legally married in your state then.

Marcus on April 15, 2011 at 11:32 PM

You are talking about the full faith and credit clause. Well States passing laws for the purpose of Article II pits that part of the Constitution against the other. Arizona state law WILL be complied with by ARIZONA state employees till a Federal judge says otherwise.

Should it get to court, it is quite likely to be argued that producing an original document is hardly a burden, and it will be a hard argument to make claiming otherwise.

I think the publicity of fighting it would kill his chances as surely as refusing to produce it.

I don’t see a losing scenario on this.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Trump’s gumshoes in Hawai’i are probably also looking into other things as well, not just the Birth Certificate. That’s what has the Democrats worried.

Del Dolemonte on April 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM

God, I’m pissed.

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

With ya. Surprised? No. But with ya.

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM

My thought, backed by an awful lot of evidence, is that he was adopted and had his name legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”, with his birth certificate amended to that. Which would have made him guilty of felony perjury.

I think what you say may be true, but I think it goes beyond that. I suspect he was born in the Free Hospital in Vancouver Canada. I also suspect he is not related to Barack Obama at all, but is more likely the son of Frank Davis.

But treason – I think a very solid case could be made for that.

It is ironic that in the case of someone ineligible, to take the oath is to violate it.

I agree, he’s not going to release his documents. He’ll fight it out in court, and when he loses he’ll simply not run for a second term. Even a single felony purjury conviction will hand him up to five years, treason would put his life on the line.

Rebar on April 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

He’s already surrendered his law license. (To avoid a disbarment hearing.) His fall would be meteoric. We may all be so desperate for food by then that we won’t be paying all that much attention to his miseries.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:18 AM

While we are at it, let’s just amend The Constitution proclaiming Barry “El Presidente for Life”, then our transition to a Banana Republic and Fascism will be complete.

Meacham is a vile propagandist and Obama sycophant.

DeathB4Tyranny on April 16, 2011 at 12:19 AM

This is a f’g stupid discussion. It has nothing to do with reality. That may be typical for a lib like Meacham but it has no place here.

What chance is there of amending the Constitution on this issue? Zero!!! Although I’m sure The Donald would LOVE to see the Dems give it a go.

I side with Daemon, Allah’s on the track to Johnsonville.

rcl on April 16, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Obamacare was declared unconstitutional and he ignored that. Why wouldn’t he do the same for this?

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Because he can’t force Arizona to put his name on the ballot without raising bigger questions. If he refuses, he loses. If he fights, he loses. If he produces it and it is as I suspect an “At home birth” affidavit, he loses. If it contains ANYTHING objectionable, he loses.

I say the odds are pretty good that he loses. I wouldn’t be surprised if he launches a nuke attack on us when he finally figures out that he’s been beaten.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I’m cynical, I think we were just mugged by a comment whore.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

I guess the threat of law suits trumps the search for truth regardless of the stakes.

Cody1991 on April 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM

It is absolutely mind-boggling. I feel like Alice through the Looking Glass. At this point, it’s not just about Obama. It is about going forward and ensuring that our Constitution is followed. They need to define NBC because we need to know if anchor babies qualify, etc.

I don’t usually go off in writing, but I am so upset and just really flabbergasted. When even the supposed people on the conservative side want to shred the Founder’s intent then you have a country in a great deal of MORTAL DANGER.

mrsmwp on April 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Because he can’t force Arizona to put his name on the ballot without raising bigger questions. If he refuses, he loses. If he fights, he loses. If he produces it and it is as I suspect an “At home birth” affidavit, he loses. If it contains ANYTHING objectionable, he loses.

I say the odds are pretty good that he loses. I wouldn’t be surprised if he launches a nuke attack on us when he finally figures out that he’s been beaten.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

No. Obama will do what he always does…

Have every media outlet scream “racist” over & over when something they don’t like happens.

tetriskid on April 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM

The Arizona law is flawed, requiring things that aren’t in the Constitution. Unless I missed the clause of the US Constitution declaring that in order to serve as President, a person has to know who his or her biological father is.

Mister Mets on April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM

It is axiomatic. It is something which of necessity is a prerequisite.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM

With ya. Surprised? No. But with ya.

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Thanks Connie.

mrsmwp on April 16, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Forgive me if someone upthread already said this, but I believe the Arizona bill simply defines a person born in the United States as a “natural born citizen.” So, to those that are concerned about dual nationals (or children born to foreign nationals), I do not think the Arizona bill accomplishes the task.

Firefly_76 on April 16, 2011 at 12:26 AM

I’m cynical, I think we were just mugged by a comment whore.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

No greater cynic than me, but I don’t care. I call on him to explain his statement in his own words.

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Because he can’t force Arizona to put his name on the ballot without raising bigger questions. If he refuses, he loses. If he fights, he loses. If he produces it and it is as I suspect an “At home birth” affidavit, he loses. If it contains ANYTHING objectionable, he loses.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

He is being backed into a corner and he is both president, commander in chief, and a narcissist. Something of a dangerous combination. He hasn’t shown much respect for laws or common decency, nor have his Democratic followers.

I think this has to happen, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking this guy will just fade away. He won’t get control of the nukes because the military will refuse those sorts of orders.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

mrsmwp on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM

And by that I meant Allahpundit, just in case I was unclear.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

OK, say that happens. I heard this question, give me the argument against it. Say you live in Texas and the law is that you can openly carry a gun. Then you move to New York City, does that mean you can still openly carry a gun? If every state has to honor laws passed in other states, wouldn’t open carry laws come under this category? why not?

Redteam on April 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I suppose the argument is Texas can’t tell New York what is legal and New York can’t tell Texas. And Arizona can’t tell Hawaii what is a legal form birth certificate. The other 48 states could well create their own particular quirks for what a “citizen” is and we’d have havoc. Made sense to me when the professor was arguing it, and he saw the Arizona law easily tossed out as un-Constitutional.

Marcus on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:27 AM

That’s why I think he said it as comment bait.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Then why hasn’t Obama been required to prove his eligibility as called for in the constitution? The courts have avoided this question like the plague while claiming that no one has any legal standing.

sharrukin on April 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Because the National Democratic party provided documents asserting he was eligible (signed by Nancy Pelosi) and All 50 State election bureaucracies were too incompetent to demand real proof of eligibility. They simply accepted her word, and she doesn’t know what the H3LL she’s talking about anyway.

Ignorance and incompetence in all 50 state election offices. It’s that simple. The Arizona law means to fix it in that state. Hopefully Oklahoma does as well.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM

I’m cynical, I think we were just mugged by a comment whore.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM

I kind of thought that at first, I know Allah likes to stoke the fires but he usually does it a little more tongue in cheek. Maybe I’m just too tired and didn’t get it?

Good night everyone.

mrsmwp on April 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Because t would look really bad if the first (half) Black President got lynched for Treason.

Kenosha Kid on April 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM

And that is the crux of the Court’s terror at even considering the issue.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM

And by that I meant Allahpundit, just in case I was unclear.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

So did I. This is what moral relativism is doing to our country. Frankly, I’m disgusted.

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM

so let me get this str8…

lets change the constitution….Because Barry don’t wanna produce his Birth Certificate……

They must be hide’n something DELICIOUS

roflmao

donabernathy on April 16, 2011 at 12:33 AM

So in essence this clause should be removed so that Obama can get away with his crime….No way, Jose…

theaddora on April 16, 2011 at 12:33 AM

The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–which is one of the courts one notch below the Supreme Court–has accepted a case and has scheduled oral arguments for May 2.

Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Wouldn’t it be funny if the most Insane Federal court in the nation was just crazy enough to touch this? On the other hand, they would probable rule that ONLY people born with two American parents can’t run for President. (The 9th court is really wacky that way.)

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Marcus on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

The Arizona bill is for a compact between States. States that choose to join the compact agree on how their birth certificates will be done, and that they will make distinctions as to who are born as “natural born citizens.”

I made a mistake above. Apparently, a child must have one U.S. parent and owe no allegiances to a foreign country. So, a dual national at birth would not be considered a natural born citizen. It’s an odd law, because it sounds like it may make a person’s status dependant on how the foreign parent’s country defines citizenship. hmmm.

Firefly_76 on April 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Madison warned us of democratic urges like “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, [or] an equal division of property.”5 Today, our body politic is infected with all three diseases.

The Founding Fathers were such ignorant boobs. Let’s ignore all their clauses.

Feedie on April 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Marcus on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

The Arizona law was carefully crafted to include the identification necessary to get a security clearance with the US Government. The data on a Hawaiian, or any other states, COLB, is unacceptable for clearance.

Using the “gold standard” of identification of the US government itself to establish identity, it would be difficult indeed for any court to strike it down.

Rebar on April 16, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Are you for real?

Second, the clause was to prevent a Manchurian candidate. Well, it failed.

It’s like they say about abstinence. It works every time it’s tried. Incompetence by 50 state election officials allowed the Manchurian candidate on the ballot when he should have been rejected.

Third, why discriminate against naturalized citizens who may well understand Americanism better than many born here?

Among other reasons, Because the requirements say so until they are changed.

And, what about Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison? They were all British subjects! So there!
AshleyTKing on April 16, 2011 at 12:05 AM

You might want to read Article II. It specifically exempts anyone who was a citizen of the United States after 1776. That meant everyone who was British when the country declared independence.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:41 AM

mrsmwp on April 16, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Something is going on. It’s a game being played. The Clinton supporters are probably the biggest birthers and seem to keep things going while managing to slough the blame off to the ‘rabid, right wingers.’ Even HA and many talk show hosts trot along with this meme.

All the while the essential details are ignored, such as the definition of Natural Born and why BO does not qualify given his parentage (Kenyan father). It’s set up so that everyone is talking at cross purposes and in the end simply hurling insults.

It isn’t a game to me, and I find the treatment of the issue at hand to be intentionally frustrating. HA and other sites could do much better. At one point I stopped reading HA because of their off-hand, dismissive attitude. They sound like Dems….i.e., ‘they’re all stupid.’ There has been absolutely no desire to delve into the matter in any respect. When people do that it indicates to me that they are purposely avoiding a subject and perhaps instructed to do so.

I don’t think BO was born in Kenya or wherever. I do think that there are details on the LFBC that are an embarrassment to him or contradict what he has told the public. Even Abercrombie has gone silent.

BO lies everyday. He contradicts himself constantly. There is no reason to think that he hasn’t lied about other details. We deserve to know, and we deserve to know who signed off in this sickening fraud.

And there’s no way that I would consider changing the Constitution of the United States for this sickening, lying bastard or anyone else.

Cody1991 on April 16, 2011 at 12:44 AM

ROFLMAO, Allah. You have got to be kidding me.

You have to make the case to remove it. Hello?!!?? Mcfly??!!??

But, let’s suppose for the sake of argument, that I have to make the case to keep it. How’s this for an iron clad rebuttal…

“No, it’s not!”

*blows raspberry*

*rolls eyes*

Cmon, AP.

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Connie on April 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Soon to become known as “The Obama Era”, pray that it only lasts four years.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 12:45 AM

I’m sure he just threw that out there as he walked out the door for a hot date.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Hey Ya’ll, The Arizona law specifies the long form, AND what information on the long form they expect to see. I don’t think there would need to be too much surprising on the BC, but it would have to be in the same format as the BC of one of the Nordyke twins’s born the next day, who went to kindergarten/ first grade with him. WND site shows a photostat of her FULL BC. I suspect Obama’s BC has been AMENDED and that’s where his real problem lies.

bigmike on April 16, 2011 at 12:47 AM

I’m sure he just threw that out there as he walked out the door for a hot date.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Or he just threw “Saturday Night Fever” into the DVD player.

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM

He is being backed into a corner and he is both president, commander in chief, and a narcissist. Something of a dangerous combination. He hasn’t shown much respect for laws or common decency, nor have his Democratic followers.

I think this has to happen, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking this guy will just fade away. He won’t get control of the nukes because the military will refuse those sorts of orders.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

That’s what I tell myself, but I must say I am uneasy about the prospect of what he might do if he really has a temper tantrum at being checked.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:51 AM

I suppose the argument is Texas can’t tell New York what is legal and New York can’t tell Texas. And Arizona can’t tell Hawaii what is a legal form birth certificate. The other 48 states could well create their own particular quirks for what a “citizen” is and we’d have havoc. Made sense to me when the professor was arguing it, and he saw the Arizona law easily tossed out as un-Constitutional.

Marcus on April 16, 2011 at 12:28 AM

A professor likely would. They lean left normally. He is wishcasting. The court system nowadays also leans left, but it isn’t always reliably so. Besides, I think taking it to court rather than complying with it might just work in our favor anyway.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:53 AM

On that taking it to court thing, wouldn’t it be hilarious if the courts denied them access because they lacked standing?

If not, how could they argue anyone not personally affected by it has standing?

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4