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

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

Good plan. I’m not sure we even have to go that far; would little Bammie even pass a simple employer check of his Social Security number via the online federal system?

slickwillie2001 on April 16, 2011 at 12:55 AM

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

How are we going to become desperate for food?

Emperor Norton on April 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Harsh!!!

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM

How are we going to become desperate for food?

Emperor Norton on April 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Hyperinflation. Not enough buying power for what is on the market with the food being sold to buyers who can afford it.

Food shortages are almost always due to economics not the unavailability of foodstuffs.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:01 AM

How are we going to become desperate for food?

Emperor Norton on April 16, 2011 at 12:56 AM

I hope to God it doesn’t happen, but haven’t you noticed we’re starting to look like Weimar America? Every time Oil goes up, so does the cost of everything, and oil is predicted to go up a lot this year.

I’m fearing a Great Depression style collapse, but without all the comfort and niceties of the original. Fiat money and a moron with an unlimited credit card is a recipe for financial collapse.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 1:02 AM

The Horror… The Horror

Jon Meachem… settle down.

JohnGalt23 on April 16, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I gotta go folks. Check back tomorrow.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 1:03 AM

I mean *I’ll* check back tomorrow. :)

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 1:04 AM

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

Exactly. I’ll go a step further. Zero is a Shia. All steps to foment unrest in N. Africa and the ME, every action he’s taken (or not, in the case of Iran’s uprising) prove it.

Now. With respect to AP (I truly cannot even type the name he’s chosen), who wants to shred our Constitution in support of a treasonous usurper, along with Ed, who now writes for CNN? I’m getting deja vu all over again.

How, you say? Why, it’s a nightmare akin to LGF. A place I trusted; the host, that is. And the commenters were the most intelligent online. After that crash, I found my way here, where the intelligent commenters congregated.

And now, again, the blog ‘fathers’ are going screwy. Kind of like Fox news. Is Islamic money everywhere?

Would one of you “REAL” conservatives here start a blog I can actually believe in?

Opinionator on April 16, 2011 at 1:07 AM

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

My guess is that it says Muslim next to religion.

ButterflyDragon on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLnT1Jcnc2A

Kenosha Kid on April 16, 2011 at 1:15 AM

ButterflyDragon on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Well that would be a sad waste of money. Who in their right minds would blame someone for anything adults put on a child’s birth certificate? It has to be something else. baldilocks said something one time about Obama, Sr. not actually being his dad. At least I think she did, long time ago and I’m probably getting it wrong.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

My guess is that it says Muslim next to religion.

ButterflyDragon on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

I’ve seen a long form BC from Honolulu issued three days after his birth… There is no such designation for religion/cult. However, it does list the addresses of both the father and mother, and their race(s), the hospital, attending doctor, signatures, etc.

Both sets of information could blow Zero out of the water.

But there are so many other problems with Zero’s past, so many other ways to expose his fraud and so many hidden records. No need to even list them any more.

Let’s put it this way: what records HAS Barry provided?

NONE.

Opinionator on April 16, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Most birth certificates have a box that says r or race. Best guess is that this shows his mother’s. That was the custom back when.

Caststeel on April 16, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Bow to Opinionator’s direct observation.

Caststeel on April 16, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Allahpundit, I thought you were a functioning moron before, but this leaves no doubt in my mind. Between this and Hot Air becoming Donald Trump’s official campaign website, it’s just too much.

There’s a REASON why we want our presidents to feel loyalty to the United States and the United states ONLY, one would think three years of Obama would make that PAINFULLY clear.

This place is becoming a parody.

gary4205 on April 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM

It is the central part of the constitution. It made sure than foreign elements would not take over the Presidency.

Can you say: President Schwarzenenegger?

TexasJew on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Can you say: President Schwarzenenegger?

TexasJew on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

No, thanks anyway!

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Bow to Opinionator’s direct observation.

Caststeel on April 16, 2011 at 1:27 AM

It’s on my other computer. It’s late, but tomorrow I’ll transfer and post it. . on an appropriate thread.

Opinionator on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Regardless of what records TFL has provided, I am all for giving him one he cannot avoid: Worst One Term President Ever.

Caststeel on April 16, 2011 at 1:37 AM

Opinionator on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

I’ll post it on this thread.

Opinionator on April 16, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Allah if his argument is so freaking stupid, why did you agree with his central premise?

TexasJew on April 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM

First, the burden of evidence is on those that wish to change the constitution.

Second, even if the constitution were to be changed it would not alter ObaMao’s eligibility to be president now.

Slowburn on April 16, 2011 at 1:52 AM

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 12:41 AM

By all means, let’s follow the Constitution until it is properly amended.

AshleyTKing on April 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Some explain’n needs to be done.

“Antiquated???” How is it antiquated? That would mean that it no longer serves a purpose or nolonger is used.

Lets see, The purpose of requiring that a president be a natural born citizen who has lived in the United States for 14 years… to insure that the president does not have any loyalities to another country. How is that concept antiquated? If anything it is more important today that in anytime in our nations history.

Our founding fathers anticipated that there would be politicians and interest groups that would want to change the constitution to fit their needs or interest. For that reason they understood that changing it had to be much harder than passing a law, and it had to be the choice of the people to make that change. Nothing in that is antiquated in our nation today. The founding fathers created a process that requires the representatives of the people to agree on the need for the admendment and the wording of the admendment by what we call today, a super majority. The next step is to give it to the people within the sovereignty of their own state. The admendment cannot be changed or altered by the states, only approved or disapproved. If 38 states do not agree to the admendment as written within seven years, the admendment dies.

Who would this change benefit? Obama of course.

The birth certification is a major issue, but one that I figure is going to be worked out with a suprise find in some file cabinet under the wrong name or something and around the same time a hospital records lost in some obscure place will turn up. All it takes is a good forger and if there are any really good ones, Obama has them. A friend is in the governors office, a new secretary is in place that has not declared it is not there, and it will pass the forgery test. That partly hand written is important. No problem with typewritters this time. Not sure how they are going to handle that pesky problem with the number that is already shown on the net, the one that is out of sequence by several months, into the future. What I would like to know, what happened to that photographed officialy sealed, short form copy?

The real problem is his citizenship status. If he could get it, a constitutional amendment allowing Nationalized citizens to be president would help him.

The problem is he was declared an Indonesian Citizen by his stepfather to get him into school. Only citizens could go to school at that time. Was he adopted or not is a question, but irrelevent for the most part. Perhaps. What is known is his mother removed him from her passport around that time. Obama would need a passport when he returned to Hawaii. Either he entered on his stepfather’s passport or on one of his own, either way he entered Hawaii as an Indonesian citizen. He obviously did not have a US passport as his was issued years later when he was an adult. He obviously had or later obtained an Indonesian passport as he used it to travel into Pakistan.

This might have some connection to the problems seen with his having a Social Security card with an number never issued and in a state he never so much as visited. Hard to get a social security card if your not a US citizen. Keep Frank Davis in mind with his Moscow connections.

Obama could have regained his US citizenship by redeclaring his citizenship. The problem for him is that he would have Nationalized Citizenship and no claim to the former Natural Born Citizenship he may have held as a child. with allowances that he really was born in Hawaii.

His problem may deepen if his college records show he declared himself to be Indonesian to get the tutition breaks.

Nothing adds up for Obama, not matter how you twist him in the light.

I have a young childhood memory of watching Kruchev on TV, pounding the podium with his shoe and telling us we will be destoryed from within. I think that was about the time a baby was born.

Franklyn on April 16, 2011 at 4:14 AM

It the left jumps up this loudly, noisily, urgently, and even as if in a severe panic, are they secretly afraid of what Trump might find? If it they figured it was a sure thing that Obama was POTUS would they panic this way?

Just askin’. Just askin’.

I just wish the chief bozo would present his real credentials and shut this distraction the ferk up.

I also wish the wise minds in Washington would observe that being born in the USA is not sufficient to make an American. Born, raised, and educated in the USA might be a better choice with EVERY citizen who aspires to voting taking a simple citizenship test at age 18. (That’s the starting point for the negotiations. I don’t expect the last bit to survive negotiations.)

{^_^}

herself on April 16, 2011 at 5:45 AM

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 leftists’ hyper-reaction has the smell of fear… instinctive fear that something hidden, whatever it might be, would be damaging if revealed.

petefrt on April 16, 2011 at 5:50 AM

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

2 + 2 = 4 ?

petefrt on April 16, 2011 at 5:57 AM

So the left admits Obama has problems with the birth certificate thing…

My guess – the father is not Obama Sr. It is some other guy. (The black friend of the family in Seattle where she used to live prior to going to Hawaii and was going to college just prior to her birth). Obama Sr. played along to get married hoping for US citizenship.
Without Obama Sr. that “Dreams of my father” schtick looks awful contrived.

albill on April 16, 2011 at 5:58 AM

living breathing and all the…putz

NY Conservative on April 16, 2011 at 6:08 AM

and all that needmorecoffee

NY Conservative on April 16, 2011 at 6:09 AM

DiogenesLamp on April 15, 2011 at 11:25 PM

good point

NY Conservative on April 16, 2011 at 6:25 AM

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

GREAT IDEA!! Let’s begin to shred the Constitution! Every time some National Socialist finds something offensive, we’ll just change the law to keep the Socialists happy. Now THAT’S change we can believe in!

I always thought that “allahpundit” was a joke, I never realized that you actually ARE a Sharia supporter. I won’t need to visit H/A anymore.

Ronald Reagan spoke of either defending liberty or ushering in the beginning of a thousand years of darkness.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bid you, goodnight.

oldleprechaun on April 16, 2011 at 6:59 AM

so, instead of obama potentially being forced to show his BC in states like AZ, meacham wants to change the constitution?

sounds like meacham’s a birther! haha

sarainitaly on April 16, 2011 at 7:12 AM

I always thought that “allahpundit” was a joke, I never realized that you actually ARE a Sharia supporter. I won’t need to visit H/A anymore.

Who is allahpundit? And, since in the land of allah, there is no punditry but rather the right to toe the “mohammed is the perfect man” line, why would any American use such an inappropriate name in a blog that exists for the free expression of opinion?

Basilsbest on April 16, 2011 at 7:16 AM

It would not surprise me that Meacham and others in the liberal press and higher ups who are trying to defend Obama have been told why he can’t show his long form birth certificate so that they understand the stakes and are acting with “appropriate” concern to get rid of the demands to see it.

Conan on April 16, 2011 at 7:19 AM

It’s nice to see Meacham inadvertently put the lie to the stupid meme that the eligibility issue(erroneously described by leftists and unwitting dupes on the right as birtherism) helps Obama.

The onus of proof remains on Obama. He should either produce his LFBC or resign before he does further damage to the nation.

Basilsbest on April 16, 2011 at 7:21 AM

I see we are having issues with Preview not functioning and the html buttons not working properly.

Basilsbest on April 16, 2011 at 7:24 AM

I see it’s a PBS video. One more reason to defund the CPB.

Kafir on April 16, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Wait. Allah agrees with this?

cynccook on April 15, 2011 at 10:23 PM

That can’t possibly surprise any regular visitors to HA.

TheBigOldDog on April 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM

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

No, I’m not making Conservatives look bad, I’m making you look bad. And Yes there would be both deserters from active duty and early outs by reservists. Many would be very high ranking. And do you really want to squabble over the number of Americans? Yes you do, because it has nothing to do with the actual argument and it allows you to score a measily little point and sidestep the issue. Who’s a dumbass? YOU ARE!

Amadeus on April 16, 2011 at 8:16 AM

I see it’s a PBS video. One more reason to defund the CPB.

Kafir on April 16, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Yes, I’m so glad that our tax dollars continue to support NPR so we are not deprived of John Meecham’s brilliant observations!

Naturally Curly on April 16, 2011 at 8:16 AM

@Allah, 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.

Are you Canadian? That’s got to be the only explanation.

Dr Evil on April 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

That’s got to be the only explanation.

Dr Evil on April 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

I have a different explanation, tons of annoyed comments telling him how wrong he is. Traffic, it’s what he does.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 8:23 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

Pah – beta males don’t have hot dates, by definition.

disa on April 16, 2011 at 8:26 AM

disa on April 16, 2011 at 8:26 AM

I know but I am trying to build him up. He’s actually alpha but self deprecating. No one is buying?

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 8:36 AM

OK, Jon, so you want to make it possible for President Hu to be able to come to the usa and be president here, too. Maybe Hugo as well. Castro’s not busy these days. He gives great speeches, too.

Kissmygrits on April 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

I like how birthers start changing the definition of words to support their insane argument. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen but the Founders did not really explain the requirements to become a natural born citizen. Then the 14th Amendment was passed which made ANYONE born in the United States a citizen. Boom – Obama was born in the US, he’s a natural born citizen.

justinx0r on April 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

So, can we pass a constitutional amendment in time for Obama not to have to produce his birth certificate to be on the ballot in Arizona???

bflat879 on April 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM

NATURAL BORN means BOTH parents are US citizens at the time of child’s birth.

davek70 on April 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM

/facepalm

Not this stuff again. The citizenship status of the parents has NEVER been a requirement in the history of our country so long as the child was born in the U.S. The 14th amendment merely codified what had been believed since the founders: if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen of the U.S. Period.

AngusMc on April 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

All this talk about the one’s mother… What about any US Candidate’s mother tongue, or mother country, or mother land? This needs dropping from the vetting process?

ericdijon on April 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Funny the man who wrote the 14th Amendment said this:

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

—Jacob M. Howard

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

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.

You are being thicker than molasses on a cold day here, AP. The intent is STILL valid as it is design to prevent a foreign power from manipulating the election system to install a Quisling into the White House, and to make it more likely than not that a President’s ultimate loyalties lay with the country of his/her birth as opposed to a foreign power or inimical ideology. I’m stunned that you have this attitude. Can you please describe additional archaic passages of the Constitution we should discard??

EasyEight on April 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen of the U.S. Period.

AngusMc on April 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Are the children born here of foreign ambassadors citizens?

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Did I miss it? Has AllahPuntedIt explained his reasoning?

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:21 AM

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:21 AM

No, he did a hit and round saying that commenters needed to prove their point.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:26 AM

If not out right repeal it than at least change it to say something like… “You are only a natural born citizen if one or both of your parents are citizens of this country”.

Confederate on April 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

I don’t know about ambassadors kids but it’s safe to say that anchor babies are citizens.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

One cannot build a roof where there is no foundation.

OldEnglish on April 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:20 AM

I don’t know about ambassadors kids but it’s safe to say that anchor babies are citizens.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Yes I get that — as stupid as it may be.

Angus said anyone born here is a citizen which I don’t believe to be true.

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM

All this talk about the one’s mother… What about any US Candidate’s mother tongue, or mother country, or mother land? This needs dropping from the vetting process?

ericdijon on April 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Speaking English as a first language has never been a Constitutional requirement for the President.

Martin Van Buren grew up in a Dutch neighborhood, so English was his second language.

In most cases, a candidate’s motherland (if you define it as the place of one’s birth rather than the place of origin of an ethnic group) is a matter of public record.

Mister Mets on April 16, 2011 at 9:33 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.

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.

Cody1991 on April 16, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Two things: first, unless the Clintons plan on burying Obama via a primary challenge, then what’s in it for them – a takeback of the party from the O-bots? There has to be some back channel reason why they’d keep this alive – otherwise they’d let it drop.

Second, I remember reading somewhere in 2007 that one of the things that Obama’s people feared the most was a deconstruction, or deeper delving into, Obama’s early years. I think that a strategic decision was made very early on to not release anything because something on those docs would be a fatal blow to Obama’s brand and image. I agree with you that it was probably something stupid like not changing his name back to BHO Jr. upon his return the the U.S. Even still, it would deconstruct the image that he’s built and be politically fatal. Hence, he’ll never release it not matter what.

volnation on April 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM

On the plus side, we will save a lot of money on the Obama Presidential Library. It can be housed in a cigar box.

MikeA on April 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Just pony up the ORIGINAL birth cerificate and all those college records, including admission paperwork…

The CONSTITUTION is just fine, thank you…

Khun Joe on April 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM

It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution…

That is pure male bovine residue but thanks for your learned opinion, Allah Madison.

ncborn on April 16, 2011 at 9:48 AM

…I agree with him about the natural-born requirement, incidentally: It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution…

Antiquated? Yes. Unnecessary? Absolutely not!

Gothguy on April 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM

/facepalm

Not this stuff again. The citizenship status of the parents has NEVER been a requirement in the history of our country so long as the child was born in the U.S. The 14th amendment merely codified what had been believed since the founders: if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen of the U.S. Period.

AngusMc on April 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

The learned author of the site I linked to in my 8:24AM comment completely refutes your unsupported assertion. You have no clue.

Basilsbest on April 16, 2011 at 9:53 AM

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I think it might be thought. As for people stationed here, it probably depends on what their parent’s home country allows.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM

A plain-sense reading of A2S1 tells us that only a ‘citizen’ or ‘natural-born citizen’ alive “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” is eligible.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…

Which makes Martin van Buren (b.1782) the last ‘legal’ President. It may not be what the Founders meant, but it’s certainly what they said.

While I suspect this argument may not convince many about the presidency, it ought at least give pause to those who cite comma placement in the Second Amendment as evidence for the ‘militia’ interpretation.

PersonFromPorlock on April 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM

From the article to which I linked.

Six years after the 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court — in Minor v. Happersett (1874) – commented that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also remarked that, if you were born in the United States but your parents were not both U.S. citizens when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt [06].

The Supreme Court has never resolved this “doubt” because, prior to 2008, there was never any need to do so. With only two exceptions, every U.S. president who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens (Natural Born Presidency). The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and later burned most of his family records), thereby obscuring the fact that, when he was born, his father (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough – Chester Arthur).

Basilsbest on April 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I have a friend who’s brother was born in Germany while their father was stationed there with the military. The kid had dual citizenship until he was 18, and then he had to chose which he wanted to retain. I imagine a lot of ambassador’s children, depending on their home country’s laws, would have the same.

ladyingray on April 16, 2011 at 10:10 AM

The Constitusion as-is is perfect, and I want strict enforcement of the “natural born” stuff.

John McCain never should have been the Republican nominee for President. What a loser!

And Obama is even worse.

Really Right on April 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM

It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution, especially in light of the original intent he describes.

Respectfully disagree. Like a true liberal, he focuses on the “wealthy nobleman” who comes to America to “buy influence”, but that is only part of the reason for the clause. And since the same could be said of native born “wealthy noblemen” (aka The Donald) it is the least persuasive part.

The second – and more important – part is the inherent national pride or affinity for the land where one is born. And so if follows that someone actual born in the US will be less likely to want to topple her at the behest of some foreign power.

Onus on April 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Two things: first, unless the Clintons plan on burying Obama via a primary challenge, then what’s in it for them – a takeback of the party from the O-bots? There has to be some back channel reason why they’d keep this alive – otherwise they’d let it drop.

volnation on April 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Looks like you have discounted simple revenge. Why do you think that highly of the Clintons?

slickwillie2001 on April 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Did I miss it? Has AllahPuntedIt explained his reasoning?

CWforFreedom on April 16, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Of course not – there is no reasoning behind this most ridiculous statement. Cindy Munford has it right – comment bait. Pathetic.

disa on April 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

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 – ALLAHpundit

Dude! WTF is wrong with you? Your opinions & comments are becoming more & more far-left every day. At best, you are a leftist RINO. Why don’t you slither over to Chris Buckley’s POS NRO?

The natural born citizen clause is one of the best defenses our exceptionally unique republic has against some Manchurian Candidate coming to America and somehow conning the gullible American Public into electing him, her or it.

Oh, that’s right, that already happened! And the MC in question is our Kenyan Communist Muslim-In-Chief. He is nothing more than a low-rent con-man holding an illegitimate Presidency.

For all the “fact-checking” the Mainstream Media did on this assklown’s background, the HR department at McDonald’s could have done a far better job.

CatchAll on April 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

ladyingray on April 16, 2011 at 10:10 AM

That sounds right, doesn’t it?

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

So is the child of a lesbian couple (both born in USA) married in Massachusetts, whose biological father was a sperm donor from China, and was born in Baltimore a NBC? Not to stir the pot or anything, but just curious if this would be addressed in an Amendment debate considering the state of flux in our societal norms.

txmomof6 on April 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I like how birthers start changing the definition of words to support their insane argument. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen but the Founders did not really explain the requirements to become a natural born citizen. Then the 14th Amendment was passed which made ANYONE born in the United States a citizen. Boom – Obama was born in the US, he’s a natural born citizen.

justinx0r on April 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM

This is how they frame the argument. By keeping the dumbed-down citizenry focused on the birth certificate and claiming that of course, Obama is a Native born citizen. Ridicule “birthers” and anyone else who challenges Obama’s eligibility. This has been well thought out in advance as has every other fabrication of his life.

They know that he is ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen requirement and have avoided it at all costs, abetted by a complicit media and judiciary. They are relying on the same circular logic as Al Gore’s “there’s no controlling legal authority” argument. They just call it “no standing” instead.

Two questions:

1-If Congress and TPTB define NBC as simply being born on American soil, then why did they go through the exercise/charade of vetting John McCain through a process sponsored by HRC and Obama?

2- If NBC is not an issue, then why was this commissioned by Friends of Obama?

Finally, I can clearly remember having it drilled into my head what the requirements were for Representative, Senator and PRESIDENT (Natural Born Citizen = Born on American soil to two American Citizen parents.) during many years of American History and civics classes. I’m sure now that these subjects have given way to diversity studies and the History of Rock and Roll, the subject matter is glossed over. Oh, and since this was taught to me in the late 1960‘s and early 1970‘s, obviously Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment had already been decided.

singer on April 16, 2011 at 11:11 AM

So is the child of a lesbian couple (both born in USA) married in Massachusetts, whose biological father was a sperm donor from China, and was born in Baltimore a NBC? Not to stir the pot or anything, but just curious if this would be addressed in an Amendment debate considering the state of flux in our societal norms.

txmomof6 on April 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I believe that there are many cases which have established legal precedence that whomever is identified on the birth certificate as the “father” is recognized as the legal father, DNA notwithstanding.

singer on April 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM

To Basilsbest, 4/15/11 @ 11:26 PM

You said, “Without the NBC clause some covert anti-American could destroy the country by making it insolvent.”

I’m assuming you left off a sarc/ tag, because you’re obviously of above average intelligence, and therefore surely know destroying the country by making it insolvent is precisely the agenda of the usurper Obama and his banker/controller, Soros.

GGMac on April 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM

What a week.

kingsjester on April 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

so, instead of obama potentially being forced to show his BC in states like AZ, meacham wants to change the constitution?

sounds like meacham’s a birther! haha

sarainitaly on April 16, 2011 at 7:12 AM

:)

Blake on April 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

1-If Congress and TPTB define NBC as simply being born on American soil, then why did they go through the exercise/charade of vetting John McCain through a process sponsored by HRC and Obama?

Because McCain wasn’t born on US soil. He was born in Panama (and there were questions about exactly where in Panama, the Canal Zone or in the city).

There was just as much crap about McCain’s citizenship during his campaign as there was about Obama during his campaign. Obama’s ramped up afterward due to the fact he won the presidency. (plus, the mainstream media will never let it die, because they use birthers in an attempt to denigrate the entire right)

ButterflyDragon on April 16, 2011 at 11:26 AM

singer on April 16, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Do those cases have to do with child support? I don’t think the person who is legally required to support a child has anything to do with the child’s status as a natural born citizen. I don’t know the answer, I just think an Amendment debate would open a Pandora’s box and we shouldn’t follow Meacham’s suggestion for many reasons suggested in these comments, but for others as well.

txmomof6 on April 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

It seems like the constitution was working just fine until Mr. Obama came along. Why change it? Wouldn’t it be better to honor it? It is clear on its face that Mr. Obama does not meet the NBC test, geography not withstanding. Now what?

Mason on April 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM

“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

Other than drinking Jack Daniels copiously and wishing the inconvenient and disagreeable parts of the Constitution antiquated and unnecessary do you have anything else to contribute to the debate?

Why don’t you try to defend an Obama who admits in his book: Dreams Of My Father, that he learned the ways of Islam – and by deduction Shariah Law – and tell us how that radical Islam caliphate fits into Athiesm..??

Oh wait…let me guess, anything other than Christianity is cool..!?

You screach and holler when Fred Thompson says during his presidential campaign that the US Constitution is based on God-fearing Judeo-Christian principles and values, but you have no problem with Obama’s foreign born Muslim father having the greater influence on Barry?

Obama admits to being influenced by Islam in his book, a religion that is antithetical to our founding antiquated principles, this being THE VERY REASON why our founding fathers insisted on the president needing both parents to be born here..so that these US Constitution usurping influences wouldn’t get a foothold from the top office holder.

You see our founders were smart that way, they wanted to hand us a gift that keeps on giving instead of allowing loop holes for usurption, like The One is doing…

If you cannot advance any better ideas than the above stupid quote, AP, than you should keep on drinking….!!

Mcguyver on April 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM

The “natural born” requirement is neither antiquated nor useless. I’m happy to make a partial case for it – even for defining it more tightly – a president, of all persons elected to US office should be born to citizens only and/or born in the country.

Mixed national allegiances, or a transnationalist outlook are not desirable in a president for obvious reasons – and instead he should possess a peculiarly nationalist outlook. The natural born requirement makes it more likely the candidate for office will not have the former and will have the latter. If it isn’t a perfect guarantee, it certainly sets forth a VALUE that implies an American outlook is the ideal.

I always thought it was enough that Obama didn’t have the same formative experiences. Americans should have rejected Obama because his father was a British subject and his mother a near ex-patriate; his early formative years were spent mostly abroad, not only surrounded by persons somewhat hostile to the American Experiment, but never experiencing the child shaping culture for himself. A generation ago, race excluded from consideration, they would have rejected him for this.

SarahW on April 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

The longer this issue drags on, the more obvious to me it is that liberals are deathly afraid that there is a real reason why Obama refuses to reveal the long form they insist they believe exists, and are praying that whatever explosive secret he is protecting by refusing to release it will remain unknown.

I mean, look what’s happening now: Jon Meacham, an erstwhile serious historian that, remember, is the guy who in 2009 made the decision to insult women in general and Sarah Palin in particular by putting her on Newsweek‘s cover in spandex pants (“How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?”), is hedging his bet by saying in effect “What if he WASN’T born in America? So what?” Sure, he won’t say that, but think about how different Meacham’s approach to the re-ramping of this issue is to Chris Matthews’, who after savaging Republicans who sponsored the 2009 House bill to amend election code to require a long-form, finally said earlier this year to his fellow liberals, ‘Why doesn’t Obama just release it and end it?’

Also interesting in the snippet is how Meacham stealthily breezes past the reason why Yale prof Akhil Reed Amar wrote that Legal Affairs essay regarding the genesis of the “natural born citizen” requirement. In his ever-dripping with condescension style, Meacham mentions how Orrin Hatch made noises that we should remove the standard in order to allow someone like the newly-elected Austrian native Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President (this is one of many reasons why I don’t trust Hatch further than I can throw him). Amar, on the other hand, wrote his piece in favor of another non-native: Then-Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. The first paragraph reads:

GOVERNOR JENNIFER GRANHOLM of Michigan is a rising star in the Democratic Party—the kind of leader who might shine as the party’s nominee for the vice presidency this year or who might plausibly contend for the top spot in a future presidential election.

Remember that the 2004 Dem convention was the coming-out party for its two fastest rising young stars: Obama, a mere state Senator from Chicago, and Granholm, the Canadian-born Governor of Michigan. Obama shined in his turn on the lecturn, and Granholm did not. She went on to preside over the plummet of the state of Michigan from irrelevance to disaster. Meanwhile, after two years, Palin left Alaska in fine shape.

Think about that, libs.

L.N. Smithee on April 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I strongly disagree with the repeal of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. If you get a “world citizen” president, prepare for Buttcrack Insane Oprompta on steroids.

PJ Emeritus on April 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Repeal the Natural Born Citizen Law? This would require a Constructional Amendment, and it is even more important today than when the Founders wrote it. I would never want Chavez from Venezuela to be President, NO, do not ever allow anyone except a Natural Born Citizen become President. Article 2 Section 1 :

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

old war horse on April 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM

“Hawaii says the short form is legal…”

Which “short form” would that be? The version which has printed on it:
“Mother’s State/Country of Birth”

“Father’s State/Country of Birth”

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7803/hawaiishortformbc.png

OR Obama’s version, which made its theatrical debut on the Daily KOS web site, and which ever-so-conveniently does not
have the parents’ birth countries named:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3605/obamabc.jpg

?????

As a point of interest, the Hawaiian long form Certificate of Live Birth – the version Obie refuses to produce – also requires that information regarding both parents:

“STATE OF BIRTH (If not in U.S.A. Name Country)”

http://www,thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii.jpg

Everyone knows Obama’s father-of-record was a Kenyan and never a US citizen, making Obie ineligible to be POTUS. Apparently “birthers” are the only people capable of grasping the Founders’ understanding of the liabilities inherent in dual loyalty. Apparently obots, RINOs, and lemmings are so wrapped up in their worship of the god-of- white-guilt-and-inclusiveness that they cannot effectively rub two brain cells together and come up with the stream of logical thought which would open their eyes to the fact that our government has been usurpped. Their laissez faire attitude makes them part and parcel of the ongoing rape of our country by the marxist-indoctrinated Obama and his nefarious ilk. He smirks with confidence because such as Rove, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Levin and the MSM perpetuate the lie that birthers think Obama was born in Kenya. He smirks whenever those “conservatives” refuse to mention Obama’s not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen. He smirks whenever such as Rove, Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, or Levin partake in the vilification of all who stand for the truth – he smirks because they are helping him along toward his goal to be DOTUS: Destroyer of the United States.

GGMac on April 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Yep, let’s just throw the “natural-born” requirement in the Constitution out. Heck, maybe we can get someone from Iran to be President. In fact, let’s throw the whole Constitution out. It’s mostly antiquated anyway and according to people who think like Obama it’s completely unnecessary.

Good luck, though, you need two thirds of the states to go along with it. But, then, I guess, if you want to throw out parts of the Constitution, you’d throw out that part too.. unnecessary and antiquated!

Hobbes on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Re: Link to imagae of Hawaiian long form birth certificate, I put a “,” instead of a “.”, so link doesn’t work…

Trying again:

http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii.jpg

My apologies for the error.

GGMac on April 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Not this stuff again. The citizenship status of the parents has NEVER been a requirement in the history of our country so long as the child was born in the U.S. The 14th amendment merely codified what had been believed since the founders: if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen of the U.S. Period.

AngusMc on April 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM

The 14th amendment did NOT repeal Article II. Apart from that, if you read it AND comprehend what it is saying, The 14th amendment STILL says you must have two citizen parents.

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I don’t know about ambassadors kids but it’s safe to say that anchor babies are citizens.

Cindy Munford on April 16, 2011 at 9:27 AM

That is not true. Anchor babies are NOT US citizens. Their parents aren’t subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. The 14th amendment is a rewrite of the Civil Rights act of 1866. The civil rights act of 1866 uses much clearer language. Why they re-wrote it to create the 14th amendment I couldn’t say, but the authors of the 14th amendment themselves say that it only applies to people who are Under the Jurisdiction of the United States.

They couldn’t say “American Citizens” because it was intended to grant Citizenship to Slaves. Slaves were not categorized as “Citizens”, they were categorized as “property”. They settled on the misleading phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” because Slaves WERE under the Jurisdiction of American law, even though they weren’t citizens. (This was the WHOLE POINT of the 14th amendment. To MAKE them citizens. )

DiogenesLamp on April 16, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4