First of all, my objection here is proceduralist. I do not expect any particular result from a subpoena to produce a birth certificate -- other than to establish he does in fact have a birth certificate and is qualified to become president.
In a way this is like Hillary's Emoluments Clause problems. I want Hillary to be Secretary of the State, if only for the drama/comedy value of it. (And also-- that she'll try to be tougher than Obama.)
Nevertheless, I am very bothered by the fact that the Constitution seems to unambiguously disqualify her, and the Congress is not even attempting a superficial fix of the situation by repealing the pay raise her Congress authorized for the Secretary of State. I don't know if that would wholly solve the problem, but at least it would be gesture in the direction of compliance with the Constitution.
For the same reason I insist upon Obama proving his qualifications for office. I don't expect him to be disqualified. I insist upon it because it's in the Constitution and it's rather bad precedent for presidents to begin deciding which parts of the constitution they'll respect.
Because why? Because it one of the few rules for being president.
For the record, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. However, it is not his right to refuse the production of documents establishing his eligibility. John McCain produced his documentation, after all. One should not need to sue a candidate to compel evidence of his right to serve. Such documents should be produced immediately upon declaration, or shortly thereafter.
If you want to attend a very exclusive party, you show the invite at the door. Obama has sought admission to the most exclusive party in the world, but won't show his invite.
Obama and the DNC have been fighting these suits for a half a year. Even if they wanted to fight the suits just to establish they would not allow themselves to be compelled by nuisance suits, they could have produced the birth certificate independently. And they should have.
Instead, they continue fighting to not produce the document. And the Supreme Court has officially ruled that apparently no one in America has the right to challenge a candidate's constitution qualifications and compel the production of such documents.
And the Libertarians are doing what they do best:
The wild-eyed liberals pretending to be common-sense "libertarians" at Reason waste no time in labeling conservatives kooky. Which is the whole point of libertarianism, pretty much. Attacking the right relentlessly to ingratiate oneself with the liberal establishment:How much further will the fight to de-certify Obama go? It won’t stop if the Electoral College votes for Obama, as the skeptics will try to get a congressman or senator to officially challenge the result. Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah was willing to believe that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, so the skeptics might have a chance.
And if every vote certification goes off without a hitch and Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20? Gary Kreep is ready for that.
“When Obama starts signing executive orders and legislation,” Kreep says, “I’ll be filing lawsuits unless and until he proves he’s an American citizen. Some judge, someday, is going to want this proved on the merits. You can run, but you can’t hide.”
The point is that this is a constitutional mandate. Candidates routinely refuse to release medical, military, and school records. Fine. Well, not so fine; they should disclose. But the constitution makes no demands in these areas. There is no legal compunction along these lines, although there are of course political and ethical imperatives here.
But age and citizenship are, in fact, legal requirements to hold the office. While a candidate like Obama has the right to refuse the release of detailed medical records and school transcripts (though he shouldn't exercise that right; he should, of course, release them), he has no right whatsoever to refuse providing proof of his constitutional eligibility for the office he seeks.
What privacy interests does Barack Obama have in suppressing a document establishing his eligibility for an office he voluntarily seeks?
Incidentally, Reason: Obama almost certainly had Dreams From My Father ghostwritten, as most politicians do. The real question is by whom. We know most politician's ghostwriters; why not Obama's?
Reason poses as too smart to be taken in by such malarkey, and yet they're the ones taking the embarrassingly naive position that of course Obama, like no other politician before him, personally wrote his memoirs.
Yeah. Reason's really showing off its skeptical, independent streak with that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment