The Constitution Says Obama Can't Be President. And Neither Could Reagan.

Barack Obama's birthday is tomorrow (or is it?) and in the spirit of gift giving, I've got something for the 28% of Republicans who don't believe Obama was born in America: An invitation to common ground.

Here's the first place we can agree: It would be nice if the president would ask Hawaii to release his original, long form birth certificate.

There are all kinds of perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons why he shouldn't, but, frankly, I'm still tuckered out from all the perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons Hillary Clinton wouldn't release the Rose Law Firm billing records.

I'm not going through that hell again.

Here's the second place we can agree: The rule of law is a good thing.

Lincoln said:

As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap - let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges - let it be written in primers, spelling books, and almanacs - let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

That goes double for me. Can't get enough of that Constitution and Laws. When it comes to the Constitution and Laws I'm right there, lisping and prattling like Glenn Beck.

My children may not have primers, spelling books or almanacs -- because they go to school in California -- but they understand that we can't pick and chose which laws we obey and which we don't. If we acted like that, we'd be no better than wild animals in the jungle or Dick Cheney.

Here's the third place we can agree: If the Constitution says Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he's ineligible to be president.

The Constitution is always right because the Framers were infallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, not unlike Horton Hatches an Egg, if it had been written 230 years ago by 55 guys.

The Constitution says:

"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.

And that's what it means.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get Obama on the "natural born" part. I don't know what it means and neither do you, and neither did the Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not letting Louis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as good as mine. And guesses don't count.

The only person I'm absolutely certain is a natural born man is Bo Diddley.

Luckily, we don't have to interpret what they were getting at. That's why God created Originalism and sent us Antonin Scalia.

Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead to thinking.) It says the document is what it is. We'll never know what the Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.

So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matter how oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president who violates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail, and our sons start playing with dolls.

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

In 1788.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.

Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what it literally says?

"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..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying we can't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can't interpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one of those horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.

Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.

Comments

[RobertHenryEller]

Hey, Mr. Maher:

Would you mind lending Chris Kelley to the President for a while to help out with Speech Writing?

[RobertHenryEller]

mmmmmmmmmm­mm........­.nice!!!!

[darker]

The entire Reagan Administration was unreal -- it was a Woody Allen movie with
the actor-in-chief "born" on prop Rancho Fake-O bought and paid for by Republican corporate profiteers.
Same for GWBush who was "born" on prop Rancho Crawlfo'w'd paid for by Republican corporate profiteers.

We NEVER got to see THEIR "real" BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

[Lori Bowles]

I loved this post.
Thanks!

[Ergon]

But as far as Constitutional Law is concerned, McCain's status is undetermined http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
and Obama is definitely a 'natural born citizen'
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

[darker]

Jeeperz, it does sound like genuine McCain: STATUS UNDETERMINED.

[Ergon]

Yeah, Chris, here's the original non-binding Senate resolution signed by OBama and Clinton, LOL, declaring McCain to be a 'natural born' citizen, even though he was born in Panama, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html and opinions by Chertoff et al.
However, http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/john_mccain_a_naturalborn_citi.php
"I'm just saying the Constitution referred to Natural Born and then Congress in 1790 - the supposed authorities on the meaning of the Constitution - passed a law to expand the meaning of the term Natural Born. The expansion would be unconstitutional in the same way the Judiciary Act was ruled unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison.
The argument of protecting the country from having a foreign born commander in chief is a bright line rule, with no regard for the spirit of it. That is why, technically speaking, I believe McCain is not Natural Born as defined by Article II section 1"
and
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/11/clinton-obama-agree-mccains-a-natural-born-citizen/
"There’s a casenote from the 1988 Yale Law Journal analyzing this very issue. The note concludes, among other things, that congress cannot legislate that a person is a natural born citizen ex post facto. In other words, the Leahey- McCaskill resolution would indeed be nonbinding"
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

[knucklelady]

I don't get it. Who has their "original" birth certificate? Mine's locked away in some basement in the state I was born in! I've got a "certified copy" of my original. And why isn't this good enough for the "birthers?"

And really... if the Clinton's couldn't come up with anything scathing with respect to this whole "where was Obama born" there isn't anything!!

;o)

[josephXY]

It's a great article. But the legal questions could be extented to the theoretical question of whether
Obama would have a chance to file a libel case? Would this have any chance of success?
It would in any case highlight the 1984 case again when it was ruled that the complaining party
had to prove malicious intent in order to win the case. Actually an incredible ruling compared to
the UK for instance, where libel is libel. Damage is damage and has to be paid for.
(Murdoch's tabloids, just like the other tabloids, are having to pay out libel damage every two
weeks or so. Not because the laws and the courts are so ridiculous but because of their
heinous mistakes and printing stupid lies.)

[dwright]

I think that President Obama would have a very strong case.

[SwampeastMike]

While I appreciate your sarcasm, I must say that I cannot understand why President Obama will not "tell Hawaii to release his original, long-form birth certificate." I'm nearly positive that such (original birth certificate) was specified when I joined the military in 1982.

It does make me wonder a bit if there is something to hide...

The "birthers" do seem rather kooky, but it also seems incredibly easy to put them in their place by releasing the true birth certificate--the one with foot and hand prints showing the exact place of birth and parents (or at least the mother).

My newspaper birth announcement at about the time Obama was born included not only the hospital where I was born but my name as they came from the hospital itself. Obama's newspaper announcements seem little more than announcements of legitimate birth (ALL show "Mr. and Mrs.") submitted by parents or grandparents.

Another curiousity is that the only evidence of Obama's parents' marriage comes from divorce records.

[elkabong]

You're right! I never thought of it that way. What if everybody missed it?! Quick, call the FBI!

[MidnightRambler]

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

[insanityfollows]

Yeah, and my brother was born on Halloween at 7:11 with orange hair. I'm sure my parents spent all winter of 1969 into spring of 1970 with their calendars and slide rules for that auspicious birth.

[Roses]

You're right......kinda'! The military does and did require proof that you are a citizen or legal resident. However, a birthcertificate is not the only proof. It could also be a passport, and we know that President Obama has one of those because he traveled and lived abroad.
Some of us (including myself) do not have copies of our "original, long form, birth certifacte". In my case it was because I have a "certificate of live birth" only; I was born in a military hospital and that hospital and all its records burned to the ground. I believe it is a commissary parking lot now.

[dwright]

I threw away my marriage certificate when I got my divorce was is that curious. By the way who cares about that anyway.

He was born to an American mother, period!!

[darker]

If Pres. Obama took time to answer every kook-a-doodle's whack-a-doodle
accusation and "claim", he would not have ANY time to do anything else.
And the Republican "think tanks" would never run out of "accusations".

I don't recommend for Obama be distracted by and give validity to those who profit from
creating chaos, misrespresentation, lies, smears, swift boating and the
rest of the crapola they're into day and night. There's no end to it. Screw 'em.

[ConservativeMobster]

If this passes for liberal humor. Boring!!

All this rucus on these blogs about birthers. I'm not one. I think it is ridiculous. I guess the purpose is to create a cohesive rapport against those crazies on the right. The right has enjoyed writing about the crazy left.
But how about the lefties who still think 9-11 was an inside job(I think the # who at one time believed that was around 30 percent--majority Dems.) or Bush et all conspired to steal the 2000 & 2004 elections or how about Trig Palin was really Bristol's baby. Get real folks. There are enough real issues out there. Don't need to waste time on the trivial.

[DasBoot]

Nice try, mixing real stuff with conspiracy theories. Bush v. Gore was an abomination, and the "felons" list Kathleen Harris used to prevent eligible voters from voting in Florida was obtained by Gregg Palast.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

Again, nice try.

[austin4]

One would never be able to tell

[Sneakerface]

"The lefties who still think 9-11 was an inside job ?" Yes, there are a number of them. There are also plenty of RIGHTIES who still think 9-11, and I don't have any information that one outnumbers the other. Sure, W. appealed more to the right, but I've never thought of the 9-11 Conspiracy Nuts as belonging to the left.

[Mike Haubrich]

Also might want to mention the conspiracy theorists who thought that Waco was a deliberate attempt by Janet Reno to destroy David Koresh. Some kind of personal vendetta. One of them went so far as to blow up a Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

The birthers just seem impervious to the facts. Obama's status as a natural born citizen was established long ago. They're the ones dragging it out, not the liberal media. Of course it does give us good laughing points. The fact that the Southern White Republicans buy into it speaks volumes for them, doesn't it?

[jrjones529]

wow. you just totally dismantled the birthers from their high horse and put them in a place of "what do we do now, he's kind of right"... gotta love that gray color in the middle of the thin lines of black on one side and white on the other!

[Matt7]

Bravo! Could you push that tongue any farther into the cheek?

(Unfortunately, some of my less fortunate countrymen are going to take you seriously. This thing requires, intellect, reading comprehension, knowledge of nuance and humor. They're decidedly at a disadvantage).

[Grannyover70]

I think the Universe has gone whacko. No. 1. If I send for a LEGAL birth certificate, the State will send me a photostatic copy of my birth certificate. This is considered by all agencies the Official Document of my Birth. If they kept the original copies (which I doubt) and I said I wanted the orginal they would probably assure me the photostatic copy was legal documentation and I could go fly a kite.
#2. The State of Hawaii has said they did not keep the orginal copies of documents when they put them all on tape several years ago.
#3. Even if the orginal copy of the document is in a storage file in a dark basement somewhere, I would also tell these people to go fly a kite. They cannot make up the rules to satisfy their hallucinations. This stuff is NOT about where he was born, it is about people grasping at straws because they can't stand Obama's election. You know that and I know that is true, so tantrums should not prevail.

Do you realize some people's Birth Certificates were never filed. Do you realize that during the last Century some Post Offices burned down and the records were totally lost. Other means were accepted to prove their birth, school records,chool recordsbut mostly they had to return to theri place of birth and find someone older than them to certify they knew when the person was born.

[darker]

Thanks for this elaboration. But do you really expect most Americans to
THINK-through all possibilities when SIMPLISTIC thinking is SO MUCH EASIER? ?

[JohnSawyer]

Yep--simplistic thinking gets the blood hetted up much quicker, and that's SO much more fun.

[dclobbyist]

Sorry, but you're wrong. There's a little two letter word in the paragraph you cite that makes a world of difference. That word is OR. There are two choices. A natural born citizen OR a person who was a citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The wording is in place because many of the people who could be President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were actually born in England.

[SkipHarv]

DC You ARE WRONG about the word "OR" in the wording of the US Constitution. As it is written... "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.." Means that people who were born in the US Territories or born somewhere else but had immigrated here 14 years prior to the adoption of the Constitution. and 35 years of age. If it was worded ..."EITHER 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.." maybe you would have gotten it.

[JohnSawyer]

Skip, no offense, but you have it wrong. Your proposed addition of the word "either" is already implied by the presence of the word "or". It would have been seen as clumsily redundant, and to people trying to craft a well-written document to be seen, they hoped, by the world, they would have trimmed out any unnecessary words.

[TremoluxMan]

Funny -- and thought provoking.