Topic: Constitutional Issues
Bashing the "Birthers" It's not often you get Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something. The “Birthers” are in the crosshairs of both parties. Only a Libertarian could understand.by EJ Moosa
(libertarian)
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
It's not often you get Republicans and Democrats agreeing on something. The "Birthers" are in the crosshairs of both parties. Only a Libertarian could understand.
If you are a Libertarian, then you know what it is like to have your position attacked from not one, but two sides. You understand what it is like to have a principle and want to have it validated. You understand that the desire is just to follow that simple document, the Constitution of the United States.
So as we watch the "Birther" debate unfold, I have enjoyed the debate(or rather that lack of factual understanding of what the debate is about) to be precise.
In the beginning, when "Birthers" asked officials at the State level who had qualified Obama to be on the State's ballot, fingers always pointed elsewhere. No one seemed to take direct responsibility for verifying Barack Obama's qualifications. As a Libertarian, I know first hand how candidates have been kept off the ballots because they did not meet the "qualifications". Many of these qualifications are arbitrary and designed to keep third-party candidates off the ballots. Yet no official was willing to examine Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, and his qualifications.
Citizens were told that they "had no standing" to bring this issue before a court. I am not sure how you feel, but if citizens cannot question the constitutionality of actions, then we are in trouble. I followed the Supreme Court as they dismissed the cases without comment. There was no affirmation that Obama was qualified. They refused to look at it.
So today, when I hear Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and Neil Boortz bashing the "Birthers" I cringe. Not because they should not have an opinion, but because they have each failed to understand that one "could" get a "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by Hawaii without being born there, and that one could get birth announcements in the paper as well. It's this dual path that was available at that time in Hawaii that has opened up this whole discussion. This dual path to a "Certificate of Live Birth" is the issue. Which one did the parents of Obama follow?
When I hear one of the "Birther Bashers" express the issues completely, then I will have more respect for their opinion. Today, I believe that they are speaking out of ignorance.
Why would such a path have been taken if Obama was born outside of the United States? There is no big mystery or conspiracy here. It would have been tax avoidance. Had he been born outside of the United States, there would have been an immigration tax on the new infant. Is it so difficult to believe that a young couple would try to avoid any unnecessary expenses if they could? People you are around everyday take steps to avoid taxes.
Born in the United States, even if both parents were not U.S. citizens, Obama is qualified. Born outside of the United States, it becomes more complicated. Even today, if a child is born outside of the United States with one parent being a U.S. citizen, the child may not be a U.S. citizent There are several other factors that have to be considered.
Both O'Reilly and Boortz have made statements that there are "more important issues to address" than whether or not Obama has disclosed his birth certificate. I view this as a Constitutional issue, and both of these gentlemen should view it this way as well. If we want the Constitution followed, then all of it should be followed. We do not get to "cherry pick" the parts that suit us.
If you want to consider the "Birthers" crazy because they want to validate that our U.S. Constitution is being followed, that is your option. If you fear rolling back an action of the U.S. Government because it was unconstitutional, that is everyone's problem.
The irony is the issue is rather straightforward to clear up and remove. Disclosure of the long form birth certificate would eliminate the Constitutional issue for nearly all of us. The issue could be closed.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Captain Steve
Date: 2009-08-04 10:13:14
I don't trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media. I still want answers. Obummer, put up or get out!!!! All he has to do is make the following official public statement,
"I Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release and make public all of my records on file."
That's it. Issue over. But he won't because he's a fraud!! Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding? and most disturbingly, why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there's a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND YOUR OTHER RECORDS!!!!!
You Nailed it EJ! The bottom line here is that these people are not above our Constitution and laws of our country. We allow them to work for us and we have questions. If all is in order and we find all of this to be false then lets move on. If there has been fraud commited them lets see who all is involved and let the law deal with them.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-04 12:49:25
Hi EJ,
This all comes down to choosing one's battles. For some this issue is a worthy cause for their time and energy. The way I count it, any time spent tilting at windmills is time not applied to constructive outcomes. Any time spent on national issues that an individual cannot possibly influence is time they are not spending on local activities, shaping local candidates and policy, where their time and energy can have constructive results.
As far as I can tell the point of both sides of this debate is to keep the most vocal participants in the spotlight as long as possible. Pure ego stroking is the only reason I can think of for why anyone would participate in such obviously and ridiculously futile behavior. Call it whatever suits your fancy and bolsters your rationalizations. It ain't nothing but performance art to me.
I feel that the idea that we have to choose which battle to fight is part of the reason that we are where we are today. We have been told that we have to choose what battles to wage, because we cannot when them all. For me, it sounds like we are choosing which parts of the Constitution to defend, because we cannot have it all as written.
Because it is constantly under attack, all parts must be defended. All parts must be respected. And I believe there is plenty of support to defend more than one aspect of the Constitution at a time. We can efend the 1st and 2nd Amendments for example, without having to choose one over the other.
If that is not your cup of tea, so to speak, so be it. But should we discourage others who are willing to fight that battle while you fight the war on another front?
What you might find is that once this "birth" issue is put to rest, these same folks will know and understand the Constitution better than before and begin to assist you or others in their battles.
It's my understanding that BOTH parents need to be citizens for someone to be eligible for the presidency. There seems to be strong evidence that Obama's father was a British subject. Am I mistaken?
I wonder if someone could clear something up. I saw on a blog that factcheck.org claims that 'their' people have held and examined the actual original birth certificate and show photos to 'prove' it. How is it possible for a website to make this claim? it is disturbing because of the nature of the site and the fact that many use that site to get the so-called last word on many subjects.
Unfortunately, I do not know who "their people" are, or how they are funded.
I also believe that it is the role of our elected officials to perform these sorts of tasks, and not a third party. Just as I would not want to turn over the National Archives or the Congressional Record to the folks at Wikipedia.
Maybe another reader can shed some light on the factcheck.org site. If so, thanks in advance!
It is amazing to me that you have to show your Birth Certificate to be a truck driver in the Army, but to become the Commander of the US Armed Forces you don't even need to flash a photo ID.
You all should go read The Constitution as it compares the eligibility of President/vice-president to members of congress. There is only ONE requirement that is required of President/vice-president. That is they must be natural-born citizens. All others need be just citizens. The Governor of California cannot be President. Neither should Obama. We have been taken in by charisma avoiding the actual ONE requirement that is required only of the President /VP
The President of U.S. must be natural born of 2 citizens of US, that is, owe no allegiance to any other country. Our founders did not want anyone from Great Briton, ( from where they came to have freedom) taking over their new found country. They did not want the President to owe allegiance to any country except America... When one is born to an American AND a foreigner, there is divided allegiance.. That applies regardless of the President himself being a citizen born in American. Citizen and natural born citizen are NOT the same thing.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
