The more I think about M. Simon’s previous post, and this Ann Althouse comment discussion, the more I am having some serious hypothetical worries about my future.
The reason for my concern is the growing insistence by a large number of people that the so-called “Short Form” — the standard issue birth certificate which most states issue these days — is insufficient to prove birth in the United States, at least for purposes of running for president. This comment is typical:
The “proof” (COLB) you refer to does not constitute lawful proof under presidential circumstances.
Not long ago I ordered a Pennsylvania birth certificate, which is the same type of raised seal “short form” as Obama’s, similarly containing very little information.
As you can see, in the interest of total paranoia I blacked out everything. But trust me, the above is what Pennsylvania will give you if you order a birth certificate and their records agree that you were born there. It is considered proof of birth by various government agencies (passport, social security, drivers licensing, etc.)
Out of curiosity, I called the Secretary of State and asked whether I could get “my Long Form.” I was told that there is no official Long Form, but that if I requested a “Long Form,” they would issue a certificate which would include my parents’ names.
I don’t have an original Pennsylvania “Long Form,” and while I remember seeing my hospital birth certificate (with the little baby footprint, I believe) my mother is the one who had it, and it is long lost.
Does this mean I cannot run for president? If so, then that’s not fair! How many presidents in our history have had to show “Long Forms”?
Do we know that every one of them even had a birth certificate?
The constitutional language is not especially helpful as to what proof of birth is needed:
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.
In the days before each state kept official vital statistics records of every baby born, what would have stopped a candidate from simply lying about his birth? President Chester Arthur may have done just that:
Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger.[2]:5[5] His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.[2]:4 There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, some believe that he would not have been a natural-born citizen (interpreting the law to mean that to be a natural-born citizen one must be born on U.S. territory) and would thus have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president. During the 1880 U.S. presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.[2]:202-203 In any case, Arthur’s father was not naturalized until some years after his birth, resulting in Arthur having dual citizenship.
So maybe Arthur was not constitutionally qualified, yet got away with it. Presumably, candidates who lie about their qualifications are taken care of by the normal political process. Had Arthur’s opponent made an issue of it, voters could have raised questions and voted against him. No one ever saw a copy of Chester Arthur’s birth certificate, because Vermont didn’t start keeping such records until 1857. But suppose it could be established by some sort of expert historical sleuthing that Arthur was born in Canada. Does that mean he was not the president? Or was that settled by the election? And if he wasn’t the president, how far does that go? Did the bills he signed (including civil service reform, the country’s “first general federal immigration law,” and a law banning polygamists and bigamists from holding office) become invalid retroactively?
It’s probably worth noting an interesting argument by Obama Birther Leo Donofrio. While conceding that Arthur was born in Vermont, Donofrio asserts that because his father was a British subject, Chester Arthur was not a “natural born citizen”and thus was ineligible to be president. I suspect that is exactly the argument which will be made if and when the Obama people provide the legendary “Long Form” which it is claimed the Constitution demands.
Will the claim that Obama is “not natural-born, even if born in Hawaii” work? It doesn’t need to work, for the goal is to fuel the cause of the Birthers.
That cause, as I have argued many times, is ultimately more helpful to the president than it is to people who want to defeat him on actual policy merits, for it diverts the issue, and if there actually is a “Long Form” or other similar documentation somewhere (which common sense suggests there probably is), the best Obama strategy will simply involve the proper timing of its release.
As I said in a comment,
I think the Obama team is playing games to keep the issue on the back burner, and are waiting for the opportune moment to release further original documentation. If states pass laws requiring something more than an official short form to run for president, Team Obama will roll their eyes and come up with it maybe in the summer of 2012.
(And the narrative going into the election will be “We told you all along those birthers were being unreasonable!”)
If the president was born in Hawaii as the state says he was, that’s not a bad narrative — especially for a president who wants to play victim and doesn’t have much to run on.
Comments
13 responses to “Chester Obama has ruined my chance to be president!”
At least I’ve ruined my own chances to run for President. Considering that I wouldn’t run as a Dem.
I would like to do it just to have the one press conference.
“Yes, I did that. No, that’s not what happened. That one I did. Heh, I had forgotten about that one. Yeah, you got me there”
It would be an exciting 15 minutes.
Dunham? Proof positive that these conspiracies have been in the works for centuries.
OTOH I resent not being able to run for president just because some stork got drunk and dumped me in Portugal.
I take heart, though, because it can’t be that HARD to forge a document and stick it somewhere. If that’s all we want, surely it’s doable?
Forget that Portugal shtick. I was born in North Carolina. I can prove it. Well, I’ll be able to, given enough time and money. And then I was stolen away by… nepharious people, wishing to prevent me from being president. They dumped me in Portugal. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Seriously — I’m more worried about the fact that the man, whatever his birth place, has NO CLUE what being an American means. He was left woefully uneducated about American history and, more importantly, the unique psychology of Americans. The more we prove him wrong about who he thought we were and how he thought the world worked, the MORE he’ll hate us. It’s NOT good. And there is really no sane way to protect ourselves against it, except an informed electorate and a vigilant press, and the chances of that, at this point, seem to be zero.
My theory all along has been that team Obama thinks the birthers are a net positive for them. Note their tendency to bring up birtherism gratuitously, and to lump all, or at any rate the harshest, criticism of Obama (for instance as a socialist) to birtherism — and hence as deranged.
If so, they’ll never come up with that long form. This would also explain why the new Governor of Hawaii now seems to have given up the task of killing off birtherism once and for all, as promised.
At any rate I’d bet on my theory against the latest Ulsterman nonsense, if anyone wants to gamble. Re Ulsterman, as much as I’d like to believe that there’s a huge scandal just waiting to fall on BHO — don’t people realize the implications of the fact that he and his source are Hillary cronies? They’re just trying to keep the dream alive….At any rate, that’s how I’m betting.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Eric, the first thing YOU need to do is learn what you are talking about. Ever since the 14th amendment said that anyone born on American Territory is a US Citizen, everyone was led to believe that being a citizen is the exact same thing as being an Article II “Natural Born Citizen.”
As a matter of fact, I’ve read article II, and it specifically distinguishes between “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen.” so they are obviously not the same thing.
Obama could not be an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” even if he were born IN THE WHITE HOUSE! His father was not an American, so it is not possible for him to be a “natural” citizen. IF he was born in the US, he would be granted 14th amendment citizenship, but it is impossible to be an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” without two American Parents.
I and others have researched the crap out of this. We know what we’re talking about, and I wish more people did as well.
The term was defined by Emerich Vatell in his “Laws of Nations”, many copies of which were known to be in the hands of the founders, and were cited from often in the Convention debates. First Chief Justice of the Supreme court John Jay urged Washington to add the “Natural Born Citizen” clause to the constitution in order to preclude foreign influence on our Nation’s President.
The possibility of a foreigner having a child on American soil and raising him in a foreign land was even discussed by the Founders, and they were dead set against it.
A Valid Hawaiian “Birth Certificate” would only get Obama UP to 14th amendment citizenship, from his current status of suspected illegal alien. (Citizenship cannot be conferred by one parent under the age of 19 if the child is born in a foreign country. )
DJ, your theory requires the Obama be some sort of genius. What behavior of his has led you to believe that he’s any sort of genius?
Not exactly a genius. How about clever?
I suppose managing to get elected president despite holding many unpopular opinions is evidence of some cleverness.
While I’m often accused of overestimating Palin’s intelligence, this is definitely the first time I’ve been accused of overrating Obama’s.
I suppose managing to get elected president despite holding many unpopular opinions is evidence of some cleverness.
While I’m often accused of overestimating Palin’s intelligence, this is definitely the first time I’ve been accused of overrating Obama’s.
DJ · January 20, 2011 4:23 PM
I would argue that Obama got elected in the same manner he went to Harvard. Not because he’s qualified or smart, but because he’s black. If he were white, he wouldn’t have even been elected to the Illinois legislature, let alone US Senate or President.
The Media and entertainment industries pulled out all the stops to get this unqualified hack elected. He didn’t do anything but stand their and look pretty. (The Media ran interference on everything bad about him, i.e. bill ayers, reverend wright, etc.)
Don’t give the Rooster credit for the sunrise.
He’s not smart, he’s not clever. He had to be some sort of idiot to believe he could win in the first place with his baggage. No sensible person would have predicted the Media would go so far to cover up his peccadilloes and so viciously attack his enemies. A Sensible person would have seen it as a lost cause, but fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
” If he were white, he wouldn’t have even been If he were white, he wouldn’t have even been elected to the Illinois legislature, let alone US Senate or President. let alone US Senate or President.”
If he were bright fuchsia, he would have been been elected to the Illinois legislature, considering that his opponent was Alan Keyes.
@ Kathy: If he were bright fuchsia, he would have been been elected to the Illinois legislature, considering that his opponent was Alan Keyes.
Is that a backhanded slam of John Boehner, or I am just another guy who’s working with the Crayola 12 pack? Honestly I had the big box, I just never learned all those color names….
I’m not a Birther, but as I understand their argument the problem is that the “short form” certificate could be obtained for a birth that did not actually occur in Hawaii. In PA, you cannot get a PA birth certificate unless you are born in PA
If he were bright fuchsia, he would have been been elected to the Illinois legislature, considering that his opponent was Alan Keyes.
Kathy Kinsley · January 20, 2011 7:26 PM
His opponent wouldn’t have been Alan Keyes if the Chicago Democrat party hadn’t broken into sealed court records and made a public issue of the the Ryan divorce. Likewise it wouldn’t have been Alan Keyes (Who lived in Maryland for crying out loud.) if Mike Ditka had accepted the nomination.
Two factors at work here. Cheating, and colossally good luck that Ditka said no. Still no sign of Obama genius.
[…] So what’s the message here? Romney didn’t even mention Obama’s birth certificate. He only mentioned his own, just as I have mentioned mine. […]