Obama birth challenge refuted by SCOTUS
Thomas Lifson
Let me get this straight. We are about to swear in a new President without checking his actual birth certificate -- something many jobs require. Whatever you think about what the media call the "whispering campaign" about Barack Obama's alleged failure to meet the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement for the presidency, isn't it a bit odd not to even check to see that the requirement has been met.
The Supreme Court just decided not to touch the issue in the Donofrio case : "The application for stay ... is denied" and that is that. And virtually everyone is much relieved about it.
This issue has been successfully kookified, labeled as unworthy of attention. This started out normally, with the mainstream media ignoring the issue, or treating it as tin-foil hat material. Then it got eerie as even conservative talk radio ignored it. Finally, new-media, solid conservatives like Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz dismissed the issue and joined the MSM in treating doubters as tin-foilers (Michelle even ran a picture of a man in such a hat with her article on the matter).
Needless to say, the questioners will not be persuaded by the court and media, and will continue to press their case. It will be difficult row to hoe. They will be ignored, or at best mocked when they are noticed by the media. If there is any truth to their claims, proof will have to be developed without the powers of subpoena or massive public pressure.
So we are left with the following irrefutable facts:
1) When Barack Obama's eligibility was challenged in court, rather than simply produce proof in the form of documentation subject to the rules of evidence, the campaign spent significant amounts of money to fight on procedural grounds. Perfectly legal, but not responsive to the question of his eligibility under the NBC clause.
2) No other mechanism than court challenges seems to exist to test eligibility under the NBC clause.
That would seem to suggest that the natural born citizen clause is not a constitutional test, but really more of a suggestion.
For the moment, and probably in the end, that may be the most significant consequence of the entire case.
Hat tip: Randall Hoven
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/post_148.html
16 hours ago
1 comment:
Very good analysis.
I am of the of the opinion (and obviously not alone) that there is discernible lack of Constitutional (intellectual?) curiosity regarding the eligibility requirements for the highest office of these United States. The lack of honest debate and exploration is stunning.
I would have some solace if the MSM could at the very least portray the issue in an accurate contextually relevant light.
As a Soldier who is concerned that his potential Commander in Chief may not be able to render a "lawful order" to the United States Armed Forces, I dearly hope this issue is resolved soon.
Post a Comment