The Constitution, Obama, and the Birthers

The Obama birth certificate. Why is this still accepted as valid?
Print Friendly

The Constitution says who may run for President. President Obama makes light of that rule and thus shows disrespect for the Constitution.

President Obama’s birth certificate has been an issue since he started campaigning. Alan Keyes was one of the first of many to ask to see it. But a conservative blogger started the debate in March of 2008. He simply wanted to see the birth certificate to find where Obama’s loyalties lay. The issue spread like wildfire, and today anyone living in the United States surely knows about it.

Is President Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States? People are arguing that in court, and perhaps even a judge won’t settle it. But many have held up those who raise that question to high levels of ridicule. This should trouble anyone who values liberty. Citizens of this great nation have a right to ask whether someone running for President is eligible to that office. Someone should ask that, and the candidate should answer, early in the campaign. Instead, Obama’s supporters have turned it into a racial issue, not a constitutional one. How race affects the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility is a mystery. Nevertheless, race has permeated the discussion.

Obama’s supporters argue that the “Birthers” raise the question only because Obama is black. Of course he is only half black, so perhaps Obama need only show half his birth certificate—the white half. Ridiculous? Yes. But that would actually be more logical than saying that the citizenship question is racial. That is, unless one applies the logic of Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals): if you ridicule someone enough, they will stop asking the tough questions.

The text of the Constitution is race-neutral on this point. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

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…

The Framers obviously wanted any person who became President to be a “natural born citizen,” and made all others simply ineligible. This rule is not racial in any way shape or form. Anyone, of any race, can be a “natural born Citizen.”

The “Anti-Birthers” often say that President Obama is a constitutional scholar. That means that he has read and understands the Constitution. So we should ask not whether he understands the Constitution, but whether he honors the Constitution.

All Presidents swear to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” We expect a President not to subvert it or place himself above it, but to follow it and protect it in word and spirit. President Obama, under much pressure from various directions, simply refused to do that during his campaign and the first two and a half years of his term. Whether he is a citizen pales before his disregard of his Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency. Does such disregard qualify him as a preserver, protector and defender of the Constitution? Why has no one in this debate yet asked this?

An elected official, sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution, should not think himself above it. We all bind ourselves by the Rule of our Land, even the President of the United States—or I should say, especially the President of the United States. We cannot and should not trust people who break or ignore the laws to protect the laws. That defies logic and common sense. We must restore logic and common sense to this government and demand both from our public servants. Then we might restore our prosperity and preserve our freedoms.