So how are we supposed to know that a candidate for U.S. president meets all the qualifications laid out by the Constitution?
Do we leave it in the hands of the verbal free-for-all that passes as a debate over whether President Barack Obama actually was born in America? Or will Congress create an official path for presidential and congressional candidates to prove their qualifications?
For all the sneering denunciations heaped on the “birthers” — those who feel compelled to prove that Obama wasn’t born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president — they have not touched on a critically important question: How do we know if someone, anyone is qualified: Is the candidate at least 35 years old, a resident in the U.S. for 14 years and a natural-born citizen? Who officially confirms that a member of the House of Representatives is at least 25 years old, has been a citizen for seven years and lives in the state from which he is elected? Or that a Senate candidate is at least a 30-year-old, nine-year citizen and lives in the state he represents?
None of the wiseacres who have been laying it on the birthers seems interested in the question, choosing instead to use the debate as another opportunity to jeer and taunt the “wing nuts,” “Obama haters,” “right-wing zealots” and various species of alleged goofballs who have raised the question about the president.
For some reason, the attacks recently have intensified in frequency and intensity as liberal and mainstream commentators are having fun dishing it out. I’ve started to read FactCheck.org and other similar debunkers, and the more I read, the more convinced I’ve become that this tearing at the seams is not good for the commonweal.
What we have now is a system in which the last man standing wins the fight. Some official in Hawaii attests to the legitimacy of the Obama birth certificate or certificate of birth, and that’s that. (Here’s an example of just how finely tuned this fight has become: There’s a difference between the two state documents, and on that variance rest endless arguments.) Internet fact-checking sites have become the de facto arbiters for serious constitutional questions.
Enforcement of the most basic law of the land — the Constitution — is, for all practicable purpose, left in the hands of a laissez-faire fight between anyone who chooses to enter it. Why must the proof of such an important federal issue be left with the word of some state official? There are the courts, yes. But the courts have done their best to avoid getting involved, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which has twice refused to hear a case.
I don’t blame them; no court now would want to or should be in the position of overturning Obama’s election. A slew of other cases reside in other courts, but their chances of reaching evidentiary stage are iffy. One reason is that cases have been thrown out for “lack of standing.” In other words, under the complexities of the law, a citizen of the United States lacks the standing to bring a case challenging whether his president has abided by the Constitution.
Amazing.
One federal judge, James Robertson, of the District of Columbia district court, didn’t just throw out a case making an unusual claim of standing (as an “interpleader,” and don’t ask me to explain it), but said it was so “frivolous” that he reprimanded the attorney, John Hemenway, who brought the claim.
Conspiracy loons are found in all corners of the political map, and some deserve the razzing they get. Others find great satisfaction in using the conspiracy theories as a great foil, to discredit one side or the other. Still others, in my business, use it for an easy story or column. It’s as though they’re on automatic and can’t think beyond their prejudices.
———-
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and consultant. He blogs at ChicagoNow.com.
