Okay… let’s talk about “original intent,” just for a moment.

How did the Founding Fathers originally intend us to go about vetting the natural born citizenship of our presidents?

Wrong answer # 1: Making them produce their birth certificates.

Birth Certificates are (at least in our own country) a relatively recent innovation. Anybody who has done genealogy in this country will quickly stumble upon the fact that birth certificates were not widely required until after 1906. As such, of our 43 presidents (remember, Grover Cleveland is counted twice to get to Obama’s #44) all but eight of them were born prior to that date. While I certainly cannot verify that only the 8 presidents born after 1906 ever had birth certificates, the fact that many presidents did not have them is not a controversial issue.

Ike Eisenhower (born 1890) never had one as pointed out in several of his biographies. And Harry Truman (born 1884) got his as an “honorary” one after he became President, when folks in his home town felt he finally deserved one for making good. Birth certificates did not become common even in Europe until Napoleon started instituting them everywhere he conquered in the early 19th century. Not one of the framers of the Constitution was likely to have ever even heard of such a document.

So… how did they imagine anybody would check up on the natural born citizenship of a candidate for president? The standards of their day (and thus the precedent of the last 200 years) was to first and foremost take the candidate at his (not yet “his or her”) word. The idea was that such an issue would necessarily be subject to vetting by the community, since people are not hatched out of thin air. There are witnesses to lives led, and if someone was not truly what they said they were, then certainly somebody with knowledge and evidence otherwise would come forward with it. Without such evidence, the presumption was that the candidate was truthful about their status.

This was tested in the case of Chester Arthur when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Rumors began to circulate that he had actually been born in Canada and not Vermont, and at least one attack pamphlet was written making that case. But in eerie premonition to today’s example, his attackers had no evidence whatsoever of a Canadian birth. Arthur was never required to prove his status, since the presumption of truth was already his as per more than a century of precedent. If his accusers had no evidence that he was born anywhere other than where he said he was, then he didn’t have to prove a goddamn thing.

As it has been for every single President in our history. Not a single one has ever been required to jump through hoops and prove their natural born citizenship status. This is because hoop jumping is never reasonable until someone has actually produced a hoop.

This is the same circumstance we are in today. There is not a single piece of evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu. Not a document, not an eyewitness testimony… nothing. Every single claim of evidence for a Kenyan birth has evaporated into the conspiratorial ether along with UFOs, the Illuminati and the Loch Ness Monster. Every single claim appears to be based on nothing more than indigestion after consuming some particularly nasty Texas burrito.

Understand… precedents are respected primarily because they make sense. They are examples of past processs that deserve emulation because they worked. The vetting process for American Presidents (i.e. depending on the voters to do the vetting) has served us pretty doggone well for almost a quarter millennium. The sudden stir and cry for a more rigorous process is not motivated by need. It is motivated by baser emotions that vary depending on whether the crier is a sore loser, a racist or a simple nutcase.

I realize that those three categories are not mutually exclusive.


Let the birthers stew.

He was born in Panama!

Why do I hear Van Halen in the background? Nevermind....

Epectitus,

You raise some interesting points. While I generally support the creation of a formal vetting process, I do understand that such a process would never stop conspiracy theorists. At the same time, a formal process would make situations suc as Obama's citizenship would gain less ground if such a process were initiated.

But, before a vetting process can b established, we need a formal definition of NBCitizenship. I would like Congress to establish a law that explains exactly what a US NBC is. As the world becomes smaller, more US folks will marry folks from other countries. This is what has initiated this conspiracy. IF Obama was born to 2 US citizens but his folks were vacationing in Kenya and Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be a NBC (IMHO); but we need firm clarification of this.

But even with a firm definition of NBCitizenship and a formal vetting process in place, we would still have conspiracy theorists speculating about Obama's qualifications. Conspiracy theorist need something to conspire against. Gov and gov officials are great targets for such conspiracy.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (BREATH) HHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

I can read and understand 'em just fine... I just get sleepy halfway through and have to take a nap before I get to the end.

The Founders were assuring job security for generations of lawyers and judges.

And it's clear none of them had access to a time machine.

By the way... is it wrong that I look forward to Epectitus' posts like I look forward to a new book in a favorite series being released at Barnes and Noble's?