I know conservatives who say they don't care whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, but I differ. It does matter whether he became President by fraud. If that part of the Constitution doesn't matter, then what parts do matter and why? The convenient bits?

I don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii. Riddle me this: why won't he produce a birth certificate unless he has something to hide? If that makes me a 'birther', fine.

This situation is ludicrous. As things stand the top executive in Hawaii, who is on a personal mission to vindicate Obama, is reduced to waffle. Obama has been protected by a bodyguard of lies about his whole career. Nearly 6 months ago only 42% of Americans were sure that Obama is a natural-born citizen (CNN poll!). It looks like the guy is illegitimate. He can change that but doesn't and won't say why not. What does that do for his signature on Obamacare? What does that do for his authority as commander in chief?

UPDATE:

I'm lifting this from the comments below to show that for an issue with "no traction" this one sure provokes debate -

Dave:
I'm conservative, hold to the rule of law, and don't have more reason to believe Obama was not born in Hawaii than for me to believe G.W. Bush wasn't born in Connecticut. For those interested, James Taranto wrote a piece on this topic in 2009.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2011 6:40 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 06:40

mark:
That's true if Bush has refused to show his birth certificate and spent a fortune in legal fees to fight that and sealed his college records and many other documents. Dave, the guy's an obvious fraud. It couldn't be more blatant if he wore a t-shirt with 'Con-man' on it. If he produces the original certificate, then that's the evidence, not a 2007 computer print-out with no detail and a statement by a parti-pris government official. It would take Obama what, 10 seconds maybe, to get it done? This 'birther' would then say "Ok, I asked for proof he's qualified, he's finally supplied it, end of story, why'd it take so long?" I'm in mixed company of course with Limbaugh, Matthews and the Governor of Hawaii, who can't even say "I've seen it, but won't show it because Obama won't let me." I guess that means he can't find it.

It's an obvious, blatant con which relies on the good nature of people like you. Talk about walk like a duck, squawk like a duck, maybe it is a duck.

As for Taranto's piece, it boils down to:

1. Yes, the law is that he needs to show he was born in Hawaii.
2. We should accept the 2007 print-out produced for a political campaign by a civil servant dismissive of the public interest even tho Obama refuses to supply his original birth certificate for no reason at all except some imputed Jedi head-fake against his opponents.

Posted by mark | January 22, 2011 7:11 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 07:11

Dave:
"It would take Obama what, 10 seconds maybe, to get it done? This 'birther' would then say "Ok".

And that is why I suspect he won't. The birther controversy only works to Obama's advantage by marginalizing those who advocate it. On this issue, I wouldn't do any thing different if I was Obama. I'd even smirk.

Whether 'birthers' are right or wrong (and I think they are wrong), there is no traction for them on this issue. That should be remarkable considering Obama's recent low polling. I figure the reason for the apathy is the perception by many Americans that the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber-band. If the commerce clause can be used to invalidate the rest of the document, they aren't going to be worked up that Obama's 18 year old mother could have missed the residency requirements of 1961 America by one year - especially when that requirement is not valid for those born after 1986.

If Americans and the judicial system regarded the constitution to mean what it says, then the birthers probably would have had their day in court. So would've the folks who complained G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were residents of the same state - a constitutional violation for a President and VP.

There is a rising tide of conservatism in the country now. I say concentrate our efforts on the commerce clause and the health care mandate. That is where the momentum is to restore the constitution to mean what it says. If we can't roll the misuse of the commerce clause back, worrying about 50 year old residency requirements aren't going to matter.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2011 9:45 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 09:45

mark:
"I figure the reason for the apathy is the perception by many Americans that the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber-band."

Isn't it that perception that's at the root of the counter-revolution called The Tea Party and the reading of the Constitution at the start of the new Congress? Doesn't look like apathy to me.

"Whether 'birthers' are right or wrong (and I think they are wrong), there is no traction for them on this issue."

Actually you're 180 degrees wrong on that. Limbaugh, Matthews, Abercrombie, Andrew MacCarthy and many others across the spectrum say Obama should produce his birth certificate. That's traction. Between 40% and 60% of Americans have doubts that their President is a natural-born citizen. That's traction. Faced with those doubts, what would a man with nothing to hide do? Smirk, as you suggest? The idea that Americans don't care because of a technicality of Hawaiian law that says "Obama might have been 'natural born American', but just misses" is preposterous. No-one's ever heard of it, it doesn't change the substance and I query whether it's even valid in that sense, but I don't want to distract from the central argument by debating arcana like that or whether Bush and Cheney were disqualified as residents of the same state.

Here is a liberal view which is compelling if you think that Presidential authority matters:

From David Hahn, "Publisher, StatePaper.com " August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

"At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as "racist," "birther," or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being "too liberal" or an "Obama lover" by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a "Certificate of Live Birth." We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this "Certificate of Live Birth" is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call "Evidence." One of the core tenets of American law is the "best evidence rule" which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the "Best Evidence Rule" and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of "Best Evidence" is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the "best evidence" (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate."

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/08/05/4a79c4716da39