My Kenyan birther certificate

I just wonder what Lou Dobbs was thinking when he decided to join the funny farm. The birthers seem to come in two types: deranged sore losers, and those who knowingly play 'good cop' to the former group ("I'm not saying I believe it, but why doesn't he release the birth certificate?").

JE: Exactly. I'm just trying to give them more choices in the marketplace of ideas. Too often they are asked to choose between facts and opinions, when there simply aren't enough facts to properly support their opinions, which are supported by doubts expressed as certainties. That's where bogus facts come in, which can be used to undermine facts and sew doubts they can believe in. As Johnnie Cochran showed us in the OJ trial, simply introduce enough phony and extraneous "evidence" to create enough doubt and confusion... and people will believe anything. Pesky facts (including astronomical probabilities) can be neutralized, as if they never existed! So, let's all get out in front of this: Someday, some of us may become president, in which case we'll need a phony Kenyan birther certificate to appease those who are praying for us to fail.

Did you know that Bush and Cheney were unconstitutionally elected? It's true. The 12th Amendment states that: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves."

Cheney and Bush were both Texas residents in 2000 when Bush selected Cheney as his VP. Cheney maintained his primary residence in TX but (illegally) registered to vote in Wyoming to avoid any complications.

JE: True, but Republicans have never intended the rule of law to apply to them. It gets even better: Constitutional literalists could argue that nobody who wasn't alive at the time of the document's ratification can be president. Article Two clearly 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..." Those commas could create as many problems as the ones in the 2nd Amendment if anybody chose to get picky about them.

"Constitutional literalists could argue that nobody who wasn't alive at the time of the document's ratification can be president."

Actually, the 12th Amendment rewrote Article II as it relates to the election of the president, and it removed that restriction. And the 22nd Amendment further reqrote both Article II and the 12th amendment when they limited the presidency to two terms. I don't even think the strictest constructionist would try that argument.

JE: You're right, but neither the 12th (electoral college re-jiggering) nor the 22nd (term limits) amendments changed the "natural born citizen" language the birthers are talking about. Only strict Republicanists are making this argument, based on the proposition that the limits on government outlined in the constitution (which are generally expressed as things the government may NOT do) do not apply to Republicanist administrations.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything but it seems obvious to me that the sentence means that the first president (ie, the one elected at or nearest the adoption of the Constitution) has to be a natural born citizen. But my reading of it also means every president afterward can be born anywhere, which obviously hasn't been the interpretation. Obviously the sentence doesnt mean what you jokesters have recently been saying (the bit about having to have been alive at the time), so it has to mean something, and my take is the only one I can see that makes sense. I'm curious now to read up on it and find out how they could read it, NOT interpret it to mean "only persons alive at the time of the adoption of the document can be president", and yet also not recognize that the sentence as read the other way allows people born anywhere to be president. It's as if they ignored the clause altogether. If you read it and acknowledge it the only two options are an impossibility (had to be living then) or allowing someone born anywhere to be pres, after the first pres, who must be born here.

Here's how it should probably be read:

"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..."

Modern comma use isn't the same as it was in the 18th century. What they're trying to say is that you either have to be a natural born citizen (which would have left out many of the founding fathers), or a citizen of the US at the time of adoption (which includes all the surviving founding fathers when the Constitution was adopted).

Clark:

"Modern" comma usage provides for that exact translation.

Clark, is there a particular reason you took out the comma that is the entire cause of the argument?

Paul,

Clark is just writing the statement in a way he feels more clearly expresses the intent.

He is absolutely right about comma usage in the 18th century not being standardized as it is today. Then, commas were more of a guide for how to read something aloud.