It my make sense to demand proof of citizenship for the office of the president but its never been an issue until now. There is NO legal constitutional requirement to demonstrate citizenship. (Nor be capable of having a security clearance granted by the standard USG security vetting process! No political party would tolerate such a requirement!)
God forbid we'd dare to ask the same of the finger that would be on the button...
“It my make sense to demand proof of citizenship for the office of the president but its never been an issue until now. There is NO legal constitutional requirement to demonstrate citizenship.”
Let’s be clear on one thing: we’re not just talking about citizenship, but “natural-born citizenship.” You can be the former without necessarily being the latter, yet the latter is 1/3 of the Article 2 requirements necessary to run for and/or hold the highest office in the land.
And I agree: this has never been an issue before because I believe the political parties in this country are pretty good at vetting their candidates.
I also believe that most people seeking the highest office in the land know what’s required and are generally honorable enough to know when they can’t meet such bare minimums.
Unfortunately, we know that some on the far left would love nothing more than to force a constitutional crisis that would allow them to reshape this country in the former Soviet Union’s image and likeness. They would - I believe - attempt to do something like this through the chaos this very situation might create.
Imagine the racial violence that is likely to ensue from a court decision that either denies an Obama candidacy, or nullifies his election.
For that reason alone, I am inclined to believe that this case is going to be dismissed on the grounds that Berg has no standing to bring such a suit. The federal courts are not, after all, blind to the legal, political, and social consequences their decisions create.
Think about a Supreme Court decision a few years back when a very conservative court had the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sandra Day O’Connor, in writing for the majority that let it stand basically wrote, “Roe v. Wade has worked pretty well the last 20 years.” Obviously that was a decision based not on law, but on social expediency.
So the question is, will the judge - any judge or court in this country - compel Obama to surrender documents proving he’s constitutionally eligible to run for the presidency?
For my part, I don’t think there’s a judge or court in this country with the guts to do it and, in failing to do so, will move our great nation one step closer to that of a Banana Republic.
Of course, one can continue to hope.