Why should it even matter if Obama was born in the U.S.? (Cafeteria Constitutionalism?)

The weirdly persistant belief held by many Americans that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States has been back in the news lately thanks to Major Stefan Cook, the "birther" soldier who ~~was granted~~ has requested conscientious objector status because he refused to fight for a president he believes is illegitimate. There's also a bill gathering some support in the House that would change election law to require candidates to prove their citizenship.

The birther phenomenon is predictable form of paranoia given the president's unusually exotic (for a president, anyway) background. But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?

Let's imagine that Barack Obama had been born in Indonesia or Kenya or anywhere else for that matter, and hadn't become a citizen until moving to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Is there one good reason why that would make him less fit to be president?

Put another way, is there one good reason why foreign-born governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't legally run for president but Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin can?

Naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeline Albright have been allowed into the highest positions in the U.S. national security establishment without anyone questioning their loyalty. Why shouldn't voters be allowed to decide whether a foreign-born candidate is American enough to be president?

I’m curious why you consider my point evidence of left-wingedness.

I agree that the requirement that the president be native-born being in the Constitution settles the question, up until the Constitution is amended to read otherwise.

My point was merely about the argument some were making on the comments page for this article: someone born elsewhere, but raised here since the age of two, is more likely to be a traitor than someone born here.

This is an utterly idiotic argument. In fact, I think an excellent case can be made that someone who is born elsewhere and chooses to be an American is less likely to become a traitor than someone who is born here and grows up taking the American system for granted and being educated only in its flaws.

Can you comprehend that it is possible to disagree with the validity of a particular line of argument while still agreeing with the position it is intended to support?

I challenge you to look back thru my many thousands of posts and find a single one in which I indicate a shred of admiration for Cuba, Iran, Syria or Venezuela. Or for their governments, anyway.

BTW, a naturalized citizen is not “a foreigner.” He is every bit as much a citizen as one who is natural born. This can be seen by the fact there are only two posts in the entire USA closed to him, President and Vice-President.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.