Much has been said and written recently regarding the birthplace of President Barrack Obama. Some have contended that the president was not born in the United States, and as such was not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Supporters of the president contend that such an accusation is the work of desperate political opponents who simply cannot accept a black man in the White House.
The root of the question is derived from the qualifications to hold the office of the President of the United States. The Constitution of the United States presents only three qualifications to hold the office. Article II, section 1 states that, “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 for the office of President.” The same article also requires an eligible candidate have attained 35 years of age and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. Mr Obama’s newly graying temples attest to an adequate number of years under his belt, and it’s pretty clear that he has met the residency requirement.
Many conservatives, who are opposed to the Obama Administration and its agenda, have expressed the notion that Mr Obama has not proven his citizenship by providing a clear birth certificate identifying the location of his birth. These opponents contend that Mr Obama’s election is fraudulent if he is not a natural born citizen of the country, and therefore is ineligible to hold the office. These conservatives have been mocked and derided by the once-objective American media as marginal actors; they are called “Birthers”, and referred to as kooks who have no claim to rational thought whose opinions should be regarded as such.
I must admit to holding an opinion similar to the mainstream media when the idea of Mr Obama’s Constitutional qualifications was first presented. Of course, I thought, he is a citizen. How could he have possibly gotten this far in politics and not be a citizen? At some point in his political career, someone would surely have made certain that this man was at least qualified for the position, wouldn’t they?
While not generally susceptible to the opinions of the media, I found it so improbable to contemplate Mr Obama’s potential constitutional ineligibility that I found myself in league with the media and regarding the “Birthers” as slightly off balance. I thought they were desperately grasping at a straw that could not possibly be true.
But a singular question keeps asserting itself to my consciousness over and over again. “If he is an American citizen, and he does have a valid birth certificate to prove it, why have we not seen it yet?
If it was me living in the White House and questions came up regarding my bona fides to hold that office, I would lose no time at all producing that document and instantly closing off that route of criticism. If the question is that easy to answer, and if a valid birth certificate does exists, unlike the very phoney birth certificate pictured above, what possible reason would Mr Obama have to withhold it from the press and public?
At this writing, it has been nearly 16 months since the inauguration of Mr Obama. And every day that goes by without the production of a valid birth certificate tends to validate the arguments of the loony Birthers. If production of the birth certificate would effectively end that criticism and validate his eligibility while thereby permanently discrediting his political opposition, why would Mr Obama refuse to release it?
The more important question is: where is the once-curious American media? If there was a question of George Bush’s constitutional eligibility, would there be an instant’s hesitation before the watchdog media would bite down upon that tasty morsel? Is that not the job of the “objective” media, to actively vet the candidates for high office in their quest to serve the people’s “right to know?”
No comments:
Post a Comment