Best Birther Lunacy Evar

[Ensign Steve]

[Pyrrho]

Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but said, "We have backups for all of our backups."

Readers are referred to archives in the Library of Babel.

However, I guess I stand corrected. Or sit, as the case may be.

[Jerome]

I love how months ago it was reported that the document no longer exists and then they photocopy the document from a binder.

[ChuckF]

Has that been moved into the archives of Legal Recordation? Because then all sworn affidational information becomes foundational in reference for the legal pursuits of others in regard to this subject matter.

[livius drusus]

Subject matter. Su-su-su-subject matter.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Has that been moved into the archives of Legal Recordation? Because then all sworn affidational information becomes foundational in reference for the legal pursuits of others in regard to this subject matter.

Oh, Chuck! You make me positively swwooon when you start talkin all lawyerly like that!

(cue theme from Gone with the Wind)

[ChuckF]

YES!

Finally!

The suit -- brought by a write-in candidate on the June Republican primary ballot, John Albert Dummett, Jr., and Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party of California, among other politicians and voters -- also alludes to "questions concerning the eligibility" of Mitt Romney to vie for the role of commander in chief.

At long last, the birthers have figured out that Mitt (not his real name) Romney is a Mexican!

Sorry JEROME, your God Orly Taitz isn't involved in this one (yet)! I hope Mr. Kreep has been apprised of the fact that Rick Santorum, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex, was born an Italian citizen.

[Angakuk]

Seriously though, going forward is it too much to ask that there be some sort of institutional process for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Seriously though, going forward is it too much to ask that there be some sort of institutional process for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for?

If the counterpoint were that we didn't have dozens of utterly frivolous lawsuits launched by idiots, it'd be a good investment, perhaps.

[LadyShea]

I am pretty sure Presidential candidates undergo at least as strenuous a background check as like for a job a McDonald's. If they have a passport and drivers license and pay taxes then several branches of the government know who they are and would raise red flags if needed.

[Vivisectus]

You could do that. OR you could drop the quite obviously xenophobic legislature and just open the presidency to any member of the republic.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Seriously though, going forward is it too much to ask that there be some sort of institutional process for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for?

Yeah, we already have that.

[Angakuk]

There's a thought. If the Supreme Court would take one of these cases and in the course of ruling on it define "natural born citizen" as any citizen who came out of a womb we could solve the whole problem and not even need a constitutional amendment.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yeah, we already have that.

Would you please expand on that?

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You could do that. OR you could drop the quite obviously xenophobic legislature and just open the presidency to any member of the republic.

Nice try, Mr. Manchurian. I'M WISE TO YOUR ANTICS.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure Presidential candidates undergo at least as strenuous a background check as like for a job a McDonald's. If they have a passport and drivers license and pay taxes then several branches of the government know who they are and would raise red flags if needed.

Who does that? By what authority?

[Angakuk]

Ronald McDonald. Duh!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Would you please expand on that?

Agencies delegated authority to administer election law. Then, courts. There are comprehensive processes for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There's a thought. If the Supreme Court would take one of these cases and in the course of ruling on it define "natural born citizen" as any citizen who came out of a womb we could solve the whole problem and not even need a constitutional amendment.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Agencies delegated authority to administer election law. Then, courts. There are comprehensive processes for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for.

What agency checks the ID of Presidential candidates?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Who does that?

Who issues passports and drivers licenses and processes taxes?

I am not saying there is a specific vetting process, because there isn't one, I am saying that the Federal government runs a quick ID check to issue a passport. I am saying the IRS processes tax returns on social security numbers and I am saying states accept birth certs or other ID to issue driver's licenses

Nobody is good enough to hoodwink everyone, especially when the opponents are actively digging for dirt.

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

What agency checks the ID of Presidential candidates?

Ministry of Birth, Division 6.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

What agency checks the ID of Presidential candidates?

Depends on where you are and what the law is. Different jurisdictions have different rules and powers. There may not be any agency that "checks the ID of Presidential candidates." If there is a legal requirement that the candidate show an ID to an agency, then the legislature will delegate that agency the authority to check the ID of the candidate. Or sign a statement under penalty of perjury. Or affirm or swear. Or submit an affidavit. Or whatever. Even if/where there is such an agency, what does that have to do with verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not saying there is a specific vetting process, because there isn't one

Sure there is: election and campaigns and a free press. The right to seek administrative and judicial remedies.

For some reason people think there should be some kind of threshold "proof" of qualification submitted to some central government body for its stamp of approval. That is sort of a recipe for exclusion of political opponents and tyranny. In the United States, we usually use our adversarial system of politics and law to do this kind of thing, because that's what separation of powers is designed to prevent. If there is a dispute as to qualifications, and some basis for questioning an individual's eligibility to hold office, it goes to the courts or the administrative agency with quasi-judicial authority. There is hearing before a neutral finder of fact, and a decision is rendered according to the law and the evidence. That decision can be appealed. That is our institutional process for verifying that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices for which they are running.

Is it possible that at some point, some candidate has held an office for which he or she was not legally qualified? Yes. Probably because nobody ever brought the challenge.

[Angakuk]

Here is the problem, as I see it. States have the constitutional authority to institute and administer election laws in their own states so long as those laws do not violate any overriding federal laws. I am assuming that whatever department of state government (the office of the Secretary of State in many states) is responsible for certifying elections also has the responsibility for assuring that the laws governing eligibility for office are adhered to. This system, or whatever system is in place, has worked pretty well. Confirming that a candiate is a citizen and meets the age requirements, residency requirements, etc. for a specific office is a pretty straight forward process and is, or ought to be, done before the candidate's name goes on the ballot. Certifying eligibility for the presidency is a bit more problematic. What makes it problematic is this whole "natural born citizen" business. The birthers have a point here. It appears to be the case that the phrase "natural born citizen" has never been clearly and unambiguously defined by either federal statute or court decision. Of course this point works as well against the birthers as it does for them. If "natural born citizen" is not clearly and unambiguously defined then it is as difficult to prove that someone is not a natural born citizen as it is to prove that they are a natural born citizen. It seems to me that for an office as important as that of the President of the United States there ought to be no ambiguity about what constitutes a legally qualified candidate. I am fine with leaving it up to the individual states to determine whether or not a candidate meets the legal qualifications for having his or her name on the ballot. However, with regard to the office of the president, I am not sure that the states have all the tools they need in order to determine whether or not all the legal qualification have been met. Namely, the tool that is missing is a clear and unambiguous definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen.