rss‘The White House Has Not Done a Very Good Job of Dispelling the Concerns’
Monday, July 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm
- 5 Comments
Greg Sargent follows up with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who left the impression in a Politico story on “birthers” that he was sympathetic to their concerns.
The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. President be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens.
So: Inhofe’s not giving up his shovel and he’s not going to stop digging. What exactly could the White House do that would “dispel” the concerns? After this, Inhofe’s office clarified, again, to say that Inhofe doesn’t question the president’s legitimacy, but he’s aligned himself with the rather absurd argument that the president needs to produce more than an official Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth to answer “the concerns” of some assorted fringe activists.
Follow David Weigel on Twitter
5 Comments
Pingback posted July 27, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
[...] in this fall’s two gubernatorial contests and the 37 more scheduled to take place in 2010. ‘The White House Has Not Done a Very Good Job of Dispelling the Concerns’ – washingtonindependent.com 07/27/2009 Greg Sargent follows up with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), [...]
Comment posted July 27, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Inhofe apparently needs to watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coCDRfh0AWg
Comment posted July 27, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I think Inhofe needs to do more to dispel the concerns that his family tree does not fork.
Comment posted July 27, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
Doesnt Inhofe belong to the C street Church Nazi cult?
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:56 am
From David Hahn, “Publisher, StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.
Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate
At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.
But, here is the issue:
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.
The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a “Certificate of Live Birth.” We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.
But, this “Certificate of Live Birth” is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.
Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call “Evidence.” One of the core tenets of American law is the “best evidence rule” which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.
The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.
Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the “Best Evidence Rule” and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of “Best Evidence” is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the “best evidence” (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.
The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.
And now we've got a “Liberal” Nebraska newspaper advising Barry to cough up his birth certificate. You betcha, “The White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns,” Mr. Weigel.
If he can. Everybody ready to hear our TelePrompTer-in-Chief taking the Fifth?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
