On CNN, the Republican Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions, was asked by John King about Arizona’s new birther law, requiring candidates for President of the United States to show their birth certificate before being placed on the ballot. His response was, “What’s wrong with that?”
Sessions , a former United States Attorney, Attorney General of Alabama and failed appointee for a federal judgeship, is the senior minority party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the same committee that blocked his judgeship. He’s the fellow who tried to insert a amendment in patent reform at the behest of the banking industry to deny DataTreasury of its ability to recover for infringement. He’ll lead the charge against the nominee to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court.
Of course, the birth certificate requirement embraced by the Arizona legislature is in response to the birthers, those who believe that President Barack Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, and isn’t really qualified under the Constitution to serve as President. Some may believe that he’s a sleeper agent of the terrorists, while others just hate him so much that they will seize on any reason to run him out of office on a rail. WWWT?
King asked Sessions if it might present a problem to have each individual state come up with its own special demands for candidates before getting on the ballot. Sessions’ response was, after a sly chuckle, to wonder whether it was constitutional. He asks a lot of questions. He has few answers.
Being the helpful sort of guy that I am, and somehow having not been invited to join the King interview, it only seems right to offer some assistance to Senator Sessions by explaining WWWT. Jeff (if I may be so bold), the problem is that if states are allowed to superimpose their individual political demands on candidates for national office, like, oh, president, we might end up with a system where candidates are held captive to impossible, embarrassing, demeaning demands designed to make it impossible for them to run.
We could end up with courts deciding they meet the eligibility requirements, but states deciding they don’t. We could end up with some screwy state, Alabama perhaps, enacting a law requiring candidates to recite the alphabet backwards while hopping on their left foot. Ridiculous? Sure, but just a few baby steps beyond Arizona saying that a presidential candidate needs to meet their approval as to proof of birth.
The notion of states introducing their own requirements on candidates for national office opens a door to a new, heretofore unused, opportunity to make politics uglier than ever before. And you thought Glen Beck was a bit too fruity? I lack the imagination to conceive of all the potential requirements states might develop to block a potential candidate, maybe one of the party other than in control of the state. But it’s not at all clear that states lack the power to do so. As they are in control of their ballot, states may very well have the authority to impose conditions upon candidates. Moreover, it’s not entirely clear that they need to be conditions that reflect specific requirements of the Constitution, such as being a natural born citizen.
Open this door and the ugliness that characterizes the state of American politics will reach a new low. If it’s difficult now to find a candidate that anyone actually wants to vote for, imagine what we’ll be left with should another layer of political craziness be imposed.
On the other hand, there is one requirement to get on the ballot that I could get behind. Why not make every candidate for office, and I mean every office, take the Advanced Placement exam for United States History and have to get a 5 to make the cut? WWWT?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I essentially agree with you. I am truly sick and tired of the birthers. But, as you mentioned, one of the requirements in the Constitution to become President is that one must be a natural born citizen. Despite my loathing of the Arizona statute, it seems that the states are responsible for insuring the qualifications of the candidates for office they place on the ballot. Whether one is a natural born citizen falls within that purview and, unless the requirement is totally unreasonable, a requirement such as to show proof of one’s natural birth, would be legitimate, but maybe stupid. The USSC has already ruled that the states cannot add additional requirements to those emplaced by the Constitution, such as making them jump up and down on one foot. The states already have one restriction that is not allowed by the Constitution, and that is the requirement of qualifying through a national party or by getting enough signatures to get on a ballot.
So, despite the idiocy of the Arizona legislature and the Birthers, this rule is probably legal.
This controversy seems to have arisen because there was no formal vetting of the candidate with regard to the constitutional requirements for the office. It is thus left to the courts to adjudicate the matter. Whatever name you may assign to those who question Obama’s qualifications, it does not address their arguments. I do not have a natural animosity to Obama the way I had toward his predecessor (I voted for Nader), but until he prosecutes war criminals and mass murderers that are running loose, or makes some substantial move in that direction, I will consider him a run-of-the-mill hack. Our desire not to be called nasty names should not deter us from asking the question of whether Obama has reasonably demonstrated that he is a “natural born citizen,” and whether or not presidential candidates should be vetted formally to be sure they meet the constitutional requirements for the office. Or should we just assume that they do, to calm the waters? There are some 400 million people living in this country; many were born elsewhere. If there were some formal procedure on the federal level, states would be less likely to want to step in. All of the above would be moot if those foolish brigands did not immortalize their predilections in the document that is the foundation for our legal system.
While I agree that this law may very well be lawful, I’m less sanguine about the jumping up and down requirement. After all, the health and vitality, not to mention sobriety, of the president are legitimate and rational concerns for the residents of the State of Arizona. Hopping up and down on one foot is a reasonable means of determining. Nothing arbitrary or capricious here.
I suspect that the various courts that have dealt with Orly Taitz might see things differently. There is a mechanism to challenge the qualifications of a candidate, but it doesn’t allow every state, every poltiician of an opposing party, every American, to demand that it meet his or her expectations. With those 400 million, it could take a very long time to satisfy everyone’s curiosity, and I’m willing to bet that there will always be a few who will remain unconvinced.
I think Peter’s point is that even racist xenophobes need to be treated with proper respect, even when they persist after their concerns have been repeatedly and decisively addressed.
Oh. Well that’s different. Never mind.
Life was so much simpler back when the States’ Rights folks had the guts to stand up and chant out loud “2, 4, 6, 8! We don’t want to integrate!”
“We could end up with some screwy state, Alabama perhaps, enacting a law requiring candidates to recite the alphabet backwards while hopping on their left foot.”
Is that statement guilty of a slippery slope fallacy?
I realize that might be an exaggeration and if such laws were in place, I’d say that they were ridiculous.
Given that approximately nothing is in place now – other than the un-Constitutional Party membership requirement – States should be doing more to vet candidates.
What is the mechanism to challenge the qualifications of a candidate? What have been the results of these? (I ask because I honestly don’t know.)
On a separate note, even more than an exam (facts only please) on American History for office holders, I’m for an exam by legislators on the content of the bills they sign into law before they are even allowed to vote for it.
Why should states be doing more, or doing anything, when it comes to federal officers? 50 states, 50 sets of rules, chaos and conflict. Everything would go from bad to worse. And as for my “exaggeration”, do you think some backwoods legislature won’t come up with some absurd requirement? Take a look at some of the laws passed by various states (say Kentucky, for example), and you can count on any number of asinine requiements.
If there’s a question of a candidates qualifications, and there’s evidence to support the position that they are not qualfied, the place to go is federal court. But then, it’s about evidence, not paranoia.
As for taking a quiz on every bill before being allowed to vote on it, WWWT?