Paper Chase

I'm no wild-eyed rabid 'birther' on the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President, but his recalcitrance on coming clean with his official birth certificate is of passing interest. The Constitution does require that our President be a natural born U.S. citizen. John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone has produced his full birth certificate on several occasions and the U.S. Senate has even passed an opinion on his eligibility. So why all of the secrets Mr. Obama? To date he has not produced the official, original long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, his purported birth state. He has only produced a short 'Certificate of Live Birth' which appears to have been created around 2001. He has also spent a lot of lawyer time and money keeping the original document locked up. It is curious that he would make such a fuss over a simple constitutional requirement that could be cleared up within minutes of releasing the birth certificate. Strange. A number of parties have filed various state and federal lawsuits to try and resolve the issue, most met with laugher and dismissal. To date, none have successfully been able to subpoena the necessary document. Which raises an interesting question in my mind; is it incumbent upon the person seeking the office of President to provide verifiable proof that he is constitutionally eligible to serve (as John McCain has voluntarily done), or is it necessary for some party (say one of the States) to challenge a candidate's eligibility? It would seem to me that the logical answer is that the party positively seeking the office must provide proof of compliance with all constitutional requirements. Why would the country be required to simply accept someone's word as proof positive that they are compliant? Who would lie about such a thing? Hmmm, I wonder. But who would obfuscate as well? And why? And if the party seeking office is not required to provide the proof but rather some party must challenge the question of eligibility, then it would seem that the candidate in question would not be legally able to hide the necessary documents to either exonerate them or prove the questioning parties' case. Isn't that what discovery is all about? And since this is a fundamental constitutional requirement, why can't a party who has standing (such as a State) get their case heard? Why are they all dismissed? We have a crucial, fundamental constitutional question that is unresolved and the courts (the place that these questions are supposed to be resolved) will not allow the issue to be adjudicated. Stranger still. Who's pulling the strings here? So what we are left with is merely the President asserting that he is a natural born United States citizen because...he says he is. "Just take my word for it." As Indiana Jones would say, "Trust me." Well, Mr. Obama, frankly we don't trust you because you have given us no reason to trust you. We have an old saying, trust but verify. We are still waiting on the verify part. And waiting. And waiting.