Now that President Obama has been re-elected, he will not be running for President again. While proposed legislation in a number of states would have added requirements of presidential candidates to prove eligibility in various (sometimes silly) ways, none became law. The supporters of these bills universally claimed that “this is not about Obama,” but of course it was.
Now it is a little easier to make an argument that the bills are not about Obama. They are, however, vindication of the validity of the concerns of the birthers, and so ultimately they are about Obama. To argue for the need for such a bill is to argue that things aren’t just fine the way they are. One might also argue that a presidential vetting bill is not vindication of birthers, but prevention of future birthers. That again falsely affirms that people who think like birthers respond to reason. In fact, the State of Arizona did verify the facts of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and it made not wit of difference to birthers.
Missouri, appropriately named “the show-me state,” has a bill, HB 41, that asks presidential candidates in the general election to show them a birth certificate, and to let the people of Missouri look at it too. It places the burden of proof of eligibility on the candidate. There is a question as to whether any state can make such requirements, essentially adding to the eligibility requirements in the Constitution. However, if this bill becomes law, I find it unlikely that any major party candidate will challenge it.
While the bill offers some small solace to the birthers, it also would be a big win for the Obots, because in addition to requiring documentation from the candidates, it also defines “natural born citizen” as:
…having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.
Read the bill: