An Interesting Exchange of E-Mails

I have received an important e-mail inquiry regarding the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Esq., the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania. What follows is my response to my correspondent's letter. Because I am in a hurry and have not gotten the person's permission I am omitting the writer's questions. But essentially I am being asked to explain why I care about this issue, whether I am a closet conservative, and whether the ends justify the means. These are legitimate questions and deserve a response. I thought my wider blog audience also deserved and would enjoy reading my response.

(There are other reasons for my position which go beyond the answers to the questions asked. There are questions of legitimacy and national sovereignty, as well.)

Here then is the letter I wrote to my dear friend.


+++++++++++

Thanks for your e-mail. I understand your questions and I welcome them. It is only natural to have questions about this subject. Also, it is easy to misunderstand my position, so since you have asked I am glad to try to answer your questions somewhat.

I voted for Dennis Kucinich and championed him even after he dropped out of the running in 2004 and again last year. When it became clear Kucinich was not going to win the nomination in 2008, I did in fact root for Hillary Clinton for several reasons: 1) She won the popular vote in the primaries; 2) She began giving a very effective populist message in the late primaries as opposed to her earlier approach; 3) I felt having a woman as President could do the country good; and 4) I felt she was more experienced than Barack Obama.

I reject the labels of liberal and conservative as used by the mainstream media. They are virtually meaningless. For instance, to care about the environment is actually a conservative position. We even speak of "conserving" natural resources. I oppose casino gambling; some would call that a conservative position. But I am for unions and against the power of large corporations and the profit motive. Many would call these "liberal" positions, but to me they are just common sense. So, I don't consider myself "conservative" or "liberal", but I don't mind being called a leftist.

As for Mr. Obama, I am very happy an African-American was able to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote....

The suits being filed against Mr. Obama (and there are several by different people) have nothing to do with him as a person or even his policies or his accomplishments. They have to do with his qualifications to be President under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has become fashionable to denigrate the Constitution, either through words or actions or both. I didn't write the Constitution. But it does say that a person, in order to be President, must be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States (not "naturalized"). There is a difference. Thus, if Hillary Clinton were not natural-born or Kucinich or whoever, it wouldn't matter. Any person must meet this requirement (along with a couple of others) in order to serve as President.

I have spent considerable time investigating this matter, and while I cannot claim to be an expert, there is serious enough doubt in my mind about Mr. Obama's citizenship status to believe, at the least, those bringing suit deserve their day in court. So far, this has been denied them, with the active help of those representing Mr. Obama. This raises red flags for me. If he can prove his case why is he not able to produce a simple vault birth certificate [something ordinary Americans are asked to do every day]?

There may be some validity to the point that because the country is in a crisis such fine points don't matter. Yet, I strongly believe we cannot simply pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold. And, as I say, upholding the Constitution has suddenly become this very challenging thing to do. Yet, I really feel I have no other option.

Certainly there is much more which can be said about this. But I believe the points I have made above explain my position rather well without the need to continue the explanation.

You are free to disagree, of course. But if you plan to argue that the Constitution is not important, I confess I am at a loss to know what else to say.


Thanks again for your questions.


Sincerely,

(signed)