Barack … We hardly know thee

Barack Obama certainly knows how to keep things interesting, doesn't he?

The Hillary Clinton appointment was a humdinger, and in general the Cabinet appointments have reflected well on the president-elect and his team. Many people indeed are eager to see the Obama administration take office, and the Bush administration to take off.

Nonetheless, there are also some worrisome signs of trouble ahead that make some Americans fear that the change Obama promised will have a French accent: "Le plus ca change le plus ca la meme chose." (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Indeed, just one month into the transition, Obama already embroiled in at least two scandals, making his promise of a new kind of politics sound a bit hollow. One of the scandals, the possible involvement of himself or staffers such as Rahm Emanuel in the Senate-seat-for-sale scheme concocted by Gov. Rod "Ramrod" Blagojevich of Illinois, is just getting started. It's too early to know how that will turn out, but it promises to taint the new administration with the stink of corrupt Chicago-style politics for much of the coming year, at least.

The second scandal is about to come to a close, officially, but it actually has much more serious implications for the nation than merely the specter of one more politician caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

I am referring, of course, to the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president of the United States, a matter which has come before the Supreme Court in at least three lawsuits so far, and which will continue to raise doubts about Obama's legitimacy, whether or not the high court ever decides to rule in the matter or not.

Those of you who get your news only from the mainstream media may wonder what could possibly raise a question about Obama's eligibility to be president. After all, the vote on Election Day was absolutely crystal clear, wasn't it? Obama surpassed his Republican opponent, John McCain, by nearly 10 million votes. That is a commanding lead that is expected to translate into a 365-173 victory for Obama when the Electoral College officially casts its votes Monday and determines the true winner.

Unfortunately, there is at least reasonable doubt about Obama's qualifications to be president, and has been for some time. Several citizens have brought suits to try to force Obama to demonstrate that he meets the constitutional tests for the presidency, but they have so far met with minimal success. Nonetheless, as a search on the Internet will reveal, many citizens view Obama as a usurper rather than the rightfully elected leader of our country.

That's because Obama's family history suggests there is at least reason to believe that he was born outside of the United States, and therefore might not meet the constitutional requirement that he be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Obama has presented a "certification of live birth" issued by the state of Hawaii as his proof that he was born in the United States, and supposedly Hawaiian officials have seen the original birth certificate as well. Unfortunately, Barack Obama will not release the original, and thus questions remain.

In addition to the testimony of relatives in Kenya that Obama was born there rather than Hawaii, there are also some lesser questions about whether the youthful Obama had to give up his U.S. citizenship to attend school in Indonesia and how he traveled to Pakistan at a time when U.S. citizens were not permitted to travel there. Those issues are all secondary, however, to the simple fact that there is no mechanism in place by which Obama can assure the public of his legitimate standing.

That could be done simply by producing the original "Certificate of Live Birth" recorded in 1961 instead of the "Certification of Live Birth" that Obama has posted on the Internet. The state of Hawaii - in a publication on "Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands" - explains the distinction to native Hawaiians.

The state tells applicants for Home Land birthrights, that it "utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout)."

You would think that if the "Certification of Live Birth" is not adequate proof to gain tribal rights as a native Hawaiian, it would not be enough to gain the presidency of the United States. But you would be wrong.

I have written about this topic on two previous occasions, for the most part merely as an intellectual exercise. Most recently, on Nov. 16, I concluded that once the election results were obvious, it was probably too late for the court to opine that Obama could not serve as president. My argument was not constitutional, but rather practical - based on the assumption of widespread civil unrest should Obama be dethroned.

Since then, I have had reason to rethink my position, and ask myself the question - "If the Constitution is irrelevant in the matter of qualifications for the presidency, just where exactly IS it relevant?" It now appears to me that the Constitution being generally plainspoken about who is eligible to be president - a natural-born citizen who is at least 35 years of age and has resided within the country for at least 14 years - there ought to be a mechanism in place to ascertain those qualifications. Insofar as the Constitution is silent on that mechanism, it is up to the Supreme Court to do whatever is necessary to make sure the qualifications for president and vice president have been met.

After all, Article VI of the Constitution establishes that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State, shall be bound thereby…" It also reminds us that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned … and all executive and judicial officers … shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

That being the case, it is hard to imagine how any justice or chief justice of the United States Supreme Court could leave unanswered the question of whether the next president of the United States is qualified to take office.

? Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com