Gabe Ortiz makes a good case for it - The second Birther claim is by far the most hilarious: namely, that the Constitution states that both parents must be natural-born citizens of the United States in order to be president. The Philadelphia Convention must have written that clause in invisible ink, because nowhere inArticle II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution does it state that. The Constitution states that the candidate must only be born here (check), must be at least 35-years-old (check), and be a US resident for at least 14 years (check).
What makes the second thinking so hilarious is that under Birthers’ very own logic, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney is also ineligible to be president – his papi was born in Mexico.
Mitt’s dad George Romney was governor of Michigan for two terms, and even unsuccessfully ran for the presidency in 1968. But spanning his life back a few decades, today’s anti-Mexican Republicans might be a little upset to know that George was born in present-day Chihuahua, Mexico, after his grandparents had fled the United States’ pesky anti-polygamy laws a few decades earlier (now there’s some family values). It might be interesting to ask Birthers where they were when George Romney was running in 1968, since his Mexican birth would seem toviolate the whole “natural-born” clause thing.
Under their very own logic, Mitt Romney is also not eligible to run for president, having only one parent who was a natural-born citizen. After all, it’s what they claim about Obama, since his father was born in Kenya. Yet there seems to be no Birther faction questioning Mitt’s citizenship and eligibility – they say he’s qualified. In fact, Mitt is so qualified to be a US citizen, that he’s even qualified to be a citizen of Mexico.
