Two extraordinary letters sent within two days of each other this past week tell the world just about all they need to know about the contemporary Democratic Party. (Rightly or wrongly, the party uses the modifier “Democratic,” not “Democrat.”)
The first letter was sent Jan. 25 by President Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski to Brian Kemp, the Georgia secretary of state, and concerns the recent eligibility hearing in Georgia.
In the letter, the patronizing Jablonski demands that Kemp “bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.” No matter that both he and the president failed to attend it.
Among the reasons Jablonski cites for the immediate termination of the hearing process is the supposition that “no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot.”
As to what those qualifications are, Democratic presidential candidate Randall Terry found out in a letter dated Jan. 27 from Patrick Gaspard, executive director of the Democratic National Committee.
Terry, a longtime pro-life activist, is running for president primarily so he can air graphic anti-abortion ads without interference from TV stations. To pull this off, he has gotten on the presidential ballot as a Democrat in any number of states.
To make the ultimate statement, Terry is engaged in buying as much local market TV time as possible during the showing of the Super Bowl on Sunday. According to federal law, stations cannot refuse ads for candidates running for federal office.
The DNC is not pleased. “Mr. Terry is not a bona fide Democratic candidate or representative of the Democratic National Committee,” Gaspard wrote in the letter to various TV stations and other concerned parties.
Gaspard goes even further to define what a ”bona fide” Democrat is. According to the DNC, that candidate is one “whose record of public accomplishment, public writings, and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States.”
The reader understands this correctly: According to Jablonski, only the Democratic Party can determine the qualifications of its candidate, and according to Gaspard, those qualifications include only loyalty to the Democratic Party.
Gaspard makes no reference at all to the U. S. Constitution. The controlling authority in this case, as he sees it, would seem to be the “Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.”
Jablonski refers to the U.S. Constitution only in regard to Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
He argues that since the state of Hawaii “produced official records documenting [Obama’s] birth there,” the state of Georgia is obliged to honor Hawaii’s records.
From Jablonski’s perspective, “produced” means that “the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website.”
In fact, however, a kid could not sign up for the Little League if all he did was make a copy of his birth certificate “available” on his iPad. Officials would understandably want to see the real thing.
Then too, Jablonski ignores the more relevant constitutional mandate, Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Although too involved to explain here, this higher bar of eligibility eliminates certain people born in this country, including perhaps the president, presuming that he was indeed born here.
In any case, Jablonski believes that constitutional questions regarding the president’s eligibility are “by law not within [Georgia’s] authority.”
As to whose authority they are in, Jablonski is silent. So is the DNC. So is the president. So are his media allies, including, alas, far too many conservatives whose “bona fides” are more than a little suspect.