This message was self-deleted by its author

[Jim Lane]

78. In 2008 a few of the birthers also considered McCain ineligible

Traditionally, there are two bases of citizenship -- "law of the blood" (citizenship through your parents) and "law of the soil" (citizenship through your place of birth). It is now and has long been U.S. law that citizenship is attained at birth if you satisfy either basis, although the specifics of what constitutes adequate parentage have changed over the years.

In 2008, some of the birthers decided to read a requirement into the Constitution, namely that "natural born citizen" means you qualify under BOTH tests. Some of these folks at least rose above the birth-certificate silliness by arguing that Obama, even if born in Hawaii, had one noncitizen parent, and was therefore ineligible, and that McCain was ineligible because of not having been born in the U.S.

This year, before Romney made his VP selection, there were some people on Free Republic who were enthusiastic about Marco Rubio as a possibility. Others there, however, following their imaginary Constitutional provision, declared Rubio ineligible because, although he was born in the U.S., his parents weren't citizens at the time.

This is not a mainstream birther view (if you'll pardon the oxymoron). Most birthers follow the standard view of the law, under which citizenship on either basis is acceptable, and therefore must maintain that Obama was born in Kenya in order to dispute his eligibility. (Under the law at the time, if he had been born in Kenya he wouldn't be a citizen, although this has since changed.) Given the evidence about his place of birth, I think it's fair to judge these birthers as racists. As to the minority of birthers who also deny the eligibility of a white guy and a Hispanic guy, however, I think they're cleared of the charge of racism. The charge of making up your own Constitution, however, is one they can't escape.