Further to my two previous posts regarding this seminal matter, I thought these related items might be of more than passing interest to you as well.
While awaiting a SCOTUS decision--probably on Monday, the date the Electors vote--as to whether or not the full Court will hear the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, it should be noted that Sec 3 of the 20th Amendment stipulates that the Electoral College is the place and time to challenge a candidate's credentials and that the Electors, for whom we actually voted, have the right and responsibility to do so if, course, there is cause. In a real sense, they have been described as the "gatekeepers" in such matters.
The Amendment identifies "the time prior to inauguration" for challenges to be made to the qualifications of both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Thus, the Electors have the specific constitutional right to request a candidate's credentials in Court and also before the Electoral College with Congress acting as adjudicators. SOOOO, even if SCOTUS disallows a full hearing of the Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz suit, there is still ample time to pursue legal avenues to compel Obama to verify his constitutional qualifications to be President.
You may recall that Obama and his team of three law firms has steadfastly refused to produce the "vaulted" copy of his original Birth Certificate in Hawaii. Doing so, of course, would clarify the matter of his birth once and for all. Unfortunately, he has deigned to produce only a "Certificate of Live Birth" which, even if it's not a fake, omits the name of the hospital where he was born, the name of the attending physician, witnesses, etc.
To further complicate evidentiary matters of his birth, I found that S.338.17.8 of Hawaii's Revised Statutes, in effect, allows Hawaii's Director of Health to issue "Certificates of Live Birth" to children not even born in Hawaii so long as the legal parents have "declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year preceding the birth or adoption of such child." Proof of residency is left up to the discretion of the Director of Health. Questions, anyone?
By way of review, Article I, Sec 2, the so-called Presidential Clause of the Constitution, requires that a Presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen", that he be 35 years of age, and that he has resided in the US for at least 14 years.
Further, US Title 8 Sec 1401 provides that US citizenship alone is not sufficient to qualify one for President or Vice President. He or she MUST be a natural born citizen without, of course, any question of dual loyalties or citizenship.
On 10/31/08, Hawaii's Director of Health verified that he had "personally seen" OBH's orginal Birth Certificate. So we know it exists. However, in his sworn statement, the Dir. of Health did not at any time verify OBH's place of birth or any other pertinent info regarding the document--only that he had personally seen the document.
Cannot it be reasonably inferred that Obama's refusal to produce the original birth certificate or certified long form of same mean that he was not born in the US? In the absence of verifiable proof to the contrary, then the inferrence is, to me, entirely defensible.
And when his choice of Secretary of Commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, stated to a throng of Hispanic supporters that "Barack Obama is an immigrant," should that not also be cause for justifiable concern? Or was it just follhardy campaign exuberance. Who really knows?
And when OBH's paternal grandmother said she was present during Barack's birth in Kenya, and when OBH's sister, Maya Soetoro, named two different Hawaiian hospitals where Obama may have been born, are not these items cause for concern as well?
And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?
Where or where is that elusive Birth Certificate, President-elect Obama? Now, would a good 'ole polished Chicago politican like you be hiding something fro us little 'ole hayseeds? IF NOT, then, as they say in Missouri,"show me!" (Sorry. Couldn't resist that jab. I, like you, don't like being toyed with.)
And to complicate the matter further, as if that's even remotely possible at this juncture--EVEN IF he can prove he was born on US soil, thus a US Citizen, that is but ONE of two eigibility hurdles he must overcome. From a Constitutional standpoint, he may still NOT a "natural born citizen" as required by the Presidential Clause. Since he was born of a US Citizen and an alien father, the latter from which, according to the Constitution's meaning, he derives his "attachment" or "loyalty", and since his faher was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth in 1961, this would render Obama an ineligible "dual citizen" of the US and Great Britain, most certainly a constitutional no-no within the context of Art I, Sec 2.
As I research this subject further, I will share pertinent "notes" with you. Your comments, questions would be greatly appreciated. They make me think and dig more deeply. And in such sobering matters, thinking and digging are exactly what's required. Not just whimsical ideological blathering and parsing.)
Muslims Screaming "Allahu Akbar" Behead British Soldier on Public Street
-
Open war. 'Shootings' and 'machete attack' in south east London: latest Telegraph,May 22, 2013 Woolwich stabbing / beheading in John Wilson Street SE18 Photo...
1 hour ago
Submitted for your consideration, an analysis of Donofrio v. Wells, which Wrotnowski parallels:
ReplyDelete"Where Leo Donofrio veers off course is his suggestion that for purposes of the 'natural born' language in Art. II there are three statuses: natural born, naturalized, and dual citizenship. In Donofrio's view, a newborn who has dual citizenship has divided allegiances. First, there is absolutely no legal support for the proposition that dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court, which has numerous times recognized that there are only two forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized), is not going to buck more than 200 years of precedent and announce a new, hybrid form of citizenship. Second, from a practical standpoint, it is preposterous to suggest that a newborn infant has conflicting loyalties between two nations. The Justices, even the conservative members, are not such ideologues that they would allow this theoretical conflict to get in the way of real world sensibilities, particularly in this case where Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on his 21st birthday. SCOTUS does not rule on hypotheticals."
(source)
Hi Jim D,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote an excellent summary. Let me add a few lines:
Is the Constitution enforceable?
In many states one must show a valid birth certificate for fishing or driver’s license, or for receiving social security benefits, but a simple statement of eligibility by the candidate is sufficient to be president, similarly to a “no-doc real estate loan”.
Over a dozen lawsuits have been filed most of which are hinged on forcing the President Elect to show his “Vault Birth Certificate” (not the COLB). So far, the lower courts ruled that none of the plaintiffs, as US citizens, have “standing” to enforce the Constitution, as they can not prove “irreparable harm”. State officials take the stance that checking eligibility for presidency is not their duty.
One Elector made a public statement to the effect that the current administration had ample opportunity, so he is counting on them to check the eligibility of the President Elect. In the meantime, the White House would not touch the issue with a ten-foot pole.
The mainstream media largely avoids the topic or dismissing it as fanciful conspiracy theory, instead of questioning why the President Elect spent hundreds of thousands on legal fees to keep it secret. Even most conservative talk show hosts, with few exceptions, avoid the issue or touch it on surface only. There is silence from the GOP as well. The Supreme Court shows total disinterest treating the issue as not worthy of their noble attention. Consequently, the Consultation is unenforceable. Ordinary citizens have no “standing” and those who have “standing” don’t care or don’t want to enforce it. Shocking? As a friend put it: What, the supreme law of the land, the most successful document on the entire planet, is not enforceable?
This may work: As US citizens have no “standing” because they can not prove harm sufficiently, let’s ask one of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners to file a lawsuit. The courts have been enthusiastically granting these foreign dudes “standing” at US courts, as if they were citizens. A good attorney could claim that the President Elect appears to be less determined to dismantle GITMO than promised in his campaign, thereby causing irreparable harm to the terrorist. No doubt the court will order the “Vault Birth Certificate” promptly.
I sent these notes to a friend and he thinks that unless Rush or the GOP does not pick up the issue it will be swept under the rug.
The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from “law” to “political and Congressional”, leading to the ‘inauguration’ of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his ‘commander in chief’ status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the “usurper” may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no “tin foil hat” joke.
ReplyDeleteReply to Vic.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your assertion that "from a practical standpoint it is preposterous to suggest that a newborn infant has conflicting loyalties between two nations," and that, therefore, the non-ideological Justices would not allow this theoretical conflict to get in the way of real world sensibilities..", from my reading the deeply held sense of the Framers with respect to both the Presidential Clause and the 14th Amendment appears to have been that there was no surer way to insure "attachment to the country"--an oft-repeated and important consideration/concept of the Framers--than to require a President to have inherited (yes, inherited, per Natural Laws) US citizenship thru his/her father--and not a foreign father. As I said in a previous post, the Framers were deeply concerned about foreign influences, thus, rightly or wrongly, many of their decisions were predicated on this deeply felt fear of a foreign father's removing the child sometime after birth from the US to be raised in his foreign country, thus risking the child's return to the US in later life laden with foreign influences. Thus, a child born "under a dual allegiance"--not that the baby was directly influenced by that duality on the part of his/her father--was not considered a nat. born citizen. John Bingham, a chief framer of the 14th Amendment, stated that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, is a nautural born citizen." Notice again that it is the allegiance and influence of the father, and not the allegiance of the child, which is at issue here for the Framers. I think Donofrio was pointing out that the newborn would be subject to foreign influences--not while in the crib, but later on.
Earlier, in 1800, Charles Pinkney stated that any child born of an American citizen mother and an alien father can be said to be a citizen of the US but is not entitled to be a natural born citizen because "through laws of nature the child INHERITS the condition of his or her father". And again, still smarting from British rule, John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, warned against allowing dual citizenship or dual loyalties within the US government. He said to "avoid it like the plague," this to insure the government's freedom from foreign influences."
So, there clearly appears to be "legal support for the proposition that dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen."
Much of this I will be covering in my next post, so hold tight until then. Thanks very much for your input. It was helpful.