Search This Blog

Friday, March 6, 2009


With so many suits being filed around the country, I have reluctantly left the issue of Obama's presidential eligibility on the far recesses of the proverbial back burner.

However, I couldn't let an irresponsible AP story regarding the issue which appeared in today's D&C go unchallenged. Given the seriousness of the matter, the article bordered on the trite and simple-minded. Sadly, 99% of the D&C readership will likely never know that they've been misguided.

Under the headline "Judge assails cases denying Obama's citizenship", AP reporter Nedra Pickler deftly managed to mischaracterize the issue and to mislead readers.

First, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson denied one suit (singular), that being Hollister vs Soetoro. Gotta' watch how they word those headlines. Harmless embellishment, I'm sure.

Second, the Judge's sarcasm nothwithstanding, the evidenciary merits of the claim itself were NOT reviewed, only the usual procedural questions regarding legal standing, harm done and appropriate remedies. Of course, a cursory reading of the AP article would lead one to quickly believe that the ineligibility evidence was reviewed and rendered "foolish" and/or "frivolous". Not so.

Third--and what might not be known to Ms. Pickler--it has only recently been learned that a Court cannot enforce Constitutional eligibility requirements as set forth in Art 2, Section 1 of the Constitution since, quite amazingly, there is nothing codified that allows the Court to render a judgement on the merits of POTUS ineligibility claims. Talk about a legal quandary, huh? So, in effect, what this case illustrates is that this Judge adopted the prevailing view that the electoral process itself properly vets candidates since, as said, there is simply no law which requires such vetting be done for a presidential candidate. Re-read that sentence. Let it sink in. Absent a legal mechanism requiring presidential candidates to substantiate their eligibility, their election alone determines their eligibility. Not a court. So, in that sense the Judge was correct in denying the case. Pretty stunning, huh?

Of course, had the numerous suits already filed not gone forward, this abyssmal legal loophole would never have fully come to light. Again, the Courts have no jurisdiction in these matters. Thus, the judicial stone walls experienced by all the cases to date is now better understood. Well, better we learn later than not at all.

Which raises another disturbing truth: absent Court jurisdiction in such matters, Barack Obama is not obligated to furnish documentation to substantiate his eligibility--even if ordered by a court to do so! If that isn't a sobering realization, nothing is. In fact, Obama's legal team has successfully argued that very position, i.e. the Court has no jurisdiction. Now, that IS scary!

Fourth, the AP article erroneously asserted that disclaimers regarding Obama's eligibility have been debunked by virtue of Obama's campaign having "posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its website." God help us all. Urban legends don't die easily, do they. So much for journalistic acumen and integrity. Had the writer researched this item--and the cynic in me tells me she most likely had but ignored her own research--she would have easily determined that only his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), not his Birth Certificate, was posted. ( I won't bore you again by explaining why the COLB is insufficient evidence of live birth in the USA. Interested readers may refer to my previous posts on the "natural born citizenship" tests.)

SO, I think we can all safely say that neither the courts nor the Supreme Court will likely deign to nullify or otherwise abrogate any presidential election outcome. No matter what. No sense tempting tumult by overruling the electorate. Thus, to have any hope of success at this stage it appears that the POTUS eligibility suits must emanate from the States to have any legal standing and that a) SCOTUS will eventually need to review the issue and b) Congress will need to fashion a law specifying procedures for candidates to substantiate their eligibility BEFORE an election actually occurs. Very likely none of this has any real hope of happening until well AFTER Obama's out of office, if even then.

So, it appears that pending proper remedies we none of us have any recourse but to allow what may be a Usurper-in-Chief to occupy the White House now and in the future. Again, it appears that the only evidenciary test of a person's eligibility appears to be his or her election alone. A rather alarming gap in the rule of law, I'd say. But, perhaps there is a constiutional remedy afterall.

Lesson now learned, and enter Quo Warranto.

One particular suit which you should keep your eye on is Kerchner vs Obama in Jew Jersey which alleges that Congress failed to properly determine Obama's POTUS qualifications. What makes this case of special interest is the incorporation of the principle of Quo Warranto, one of the oldest rights in common law and recognized by the Founding Fathers.

Very briefly, a writ of Quo Warranto, which circumvents the court system, seeks to prevent a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what may have already occurred. In effect, a QW action enjoins either the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to ascertain a public office holder's eligibility to hold that office after the fact. Short of impeachment, the Quo Warranto statute, which was authorized by Congress, now clearly appears to be the only Constitutional means of removing a possibly ineligible president from office.

It is my understanding that attorneys Donofrio and Apuzzi have already provided a legal brief regarding Quo Warranto to both Atty Gen. Holder and the D.C. District Attorney which, it is hoped, will compel one or the other to institute a Quo Warranto action which would lead to the removal of the current president should the evidence warrant such removal.

Of course, in the interest of the common good Mr. Obama could voluntarily provide evidence which would substantiate his eligibility once and for all; but, for reasons unknown to me, he and his legal team refuse to do so. Very disturbing, indeed.

Given these revelations, I have some catching up to do. Will carefully study developments and report back to you. Intensely compelling stuff. I hope it is of some interest to you as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please refrain from incivility and profanity.