Loading ...
The Obama eligibility question
It’s America all over again. A few people decided to meet in a small room in Philadelphia to say they had enough British tyranny. A few people risked everything to turn Boston Harbor into a giant pot of tea. A few people have checked the constitution and have found a hitch in the outcome of the 2008 election.
From those initial illicit gatherings and conferences came the ‘birth of a nation.’
Once again a small group of citizens are meeting in lawyer’s offices, on the internet and in media rooms with the National Press Club. Now it seems the participants in these meetings are clutching the Constitution and fighting to stop what they believe could be the ‘death of a nation!’
A few people are willing to knock on the door of both state and Supreme Court justices to settle the question of Barack Obama’s disputable eligibility to be the 44th President of the United States. How is that going?
Undaunted by the Supreme Courts decision not to hear arguments in the Donofrio v. Wells case a volley of additional cases have been submitted to various courts across the nation that are challenging Obama’s eligibility. The “Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz” case is taking up the lead.
A conference on whether the Wrotnowski case will be heard is scheduled in the Supreme Court for Friday December 12, 2008. Lawyers in that case have had more time to prepare. The arguments similar to those in the Berg case and the wording have improved significantly.
More than a dozen other cases dealing with Barack Obama’s eligibility are under scrutiny in various courts around the nation and the interest in these cases is growing.
What is most disconcerting is the willingness of the main stream media to ignore the issue or wait until it busts wide open to give it any coverage. Words like “fringe” are popping up to describe anyone connected to the accountability movement that wants the Constitution to be enforced.
At the moment it looks like one of America’s greatest examples of the “double standard.” We want our President Elect to stand with his hand on the Bible and swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States but we are willing to call the average citizen who questions Barack Obama’s compliance with the constitutions requirement that Presidents be natural born citizens “the fringe.”
If those who are calling for the proof of constitutional requirements are indeed on the fringe they are in good company. They have the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those from the Boston Tea Party as compatriots and their cause is in every way just as important.
World Net Daily one of the internets most popular news and commentary sites has taken another approach which has begun to draw media attention. Beside the 60,000 letters already delivered to the Supreme Court, WND has submitted over 2,000 letters from their readers directly to members of the Electoral College. They are appealing to the better judgment of the electorates to consider that they may be creating a constitutional crisis like none in our entire history by casting their votes for a candidate that has not been properly vetted as required by law.
The WND’s front door approach may seem more like the ride of Paul Revere rather than the customary advance through the halls of justice but we all know that Revere was highly successful in preparing our young country to defend itself in its days as a fledgling nation.
The arguments seen in the press, the blogs and all over the internet are full of sound and fury but they are signifying something. If they were court cases they might read like “Popular v. Patriot” or Supremes v. the Supercilious. The least funny of all might be “the President Elect v. U.S. Soldier” this one is mine and I am happy to explain exactly what I mean.
The President Elect, the Supreme Court justices and the ordinary soldier share a commonality. They all must take an oath of allegiance to the United States in which they must swear to uphold and defend the constitution. This raises a very important, howbeit, often not asked question. Which of them has the most to gain or lose by swearing this noble oath? Let’s see.
Barack Obama obviously has the most to gain in that after he takes the oath of office he will become the leader of the world’s most powerful western nation. If it were proven that he is ineligible to sit in the Oval Office because of questions about his citizenship then all he may lose is a little face.
The Supreme Court justices would gain only the respect of the nation for impartially deciding that the constitution is being upheld. They will lose almost nothing doing the job they have been appointed to do except a little private time and r&r but hey, that’s why it’s called “public service.”
US servicemen have to gain only the love and respect they totally deserve for their sacrifice and service to their country.
By far our servicemen have the most to lose in their promise to uphold and defend the constitution. If they should tour in theater and return without incident they will have already lost time from their own private lives. Their families will lose precious time with their loved ones and their jobs, careers or callings will have been set on hold.
Yet the highest possible loss faces every serviceman or woman 24/7, 365 days a year. They may at any time be asked to sacrifice their lives for this nation and its constitution. Some may be in harms way and have already suffered this loss even as I write.
The question this raises must not go unanswered. Can we ask our young men and women to put their lives up to defend and uphold our constitution and not expect the Supreme Court justices to at least look at the Obama eligibility question? Can we at the very least ask our President Elect to provide certain proof that he is in compliance with our nation’s most important document as well?
The answer to this question should be an unequivocal and resounding yes. It should be the “yes” of every citizen in the continental United States and not one of them should ever be referred to as the “fringe.” While it may be an insult to call any man a fringe case, it would rise to the level of sacrilegious to include our servicemen and women in that group.
Since they may at any time be called upon to pay the ultimate price to uphold the constitution perhaps we should be asking their opinions about the matter as quickly as we can!
© Michael Bresciani
Perhaps there is NATIONAL CONSENSUS on the following;
A. There ARE eligibility requirements to be President IAW the Constitution.
B. Someone (Many) has (have) the responsibility to ENSURE eligibility requirements are met.
C. An ineligible candidate should NOT hold the office of the President.
OK, here’s the rub;
1. What are the requirements for POTUS? Why are they what they are?
2. Who was obligated to ensure only valid Presidential candidates were put before the voting citizenry?
3. Here’s the zinger, what do you do after an election and prior to inauguration to ensure a candidate has met the requirements?
My take-
1. Natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of 14 years. I support the framers’ contention “natural” born meaning born on US territory to parents (plural) of American citizenship. The contention ensures against ANY questions regarding foreign loyalties. “Natural” is founder language specifically addressing unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to this Nation.
Something only I only recently understood is WHY the framers, the congress, and every President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now evident to me- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
2. Candidate is obligated upon demand to provide proof of eligibility to political national committee and State Election Officers (those responsible for setting the ballot).
3. Candidate that is seeking office (and taxpayer salary) is obligated to prove without doubt his/her eligibility to assume office (especially in cases of where questions indicate otherwise), the US congress can refuse to accept the votes from the electoral college until such undeniable proof is given, and lastly, the courts can compel relevant parties to submit to said obligations or duties.
As far as the birth certificate questions, natural born, and whatever else is bugging you about Mr. Obama’s candidacy…it’s the courts or nothing (ambiguity).
Additional thoughts from a dumb active duty American Soldier-
1. We live in a constitutional republic. Period. Republics derive their validity based on the rule of law. Folks who cry “will of the people” and pick and choose which rules are to be obeyed or ignored are treading a path of potential tyranny (at the very least an illegitimate government). Ask yourself if you want President Bush to hold a third term contrary to the 22nd Amendment.
2. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate issue is a clever ploy to obfuscate the true measure of his eligibility to be President. He is/was a constitutional lawyer; he’s stated that he is a “native” born American with dual citizenship; There should be no doubt he understood ambiguity existed as to his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President regarding Article II. The obligation is upon those that SEEK public office to prove eligibility beyond a shadow of a doubt (to self and constituency). To swear an oath to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution to hold that office with knowing that ambiguity existed is criminal and disingenuous.
If you are unaware, the Constitution refers to only two kinds of Americans: citizens and natural born citizens. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Only ONCE is it mentioned the term “natural born citizen” in the entirety of the United States Constitution…in reference to the requirement for holding the Office of President (and Vice-President).
3. Who should care that candidates meet eligibility requirements to hold office? Why is it important that requirements are created, expected, and complied? What are the consequences in this situation for malfeasance / misfeasance regarding the highest guiding document of our Nation? What would our founding fathers say about this current situation? What are we doing for the future of our Nation when we shirk the responsibilities of the present? Can an ineligible candidate that has assumed office give a “lawful order” to the United States Armed Forces?
Answers to questions I and others have asked-
Something I only recently understood (remember I’m a dumb Soldier) is WHY the framers, the courts, the congress, and EVERY President to date considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to be SELF EVIDENT and not requiring definition. It is now clear to me why- “natural” (having unambiguous ALLEGIANCE to the Nation) “born” (native of these lands we call the United States) “citizen” (American).
Mr. Obama is the first candidate EVER to have the presumption to run for office with ADMITTED dual citizenship. EVER. Let that sink in…the Founding Fathers would have crapped themselves.
If you wonder what a naturalized citizen means…to become a citizen through oath of ALLEGIANCE and intent for residency in the United States. A (native born) citizen is not required to swear an oath and derives their citizenship through place of birth or citizenship of parent(s).