Obama Birth Certificate:
Who Determines Constitutional Eligibility?
The 20th Amendment:
The Mechanism for Determining Presidential Eligibility
[A number of lawsuits have been filed over the birth certificate and citizenship of Barack Obama. Are the courts the right place to determine the answer? If not the courts, who, what or where? What’s the correct procedures? We asked What’s Your Evidence to get some some evidence on who or what determines Constitutional presidential eligibility.]
Questions, questions, questions.The birth certificate of Barack Obama: is he eligible to serve as president of the USA? Who or what determines the answer to that question?
The issues surrounding the birth certificate and Barack Obama’s citizenship questions continue. Some had speculated that these questions might go away after the election.
But they haven’t.
In fact, a number of lawsuits have been filed asking the courts to determine the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President. Are the courts the right place to be asking?
What procedures–if any–determine and ensure the eligibility of an incoming president?
Who’s in charge of determining eligibility of a presidential candidate?
For the folks in New Jersey, is it the NJ secretary of state, as posited by Leo C. Denofrio of Denofrio v. Wells?
Is it the Democratic Party, as put forth in Berg v. Obama? Is it Congress? Is it the Supreme Court?
We asked our favorite fact checker at What’s Your Evidence if she couldn’t find some information on the process–if there is a process–for determining exactly who is eligible for the office of President of the United States of America.
Here’s what she found out.
[Starts below.]
ALSO at DBKP:
The Obama Birth Certificate Questions
* Obama Birth Certificate Controversy: Who Verifies a Candidate is Legit?* Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Story Heats up at World Net Daily
* Obama Birth Certificate, Citizenship: SCOTUS Conference Scheduled for Dec 5
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Video Released On YouTube
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: Updates, News and Reactions
* Obama Birth Certificate Federal Lawsuit: The Curious Behavior of the Obama Campaign
* Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
The folks arguing that a court should address this issue, are essentially arguing as follows:
“We DEMAND that you, the Courts
ignore the Constitutional limitations on your jurisdiction, and
ignore the Constitutional procedure for determining a President’s eligibility,
in order to
“protect the Constitution” (????) by ruling on whether the Constitutional requirement re: a President’s eligibility has been established.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PART I: STANDING
First, like McCain before him – Obama asked the court to follow well-established Constitutional precedent generates suspicion and the belief that “he must be hiding something” only with people who do not understand fundamental aspects of basic legal procedure. Again, the irony. The foundation of the .. Berg et al argument, is:
“We DEMAND that you ignore the Constitutional limitation on your jurisdiction - i.e., the Constitutional requirement for standing
in order to rule on the Constitutional requirement for eligibility.”
This is, quite simply, an illogical argument.
To reiterate – McCain was sued at least twice earlier this year on eligibility grounds. (Hollander and Robinson) In both cases, his first responsive pleading was to allege lack of standing.
Was McCain hiding something? Was he hiding something in the case in which he did not produce his birth certificate? No.
He (or his lawyer) was following the most basic of legal procedures – based on the fundamental Constitutional principle that a person must have standing to sue on a Constitutional issue.
Second, the Berg Case (upon which most other cases are based to at least some extent) – did not involve a “simple and inexpensive request.” Indeed, Berg made crystal clear in multiple radio interviews that even if Obama produced the original birth certificate in court, with affidavit, he would not drop the case because there were so many other issues to be resolved (Indonesia, etc.).
(Now – I’ve heard, from multiple people who have bought into this rumor – that “well, might not resolve it for Berg, but would resolve it for me,” … who then go on to raise multiple additional questions showing that .. it would resolve, at most, say # 49 on their 50-item lists of questions. It is disingenuous at best.
Moreover, again, producing it in one case (with the required affidavit authenticating it) may well be relatively inexpensive, although not the $10 people generally mention. There is a cost to getting the affidavits – in drafting them (attorney time); in getting Hawaii official to sign (admin costs to be paid to state), etc.)
Third, to say that filing a standard 12(b)(6) motion re: standing takes “great effort,” is to misunderstand some basic legal procedures. Most firms have standard templates for this, and the motion is very simple (and inexpensive) to draft.
Moreover, because a standing argument is – by law, required to be raised as the first responsive pleading to a case, in order to preserve the defense, an attorney who failed to do that would be, essentially, committing malpractice. (Of course, if for some reason, the plaintiff wanted to be sued, that’d be another story – but that’s .. uhm .. highly unusual. Here, had Obama ignored the standing issue in order to produce the certificate, he would have had to then respond to every other of Berg’s multifarious allegations. (To reiterate – he could not “ignore” standing as to COLB, but assert it as to other claims – either standing exists – or it doesn’t.)
PART II: CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION PROCEDUREContinue reading: Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?
by Mondo Frazier
Source: Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Constitutional Eligibility?
Mondoreb blogs at Death By 1000 Papercuts. Interested readers can e-mail him at
mondoreb@gmail.com. All DBKP stories are filed under Mondoreb at BNN.
Loading ...
42 users commented in " Obama Birth Certificate: Who Determines Presidential Eligibility? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI hope that the treatment will soon begin to be effective. In the mean time try lying down in a dark room for a while…
He is our President, get over it.
(correction)
He is our President-elect, get over it.
(correction to your correction, since the constitution obviously means nothing to you, Rich.)
Actually, he isn’t even the president elect. You’ve been duped by all his pretty banners (clearly a calculation on his part). That doesn’t happen till the electors vote.
The United States Constitution must be upheld, and Mr. Obama is not eligible to become our next president. He hides all his records and his vault birth certificate, so he needs to be more transparent and show them. If he had shown his true, vault birth certificate since the beginning, none of these court cases would have come about.
What is he hiding?? Think about it….
“What is he hiding?? Think about it….”
it is certainly clear you are not hiding your ignorance
Obama selected Gen Jim Jones as his National Security Advisor, as a Marine I know about Jones, he will be the best National Security Advisor eve. He trusts and will proudly serve Obama and America as will Gates. Unlike your lame claims to support constitution, there are many great Americans that trust Obama, Powell, Rice, Luger, Hagel, and 78% of Americans (latest Gallup poll), why don’t you leave our great country that you refuse to honor or serve. It probably hasn’t occured to you that the courts don’t accept lame internet rumors. You are like that lady McCain tried to correct when she said Obama was a muslim, he wasted his time, she like many of you are morons.
In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital,” she said. There’s the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn’t there at the time of Obama’s visit.
There’s another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn’t have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. citizens,
“If he couldn’t get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen,
The fact if the matter remains if he has a U.S. passport he is a citizen. That means the State Dept accepted whatever documents he provided. So unless you can prove (and the burden of proof would be on you) that he is naturalized it means he provided a certificate of birth which the State Dept accepted. Also a child does not give up U.S. citizenship just because of a parental action.
From the State Dept…
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.
Is there any paper work, any hard evidence of any kind to disprove Obama’s birth certificate?
Any real evidence that will hold up in court to prove he’s not a citizen of the US?
Any paper of any kind, any credible witnesses?
Anything???
Sadly no, only paranoid ranting based on conjecture, second hand anecdotes, hear/say and wild speculation.
No proof, nothing, zip!
1. Many of these suits are in the form of mandamus. Petitioners are not seeking to extend the court’s jurisdiction. They are merely exercising their legal right to petition the court to compel a state actor to carry out her ministerial duty. In this case, litigants argue that, the Secretary of State, by law, must certify the eligibility of the nominee proposed by the major political party,to get onto the general election ballot for the office listed. However, at least in the Donofrio case in NJ, the S of S office admitted, their ‘vetting’ consisted of assuming the DNC had already established Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS.
2. Berg has submitted a request for an order of production of documents all of which, if copied and collated for distribution, would still cost less than the cost of paying legal counsel to fight the production request.
Finally, having read all of the cases filed by individual citizens zealously trying to protect the Constitution, I cannot accept the failure of anyone criticizing these efforts to discern what at best can be described as the ultimate hubris of Mr. Obama in these matters. That is, at the same time he would be our President, he argues in court that he does not have to prove he is eligible for the job on the grounds that, the Plaintiff(s) lacks standing.
The solution is simple: don’t prove you are eligible, don’t get the job. Period.
This article has nothing to do with the Donofrio v. Wells case. All it talks about is the Berg v. Obama case!
This was already discussed on the air in the radio interview with Donofrio where he made it clear to the press what the differences in the cases are. Berg relies on a birth certificate whereas Donofrio relies on the Constitutional prerequisite which Obama, McCain or Calero do NOT meet.
Geez people! Get over the birth certificate! That’s not the only lawsuit going on here.
see: http://grou.ps/zapem - covers everything you need to know about the Donofrio case. Did you bother looking at that before you lumped his case in with Berg’s?
Oh get over it already, you whiny little losers. Do these people ACTUALLY think if Obama were an illegal immigrant, somebody might not have figured that out? Y’know, the police, the supreme court, immigration, y’know somebody? Oh yeah, that’s right I forgot they’re all in Obama’s back pocket. Yes, the most powerful law enforcement in the country is working for a presidential candidate, cos y’know, that’s how it goes in America. Oh my God! You’re right! Obama will be exposed, banished from the land, and McCain will FINALLY be President! Just like it was always supposed to be! My advice: find yourself a good therapist.
JRD Stop the constitution means a lot to me but you guys seem to try and use it as a tool for a meaningless witch hunt.
Click your heals while saying “I want to go to Kansas” maybe you’ll go back to reality. Other then that this article will put you in the land of “OZ”.
Lisa,
Obama is trying to skate around the Constitution of the United States of America.
He is not President until all the sequence of events therein prescribed are followed. Winning teh election is just part of it. The Electoral College has not met or voted yet, He has not been sworn in. Funny we should follow just the part of the Constitution fovorable to our cause , huh?
Merely having a passport does not mean one is a natural citizen of the US. It means the holder has satisfied the State Dept. that they are. This does not provide documentation required by the Constitution to be eligible to be either a candidate for nor hold the office of President of the United States of America.
It is simple prodedure for natural US citizens to obtain copies of their birth certificates. Very simple and very inexpensive. It would be equally simple to just provide a authentic copy of one’s birth certificate if one had one. It is indeed different from a certificate of live birth. A BC would tell who the parents were, and their country of origin, place and time of birth, race, and should have the persons prints on them.
If Obama , has all these things, and not producing them, he’s just being arrogant. If he does not, he should, as anyone else would, be forced to conform to all applicable rules and regulations of our country. One of these would be his removal from the election process.
Obama is really the slick one, isn’t he? Maybe he will make a great president after all. The big losers are the media lap dogs that in their euphoric state, didn’t even ask basic questions. They fell for the factcheck check of facts;real slick. Obama doesn’t put himself in a position of perjury. Our great constitutional scholar Obama has surely studied well and his gaming of the process is enviable. Can I have him do my taxes? The ends justifying the means is a great lesson for all Americans and will make for great president day elementary school lessons– February 22: I will not tell a lie; August 4: How dare you ask me to possibly lie. You have no standing to question me. Audatious!
AMAZING! Simply requiring a person running for the office of President of the United States to prove his elegibility for the office is unAmerican, racist,stupid, whinny, etc. etc??? Since when is it so terrible to require anyone to prove elegibility for any office, position, etc.? When, and ONLY when there is something to hide, or people are afraid of the truth do people become so defensive or refuse to provide the CONSTITUTIONALLY required information! Gee, wouldn’t it be horrible to know the truth, good, bad or indifferent! ANYONE afraid of the truth, which is required only to protect our great Nation, should really look at their own patriotism and point no fingers at others.
Will Lynyrd Skynyrd be performing at the inagural ball?
“Don’t ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies”? “I Ain’t the One “? “Call Me the Breeze”?
Electoral college
President elect
Emolument clause
natural born citizen
Amazing that some folks actually still think the Constitution means anything.
And it doesn’t as long as we think that the rules only apply to most of us but not all of us. That is, that some of us are more equal than others.
If Mr. Obama cannot produce a simple document that any of us could, especially to the highest court in the land then I and others are forced to draw our own conclusions, be they right or wrong.
Citizens. This question is the functional equivalent of a pregnancy test. You either are or are not a “natural born citizen”. Unfortunately, given Obama’s obstinate refusal to sign a release, pay $12.00 and produce a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth it is obvious that he is not a “natural born” citizen. There is no other reason that Obama would not have done this long ago.
McCain was hounded on this very topic by the press and the media as far back as February. Google and you will find the New York Times article that was plastered in every major news paper in the country and on the news. Any peep or mention that Obama was being asked the same question. No. A complete media blackout and cover-up that continues to this day with similar misinformed or worse misrepresented articles on the topic.
In response in APRIL McCain presented all of his birth records to the Senate who reviewed the material and determined that McCain was a “natural born citizen” and here was the result:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
Notice who was there for the hearing. Yes Mr. Obama. Did Obama stand and say, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I to have been asked if I am a “natural born citizen” as stated under the Constitution. As a Constitutional attorney I understand the importance of answering this question completely and openly before the election to avoid voter fraud and to prevent an ineligible candidate being elected and the national crisis that would follow. So here are all of my records, please review them and if I meet the test of a “natural born citizen” please issue a similar resolution.”
Nope. Obama posted a worthless document called a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. Anything that has the word “CERTIFICATION” at the top is worthless.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”
So even if the CERTIFICATION Obama produced to factcheck and the other sites is real it does not prove he was born in Hawaii. He would need to sign a release and pay $12.00 for the State to release his CERTIFICATE of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. Obama refuses to do so and in fact he and his legal team have sealed all of the relevant records.
It is my guess that Obama is going to try to get the Senate and House to try and pass some kind of resolution as they did for McCain. SORRY, that train has left the station. If Obama wanted that he should have had the honesty and integrity to stand with McCain back in April BEFORE THE ELECTION and answered this fully and openly.
Further, McCain was found to be eligible under the Constitution and the laws to be a “natural born citizen”. If Obama is not a “natural born citizen” the House and the Senate cannot pass such a resolution that makes a person that is not a “natural born citizen” eligible. A resolution of the House and Senate cannot override the Constitution.
Is the whole world laughing at us?
http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/russia/
This isn’t the first time that a President-Elect’s birthplace was questioned… See President Jackson…
It isn’t about race. It is about whether he is eligible to become President of the United States. You can get a passport as an American citizen, but that doesn’t mean that you were BORN as an American or on American property…
Get a rope
Seriously you people need to get a life.
Obama was born in HAWAII!
He already has made his Birth Certificate public including sending it to Fact cheack.org and Politico.com to post it online SO YOU CAN SEE IT FOR YOURSELF.
The Donfrio’s case is B.S!
If Obama was born on U.S soil then he is a “natural born citizen”. Period.
He’s fathers citizenship should not and does not affect him.
Also his MOTHER was a natural born U.S citizen.
So that covers him on all counts.
Do you people really belive that Obama could have gone to School in Hawaii, have an American ID, an American passport, AND a be elected to the U.S senate if he didn’t have a valid U.S Birth Certificate????
Dont you think that people like George W. Bush, john Mcain, the RNC the and the GOP caucus, would have made this issue public if they had felt it could inable Obama to be president???
They surely was looking for everything else to put againts him including the Rev. Wright issue, so why not this?
Their silence twords this issue is telling and so is yours.
Please get real.
So why doesn’t Obama simply produce his vault copy of his birth certificate, rather than spending a million dollars fighting “frivolous” lawsuits?
Now THAT is ILLOGICAL.
If He Obama had really been born in the USA.
He Obama would not be sending he’s attorneys
around fighting off the lawsuits about this.
He Obama would simply produce it or A certified copy.
I take it many of his foolish supporters believe there’s a vault were the the storied parchment is.Well there is none for the same reason.Its just a fairy tail…….
“Standing” is NOT in the constitution. It’s a misapplication of something in English common law.
The US Constitution sets us a part from the sort of government that existed (and still does) in England, because it provides a clear frame work of individual rights and freedoms, and cites that the people of the US are the ones in control of our government.
Every citizen of the US has standing to demand that the obligations laid out in the constitution are adhered to. To allow the constitution to be violated by anyone harms each and every citizen in the US. Presidents are elected to serve the interests of the American people, not his own, or those of special interests. The judges who try to imply that a US citizen lacks standing to demand proof are violating their oaths and obligations. They risk being removed from the bench, and actually should be.
FactCheck and FightTheSmears BOTH state that Obama was a Kenyan citizen until 1982. If thats not admitting he is not a natural born citizen, then I don’t know what is.
Read your constitution, and then ask yourself if a man who ever held a Kenyan passport could run for the president of the united states!
No…….I didn’t think he could! Now, who’s got something to say about that?
Oh Lord i know all this is not true and Obama is a real red/blue blood American like me, else he would have been stopped in his tracks even before becoming a Senator.
But Lord, i want you to make it true, pls, pls, pls let him be determined to be a Kenyan on and Indonesian. The facts be damned, if i ask him nicely for a genetic samply or a blood test even without standing he should give it if he has nothing to fear.
If there wasn’t a smoking gun, thousands spent to keep records hidden, there wouldn’t be a question. What’s he hiding? What’s he ashamed of? What’s the real story? Make it go away, Barry. It’s simple, tell the truth.
Non of these lawsuits are as simple as you people make it seem..for instance….I read the Berg lawsuit start to finish…Berg didnt simply ask to see the “vault” copy of Obama’s certificate….he asked for litterally thousands of documents…. including but not limited to…. all scholl transcripts, grades, any papers ever written by Obama, any and all travel documents, and a n affidavit explaining what happened to any document he was unable to produce….. this is exactly why these types of lawsuits are ignored rather than responded to. You simply refuse to respond,Which is exactly what Obama did He did not spend hundreds of thousands trying to fight them….he simply refused to respond, and the courts thru them out
The question of “Natural Born Citizen” is different then Naturalized Citizen. Illegal immigrants who have a baby on USA soil… The baby, by virtue of law is a naturalized citizen. Not a Natural Born Citizen.
Read this….
HTTP://INVESTIGATINGOBAMA.BLOGSPOT.COM/2008/12/DONOFRIO-DUAL-CITIZENSHIP-NATURAL-BORN.HTML
Chalice
Just in, Supreme Court will not hear Donofrio case, so what’s next wingnuts, Is the Court in on the scam, why don’t one of you brilliant people answer this?
“thousands spent to keep records hidden”
and who told you this? Oh some wingnut pulled it out of his ass!
A simple question. Is Mr. Obama a natural-born citizen of the United State of America? If so …. show proof and we move on. How simple.
“A simple question. Is Mr. Obama a natural-born citizen of the United State of America? If so …. show proof and we move on. How simple.”
this has been done, so move on wingnut!
today Dec 17, Justice Kennedy “denied” Berg’s case, so conservative Justice Kennedy is now in on the cover up, wow, what web you ignorant Breathers weave!
Obama’s Pretense of Qualification for the Naïve Voter
It has become pretty clear that a number of voters, (I elude calling them American because of their overall attitude), just don’t care under what pretense Obama was elected just that he was.)
The possibility that (1) he may be an illegal immigrant and/or Islamic Muslim Terrorist (since he refuses to release a proper long form birth certificate, subject to its authenticity since he earlier own provided a fraudulent copy, to support his natural born status),(2) has traveled to Indonesia on a foreign passport (since Americans were not allowed in that country at the time of his trip and he did not obtain an American passport prior to his election to the Illinois Senate in 2005), (3) refuses to provide copies of his college records (which would indicate whether his tuition was paid by a foreign entity) and (4) has not provided the other requested essential documents to certify him for national security clearance (which a President needs to have to qualify for top secret access of government strategies and (5) was involved in the Freddie Mae/Freddie Max financial disaster (documentation easily accessible on the internet supported by notes taken at the Financial Committee meetings) and (6) that Obama blatantly lied to secure your vote does not bother you, merely reflects your careless attitude towards the responsibility of an American citizen. When someone places their own selfish interests over that of the freedom, security and stability of their country they do not deserve to be called Americans or true patriots of our country. So if we misunderstand by your comments and you are truly Americans citizens then prove it.
It is one thing to be ignorant of the facts, but another not to care about the truth.
For those that want to say “Obama won so you losers get over it” I say either you care enough to demand this information be provided or you don’t but don’t discredit those whose prime interest is to assure the freedom, security and stability of our country is protected even for you!
You want us to stop questioning Obama, then demand these documents be collected or stop throwing derogatory comments out on issues for which you lack interest or any degree of concern.
I want to start by saying I would personally have voted for Obama for President (long story but I can’t vote). I have seen a few assumptions that IF (I personally feel nothing will come of these Supreme Court cases) Obama was to be found “not to be a natural citizen” that Biden would become the President…BUT, if Obama is found to NOT be a natural citizen then that would make him ineligible for the Presidency then would that not make his choice for VP(Biden) become void? At this point Bush will still be in the presidency well into June (my understanding is there has been a presidency that has run past the Jan. 20 inauguration and went well into March). Remember people there are lots of agendas out there and who is to say (conspiracy alert) that a 30 year plan wasn’t started on September 11, 1991 when Bush Sr. gave his famous NWO speech about a one world government, followed by a attack on American soil on September 11, 2001 (a pattern is emerging) that gave the president a chance to pass laws taking away many of the rights established by our Bill of Rights (not going into it here but search for yourself the Executive Orders signed by Bush since 911 and lets not get into the Patriot attack …I mean Act[submitted, read, and agreed upon hours before the vote, resubmitted with huge differences, giving no time for ANYONE to have read it before signing it]) and when we are finally ready to be rid of Bush we start hearing about ineligibility of Obama which was declined by the Supreme Court months ago only to be resubmitted and to be heard on the 9th and 16th mere days before the official Inauguration. Remember 40 of our 43 Presidents have been Freemasons (more research … aren’t I a stinker) which simply CAN’T be a coincidence. Now realize Bush signed a proposal for 20,000 military troops to “police” our country in fear of riots from our “emerging depression” which will be in place in each state before the inauguration (which may not happen… I still think…aww neva mind) Obama not being “allowed” to be president will be turned on the government and “whites” who are of course ALL racist and against a African-”American” becoming President which will of course cause rioting by lets call them “Obamaites” fires will rage across our country, people(whites) being murdered in the streets total civil unrest which will “force” (by choice) Bush to call upon Marshall Law to enforce the turmoil in each state. So remember the agendas of “others” are far more insidious than YOU may think and don’t let it come to this…End conspiracy theory. Don’t you find it a coincidence that both McCain and Obama both had this ineligibility claim so no matter who would have won there would be this doubt that would of course lead to Bush remaining in office longer than he deserves (well we can’t take the last eight years back but we can stop Bush from retaining the Presidency)
“The Supreme Court has thrown this malarke out the door” …
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
…so the “malarke” has NOT been thrown out the door … YET.
Everyone I see states that Obama HAS submitted the “proper form of certification to become the next President” however posting the documentation to a website does not constitute proper delivery of documentation. They say the document that was posted has been verified by the Hawaiian authorities but I’ve read the article many times and have never seen that they said he was born in Hawaii just that the form (certification and not certificate) they sent was authentic. The form was a certification (does not offer substantial proof of where he was born)and not a certificate (does offer the proof needed to establish he is a “natural born citizen)which are totally different forms. I’ve seen it stated that this form is adequate for identification for becoming the next President. The question then is if he didn’t have this documentation and had to have it resent then how did he show proper forms for identification as proof that he was eligible for the Presidency to begin with. People have also stated that because he was Senator this “proves” he must have showed his documentation then but one does not need to prove being a “natural citizen” to become a Senator (being a natural citizen is not required to be a Senator but IS to be President)
Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”
At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. To date, he has refused to produce his 1961 birth record, despite numerous lawsuits (Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).
To understand what this 1961 birth record is that he refuses to produce, one needs to understand Hawaiian “Birth Certificates.” An analysis of Hawaiian Birth certificates is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.
Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.
To sum it up, Mr. Obama produced a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth (a summary), and posted it on his website. He called it his “Official Birth Certificate,” but did not disclose that it derives from a 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. Furthermore, it is not yet publically known whether this Certification of Live Birth derives from a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician), or a 1961 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital, and could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth). Moreover, Mr. Obama refuses to release this 1961 birth record to clear this up, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so. Furthermore, neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected his birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny. For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.
Mr. Obama’s birth certificate does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President. However, the most important foundation question is what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal is to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, no matter who he is, no matter which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.
Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.
The answer to this burden of proof question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.”Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.
It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.
Once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.
The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”
So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion - preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Let’s examine each standard and choose the one that is best suited to ensure that only a qualified President elect becomes President.
Preponderance of the Evidence - (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases, e.g., personal injury lawsuits.
If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard therefore does not seem high enough.
Clear and Convincing Evidence - (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. This standard also does not seem high enough.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants to ensure that an innocent person is not deprived of his life or liberty. True, the Presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justifications for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard are not for proving the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that an innocent person does not lose his life or liberty. Ensuring that these freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections rings throughout the justifications for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard being applied to presidential candidates so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required of him.
At this point, I would like to conclude that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply to the President elect, but unfortunately, I do not get to decide this issue. Who then, should determine which standard applies? Moreover, who gets to interpret it?
Should the states get to decide this question? If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion. One might also expect to find up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards. This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It’s arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate. Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state’s record each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age), and resulting in unequal risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.
Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens? Let’s assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state’s interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state’s candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation. Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.
So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate’s burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?
Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead? Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.
Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S. Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits with a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a Presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.
Should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)? No. The FEC filed a motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.
What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party? Should such a bias organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.
What about leaving it to the Electors? Are they any less bias than their respective parties?
What about the United States Supreme Court? The first paragraph of their own website makes the following promise to the American People - “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.
“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify. The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it’s arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect’s natural born citizen evidence during this time period. If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?” Furthermore, what will be the fate of the Constitution, the Court, and the country if it is later discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen? Will every treaty, law, military act become void ab initio? Will the nation be launched into a state of civil unrest and unyielding division?
As of this post, the Court has not granted a writ to hear the Berg v. Obama case. While we are waiting for this historic news, perhaps we should at least look at Mr. Obama’s only submitted evidence of being a natural born citizen - the posted 2007 computer-generated laser-printed “Certification of Live Birth” on his website. So let’s review the facts and his evidence, and then apply the burdens of persuasion. I used my general interpretations of each burden of persuasion since there is no clearly defined one being applied by anyone else, anywhere.
Preponderance of the Evidence - No. What is a computer-generated printout like Obama’s Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice’s website.
Furthermore, since it is not clear from which 1961 document this printout derives from, the one with the doctor’s signature and other traceable evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), or the one fraught with the potential for fraud, including registering an out of the country birth as an in state birth after the birth (Certificate of Hawaiian Birth), it’s arguable that either source is no more likely than the other, so it does not appear to satisfy this more likely than not standard.
Clear and Convincing Evidence - No. If the Certification of Live birth doesn’t satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - No. One would need to feign ignorance and act with the utmost bad faith to argue that a Certification of Live birth proves that he was born in Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, since it doesn’t even satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.
This is where the road to the White House should end for Mr. Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth. Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement to be President.
I’ll close this post with a quote: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Copied with permission from http://www.vibe.us
Dear Forseti,I read your words with immense interest.
Forseti,
Thank you for that wall of text but your legal arguments are slightly flawed. That document has the same weight as the Birth Certificate. The state of Hawaii produced it on request. The natural born citizen argument is a tricky one at best. Since the legal definition is still in flux, I hope to see the case before the Supreme Court. My view for how it should read, is that any citizen, born to an American citizen, who has lived in the United States and been subject to the laws and values of the nation for a period of no less than 30 years, and who has no allegiance to any foreign nation; shall be eligible to be POTUS.
BTW, evil will also triumph when ignorant men do many things to disrupt and distract the good men from doing good.
I can’t believe i wasted my time on your site! GO strait to HELL!
Leave A Reply