The $20,000 Question: How Does Anyone Find Out if a Prez is Eligible?
US District Court Judge Clay Land in the Middle District of my home State of Georgia (out of Columbus — the central-western part of the State) laid out a 43-page opinion of why he is sanctioning eligibility attorney Dr. Orly Taitz with a $20,000 fine:
You can find coverage of this story (h/t to several concerned citizens) from the AJC.com, Examiner.com, and TalkingPointsMemo.com, with the typical spin that we’ve come to expect from the media. The SonoranNews.com is also reporting on this story.
Yet, all such coverage is really missing the point of what I now call the $20,000 question.
Let’s take a closer look at just one part of the above judicial opinion, specifically pages 26 and 27:
Adoption of counsel’s legal theory would make the judiciary the arbiter of any dispute regarding the President’s constitutional qualifications. Our founders provided opportunities for a President’s qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct involvement by the judiciary. In addition to the obvious opportunity that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism for removing a President who “slips through the cracks,” which is how counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the Presidentcan be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4;seealso id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing him from office. Except for the Chief Justice’s role in presiding over the trial in the Senate, that mechanism does not involve the judiciary. Id. art. I, § 3, cl. 6.
And allow me to put this into context (via page 25):
Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.
As a concerned citizen, with the above having been laid out, I do not agree with the judge’s assertion that a given eligibility theory “would make the judiciary the arbiter of any dispute regarding the President’s constitutional qualifications. [emphasis mine]” Why? Because, in the same context, Judge Land similarly states that “if the President were elected to the office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his constitutional disqualification…” Therefore, while the Judge may disagree with the current case before him, he has quite clearly and obviously left open the concept that the President could be found to be disqualified from office.
What the Judge — nor has anyone else, to date — has answered is the following question:
What if we, the People, discover at least anecdotal evidence that suggests that the President may not be qualified after a general election has taken place and after the Legislative process has been exhausted? What then?
I’m not going to go about repeating all the reasons why some of us question this President’s eligibility; I always append a reasonably complete listing of links at the bottom of every eligibility posting for my readers to begin their research. Even so, this is not the point.
This is also not an issue whereby the “opposition” to those of us who question must subsequently prove why we think that the President might, in fact, be ineligible for office. Yes, that can make for some excellent academic discussions as to the nuances of law, but the bottom line is that the question is asked and has not been conclusively answered. After all, if it was, the question would no longer be an issue (and, no, for those in the “opposition,” an argument that the so-called “birthers” are simply “ignoring the evidence” is merely a cop-out to the real question).
So, here’s the challenge. In my opinion, Judge Land is not saying that the eligibility question is irrelevant; quite the contrary, as I’ve just shown. Therefore, if it can be found that Mr. Obama used fraudulent or other means to conceal his ineligibility, how do you find out?
Who makes this call, especially in light of apparent ignorance that many in the Legislative branch may not know what a natural born citizen is?
This just in (h/t SentinelRadio): An archived page from the Nairobi, Kenyan Sunday Standard claims in 2004 that Mr. Obama was Kenyan-born (click image for larger picture):
…and could this article be confirming the village from which Mr. Obama could have been born?
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Similar Posts:
- Eligibility Update: Ankeny v. Daniels and Citizenship; Sen. Frist on “Birthers;” Kerchner Ad
- WND: Sen. Martinez Says Eligibility is Up to the Voters to Decide
- WTPF.org Open Letter to President-elect Obama, to be Published in USA Today Next Week
- Mario Apuzzo on 14th Amendment, Dual Citizenship
- White House Spokeswoman: “Good Shape” on Obama’s Birthplace
Judge Carter has granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss in Barnett v Obama. The opinion is quite interesting and represents a complete defeat for Taitz, Kreep and all the Birther attorneys.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
Kenneth, they had no doubt that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen, and all of them knew that Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen.
Just wondering. Why would they be discussing being born in the U.S. on a resolution dealing with someone who was not born in the U.S.? The resolution only came up was because McCain was not born in the U.S., but overseas.
The fact is that if you ask every single senator and congressman a point-blank question of whether or not someone born in Hawaii to parents who were here legally, you’d get a resounding yes. I’m not going to say that every congressman would believe that everybody born in the U.S. is a Natural Born Citizen, because of the Illegal Immigration issues (I personally believe that everybody born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen).
There is not one court case that has held up your pet theory that someone can be born a citizen, and yet not be a Natural Born Citizen. Not one. Wong provides a pretty good discussion of where the U.S. Concept of Natural Born Citizenship comes from, and there is not one mention of de Vattel in any of those decisions.
As far as the so-called grandfather clause proving this. Let me ask you this one question. Do you believe that you can be born inside a country that does not exist at the time that you were born? If not, then it is clear that a grandfather clause was needed or else nobody over the age of 13 would qualify as being born in the United States, because the United States did not exist at the time. You can get technical and say anybody born in the colonies that later became states might have qualified, but they were not born citizens of the United States, because the United States did not exist at the time that they were born. That leaves around 22 years at the time that the constitution was written that nobody could have served as President or Vice President until the newest citizens reached the age of 35.
dunstvangeet
Oct.27/2009 @ 12:31 p.m.
I note that you use the Resolution 511 in the same way that the “birthers” are used to avoid the (nbc) issue. Assuming you are correct, then there would be no harm in asking the question directly to the President.
You are right, I have not studied the Resolution, but your logic is quite fuzzy. Perhaps you should read the arguments that were offered for the purpose of writing the final resolution, and you would find that birth to two parents who were both Americans was a leading argument. One’s status at birth is what is used to determine the (nbc) designation for any nation, not just the U.S. I will readily concede that he is a citizen, born in Hawaii, but if “citizen”, and “natural born citizen” means the same thing, then the Constitution should be amended to reflect this fact as it relates to the “grandfather clause” to permit citizens who were already Americans at the time of acceptance of the Constitution, to be eligible to become President.
The Resolution might have been written by some of the same people who sent the notification of the President’s eligibility with different wording to 51 states, than the wording to the state of Hawaii.
You may also find that McCain might have been born at the Colon Hospital in Panama.
Kenneth:
Did you even read the resolution for Senator McCain?
The exact line you’re referring to says: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936″
So, if you’re going to say that Senate Resolution 511 laid out the requirements for being a Natural Born Citizen, then you must also say that the only Natural Born Citizens are “born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936″.
Otherwise, you’re stating that Senate Resolution 511 did not define Natural Born Citizen exclusively and only applies to those who are actually “born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936″.
Let me break this argument down for you.
A: Person A “born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.”
B: Person A “is a Natural Born Citizen.”
The basic form of the Argument is
If A, then B.
A
therefore B
You can also say and be true.
If A, then B.
Not B
Therefore Not A.
Those two are actually valid.
Common fallacies that stem out of this are such as…
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
example:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
What you’re saying is:
If A, then B
not A
therefore not B.
For instance, here’s an example:
If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.
Common logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
I believe that one should go to the source, (himself) to find out if he is elligible.
Now that President Obama is the “President”, and since he was sworn in by the Constitution, which he swore to defend, uphold and protect, he should be asked a direct question: WHETHER OR NOT HIS BEING BORN TO ONE PARENT WHO WAS AMERICAN, AND ANOTHER PARENT, WHO WAS NOT AN AMERICAN, MEETS THE CONDITION OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE RESOLUTION IN CONGRESS OF 2008 IMPLIES THAT BEING BORN TO TWO PARENTS WHO ARE BOTH AMERICANS QUALIFIED SENATOR MCCAIN TO BE PRESIDENT;AND A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SHOULD REQUIRE THE SAME FOR ALL POTENTIAL HOLDERS OF THE PRESIDENCY?
If his answer is yes, then he could be asked about any other conditions that satisfy the term “natural born citizen” as specified in Article 2 of the Constitution.
Another article from overseas. http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html
Interesting what the article has to say about Americans working in their country:
The Monitor
Uganda: Citizens Form Obama Support Group
16 February 2008
Grace Matsiko
Kampala—Ugandans have formed a group to mobilize support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US Presidency.
The Obama Solidarity Group (OSP) launched its campaign at Makerere University on January 18, according to one of the members.
“Our group has been formed to see that our candidate gets support from not only Americans but other parts of the world including Uganda because he is a symbol of Africa in a western democracy. “Mr Sliver Mulindwa, a third year student a the university, said.
“We have campaigned among the Americans working in Uganda and they have shown support for the candidate *Obama, a senator for Illinois is campaigning against US former First Lady Hilary Clinton on the Democrats ticket to become America’s first black President……..”
I only got a screen shot of this much and can’t find the article anymore on WayBack Machine, either.
[...] had been a footnote to a recent posting on this site — as originally broke by TheBirthers.org — has become a whirl-wind of [...]
I found the following comment interesting:
“discover at least anecdotal evidence”
Is annecdotal evidence suitable to make such a serious charge as ineligiblity?
I have been waiting to see any true evidence, other than pure hearsay, addressing Obama’s eligibility. The purported Kenyan birth certificates have been reasonably well discredited. And the Hawaiian birth certificate (yes check the Hawaiian web site for ordering the standard docment to say obtain a passport) has not been seriously refuted.
If those arguing ineligibility are to be taken seriously, they will need to produce serious evidence supporting thier contention. To date they have not done so.
You are misrepresenting the argument. They said nothing about anything being “okay.” They argued that Keyes did not have standing because he experienced no harm resulting from Obama’s inclusion on the ballot.
As far as all the evidence shows, that’s exactly what we had last November. You seem to keep forgetting that you guys are the ones insisting that the election was not “fair and open,” or that there was “fraud” involved.
Okay. Prove it.
No records are sealed. You can’t erase evidence from the Internet. And when Obama supporters claim a document is a forgery they usually have something “Birthers” do not; actual evidence that it is a forgery.
But who is defending the Internet image? They are defending the actual COLB. The image of it is irrelevant.
The image is not a birth certificate. It is an image of a birth certificate. The actual birth certificate is the COLB itself.
Well… whether or not it’s “all they have” it is certainly “all they need.”
Until such time as you guys come up with evidence that contradicts it, under the FRE it pretty much makes their case a slam dunk.
There you go again. If you have evidence that these are forged, present it. You’ve had more than a year to come up with some. Where is it?
Right back at you. Almost this whole post of yours was complaining about the birth certificate. Only at the last second do you throw in Plan B, the whole “citizenship of the father” thing. Why spend most of the post arguing about the BC if you think it doesn’t matter anyway? You seem confused.
On our side, however, we’re not confused. The birth certificate is the only thing that matters because if Obama was born in Hawaii (as all the genuine evidence shows) then he is eligible to be President.
Why try to explain what is not true? Nobody has claimed that Obama is “a natural born American citizen without British citizenship.”
He was instead a natural born American citizen with British citizenship.
Whether he still has British citizenship or not hardly matters. He is still a natural born American citizen, and thus is eligible for the Presidency.
That’s a political argument, not a legal argument. 70 million Americans and the overwhelming majority of the electoral college did not agree with your argument last November. A court is not going to declare all their votes to be null based on your speculation which is based on what was public knowledge during the election.
What do you think Obama has done specifically to benefit Kenya at the expense of the United States since coming to office that other Democrats would not have done?
bob strauss says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:35 am
Bob, Obama has admitted that his father, and his Luo tribe family live in Kenya. Are you going to tell me that Obama doesn’t care about his family, and wouldn’t use US influence to protect them if they were in danger? His loyalties are split between his family in Kenya and the USA. The president’s attention should be focused on the welfare of the United States and not be distracted by outside influence.
_________________________________________________________________
Bob, his father is dead. So that would be tough. And for his “family”, we are discussing cousins and maybe half siblings. To infer that President Obama’s loyalties will be split is not correct. In other words if George Bush had relatives in another country, that should disqualify him from being President? Come on. Let us get real.
Bob, Obama has admitted that his father, and his Luo tribe family live in Kenya. Are you going to tell me that Obama doesn’t care about his family, and wouldn’t use US influence to protect them if they were in danger? His loyalties are split between his family in Kenya and the USA. The president’s attention should be focused on the welfare of the United States and not be distracted by outside influence.
Frankly, I don’t see the dilemma. Obama has never lived in Kenya, was not raised as a Kenyan at all, and during his eight months as president, I don’t think he’s done a thing with Kenya.
His foreign policy is in the mainstream. If you consider anything to the left of Dick Cheney outside the mainstream, at least concede that Obama is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. There’s been no perceptible foreign influence on his conduct, and though you may detest his policies, for the most part they are what he campaigned on.
Again, I think that the problem is that you hate these policies and hate Obama and liberals so much that you believe that nobody could come by those views honestly. Because nobody could honestly believe and do what Obama is doing, there must be somebody behind the curtains pulling strings. This is not the case.
Again, your “no foreign influence” argument would retroactively make every Jew in America ineligible for the presidency, given that they are also eligible for Israeli citizenship throughout their lives.
Only an NBC born from citizen parents, with no foreign influence can be Commander in Chief otherwise the President
Too bad the law doesn’t say that.
The president of this country should not have loyalties split between the USA and the LUO tribe in Kenya.
Huh? Obama hasn’t been a citizen of Kenya for at least 25 years. And has visited Kenya how many times? This is your evidence of split loyalties?
qwertyman,see the dilemma? that is why a Constitutional natural born citizen is so important, and to the benefit of the country, to keep foreign influence out of the military. Only an NBC born from citizen parents, with no foreign influence can be Commander in Chief otherwise the President would have split loyalties. Loyal to the USA and loyal to his fathers country, just like we see from Obama. The president of this country should not have loyalties split between the USA and the LUO tribe in Kenya.
It’s not what I say, it’s what the law dictates. The law doesn’t make an exception for Osama bin Laden, no matter how terrible his crimes are. Anybody born on US soil, except for children of invading armies and foreign diplomats, are natural born citizens.
I don’t see any circumstances under which I would vote for an Osama Jr., but if he’s 35 years old and spent at least 14 years in the US, he would have the right to run for president.
That depends on just what each state authorizes a COLB to authenticate
Under the FRE, the Hawaiian COLB is admissible, and it proves a Hawaii birth that occurred over 35 years ago.
I don’t think the states use a COLB to authorize POTUS eligibility.
Regardless of which governmental entity would do so, it is competent, admissible evidence.
I would say that the sins of the father should not occupy the man.
You seem so high and mighty about the linage of things. I’ve always believed that the man should stand on his own, and the big evidence is that the founders actually wanted this as well. They put a 35-year age and 14-year residency requirements were to allow the people to actually know the people.
If the son of Osama bin Laden, provided he was an American Citizen at birth, wants to run for the Presidency, I say let him. If he’s the best candinate, the people will elect him. If he’s not, the people will not elect him. I trust the American People. You obviously do not.
qwertyman, what would you say if his father was Osama Bin Laden?
Sharon 2 says:
October 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm
*It can be challenged.*
Enjoy your outing. It can’t be challenged if it has a proper seal and a signature. The burden would be on the plaintiff to prove the signature and seal aren’t authentic not on Obama to prove it’s real.
This is well-explained in the Hawaiian statutes. 338-13,18,19.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/
Does someone have to authenticate your copy of your birth certificate when you get a driver’s license? No, because like Obama, when you present a birth certificate with a seal and signature, you have the benefit of assumption that the document is legit. What would you say if I were standing in line behind you in the DMV and said “heh, that’s not a valid birth certificate.” The burden would be completely on me to prove it’s not valid. If I did that to you, how much time of day would you or the DMV give me? Not much, they’d say come back when you have proof.
Sure. I actually think the legal argument about Obama’s father is discussed here all the time, but I’ll lay it out for you.
There are two arguments here:
1. Natural born citizenship requires that both parents be US citizens
2. If another country can claim you as a citizen, you are not a natural born citizen.
It’s important to note that these are not the same thing. There are many countries that do not automatically grant citizenship to the children of citizens.
For argument 1, this is an argument that has been popular on this site, but has been discredited in U.S. jurisprudence for over a century. Wong Kim Ark’s reasoning explicitly stated that anybody born in this country, regardless of parentage, is a natural born citizen. This has been upheld in several cases since – most notably in the Hamdi case (Hamdi was born in LA to Saudi parents and all left shortly thereafter, Hamdi was declared a citizen from birth without discussion). There is no case or statute that distinguishes native born (born on soil) from natural born (eligible for presidency). Cases have repeatedly stressed only two forms of citizenship: naturalized and natural born. Attempts to distinguish a third category, born citizens who are nevertheless ineligible, have no current caselaw or statutes, or even a single current legal scholar, who agrees with that opinion.
As for argument 2 – this is a very dangerous precedent that is sought. Saying that if another country can grant citizenship upon you that you’re ineligible for the presidency is a blatant violation of national sovereignty. This would give every country in the world veto power over who can or cannot be president. This would retroactively declare that every Jew in the US is ineligible, since Israel grants citizenship to every Jew in the world. Grandchildren of Italians would be ineligible, since Italy goes back three generations. Hypothetically, Kim Jong Il could make every American ineligible by granting them citizenship. This is the fatal flaw of argument number 2. Since when are foreign laws going to determine the outcome of our own laws, and say for us who can or cannot be president?
You may believe that the COLB online is forged, but keep in mind that in making that accusation, you are saying that the Hawaii Department of Health has been actively lying to the country for over a year. You are saying that multiple birth announcements in HI papers in 1961 are either forged, fraudulent or falsely obtained. You are saying that every single member of the House of Representatives is either lying or completely mislead. Further, all the attempts to show that the COLB is forged have proven completely inaccurate by actual forensic analysts.
I think a lot of what fuels this movement is hatred for Obama. You are so opposed to his policies and just dislike the man so much that you are willing to believe absolutely anything bad said about him, no matter how unlikely it is to be true. You are willing to believe that there is complicity or stupidity every single step of the way, and that no other presidential candidate (who I assure you, all would rather be President right now) either saw it or was willing to use that information. Remember, the GOP turned John Kerry from a war hero into a coward through the Swift Boat Vets – do you think they would have hesitated for a second to question Obama’s citizenship?
Obama’s defense teams “admission” that it is OK for Obama to be ineligible, and be on the ballot because, Keyes had no chance of winning is the most blatantly ridiculous comment ever made.
What ever happened to “Fair and Open Elections”, elections without fraud, elections that only have eligible candidates on the ballot?
This is the USA where we pride ourselves in fair and open elections and the DNC has usurped the election process when they pushed an illegal candidate down our throats.
They must have believed that the NBC issue could be swept under the rug, so they decided in secret, that Obama was their man with the best chance of “winning”.
All records are sealed. Evidence is being erased from the internet. A full blown cover up and defense is in the process of covering up as much of the truth as possible about Obama’s British citizenship. Every time a new piece of evidence shows up from the past it is shot down and the full press Alinsky style BS starts to fly. According to the Obama supporters every document showing Obama to be British and or Indonesian is a forgery. Yet they defend the Image on the internet of Obama’s “COLB” as a true document.
If Obama’s cover up team calls that image a birth certificate one more time, I believe I will have standing in court do the mental anguish they have put me through while having to listen to their BS.
Every argument Obama’s supporters make leads back to that “document” the “COLB”, because it is all they have. One image of a forged birth document, with forged birth announcements to back it up. The issue, Obama’s British father, is never mentioned by the Obama supporters, instead you get birth certificate BS and change the subject by calling it racist if you expect the law to be followed.
Please anyone, can you explain how a British/Kenyan citizen going to school in America, can father a child that would qualify as a natural born American citizen without British citizenship?
“The whole point is that there was no exasperation on the part of the Judge, no disrespect. He patiently let her go on and understood why she has her strong feelings, even if he disagreed with them.”
Sharon 2,
Did you attend the hearing?
“I can’t find this statement:
“…expressing the opinion that he had a military mission to conduct in Afghanistan and did not need and distractions associated with a reservist who did not wish to serve.” (pp. 4-5)”
The Commanding General of SOCCENT (U.S. Special Operations Central Command)