Posted on 12/05/2009 11:07:08 AM PST by betty boop
Apparently this is NOT true, because of a recognized legal principle called the "de facto officer doctrine".
According to the Supreme Court:
"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient."
- Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995):
It’s good to see my two most favorite sisters in Christ Freepers discussing the big blue elephant in the living room. Betty, I see that you have been properly baptized in fire by getting insulted from another long-term Freeper. Welcome to the club.
One thing I would dispute is that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate, because he was sworn in as president by the SCOTUS. It was their job to look into his eligibility and there was a perfectly good set of cases winding their way through the courts and on their doorstep at the time, such as Berg vs. Obama. But the SCOTUS abdicated their responsibility to the constitution and to our nation by swearing him in. Consequently, Obama really is president, we’re stuck with him unless the SCOTUS takes on the challenge. Not bloody likely.
The deal that our founding fathers offered was lifetime employment so that members of the SCOTUS could be free from the political consequences of their decisions. That deal broke down, the system failed this time around.
How sad. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you for the definitions, Jean S! I have already apologized for my mistake. Where "Truthers" appears in the article, the word should have been "Birthers."
The fact of the matter is, I don't pay much attention to either Truthers or Birthers. All I was trying to suggest is that people who think that proof of birth in Hawaii is sufficient to establish the natural-born status of BHO are mistaken.
If I had anything to say about them, it would be this:
I consider Truthers totally insane, out of their minds. In the olden days, you'd find people like this on psychiatric wards. But we don't lock up crazy people anymore. :^)
Birthers, on the other hand, are on to something real but are mistaken in their fundamental premise.
I hope this will clear up any outstanding issues between us, Jean S. Thank you so much for writing!
Thank you so much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
If Meghan McCain ever ran for president, she would have the same problem (according to convoluted birther logic).
Obama is one of seven presidents for whom blocks 11 and/or 16 on their birth certificates would have been filled in by places other than the United States.
Palling was BRILLIANT the other day in how she answered questions about obama's eligibility.
When **more** than 51% of Republicans, and 30% of the general population do NOT believe Obama was born in the U.S., then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for Palin to ignore this issue.
Obama's natural born status is an rotting and smelly carcass of an 800 pound dead gorilla in the election living room. Palin wisely chose to acknowledge the MILLIONS of people pointing at the dead gorilla and saying, "LOOK! OBAMA'S NATURAL BORN STATUS SINKS!" .
As for Fox News and Clear Channel (our "Leftist Controlled Opposition Media").....well...Rush, Beck Hannity, Ingram OReilly, Malkin, and the rest are contemptible in their efforts to tip toe around Obama's oozing and corrupt eligibility.
By the way...the poll percentages would be **far** higher if people were asked if they had doubts or questions about Obama's natural born status. There is NO WAY Palin can ignore this.
Yes, I do see your point, Kevmo! Still, I have to believe that the SCOTUS is not "above" the Constitution; they are not the ultimate authority. They swore an Oath to it, to in effect be bound by it. If they become oath-breakers by swearing in Obama (and I don't think this is necessarily so), then what would be the moral effect/constitutional legitimacy of that act?
Then again, perhaps the Court felt it appropriate not to insert itself into what is essentially a political process — a national election. I don't believe that the Court has a role in determining presidential qualifications at all. Other parties have primary responsibility — preeminently the Speaker of the House in making certification before the Electoral College.
Remember the first time Obama was sworn in, when Chief Justice Roberts supposedly flubbed his lines? And then they had to do a re-do the next day?
The first time, I thought that the Chief Justice was just being ironic; and if anyone was "flubbing," it was BHO. Do you remember the way Roberts leaned in at the end, and the way he expressed the "so help me God" as a question, with a pronounced rising tone?
It seems Chief Justice Roberts may be a bit of a skeptic about Obama's qualifications for office. But he did swear him in.
Whether that makes Obama "legit" all by itself is simply doubtful to me, on the theory that "two wrongs never make a right."
Anyhoot, neither you nor I is going to settle this question, dear Kevmo!
Thank you ever so much for writing!
MILLIONS of people acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla!
Fox News and Clear Channel ( our “controlled opposition) have absolutely REFUSED to report on the issue. They have gag orders on all of our conservative talk show yappers.
Please do a Google search on the words: 51% Republicans Obama Eligibility. 51% of Republicans do NOT believe that Obama was even born in the U.S. 30% of the general population believes this.
You will see that HUGE numbers of people do not even believe that Obama was born here. The percentages would be higher if the question had been do you have doubts or questions about Obama’s eligibility.
I find Fox and Clear Channel to be CONTEMPTIBLE! Rush, Beck, Hannity, OReilly, Ingram, Malkin, Coulter .;..etc. are cowards who **KNOW** that there is a serious problem with Obama’s natural born status. SHAME ON ALL OF THEM!
With numbers that high with people who don't even believe that Obama was born in the U.S., there is NO WAY Palin can ignore this issue. She was BRILLIANT the other day.
Good grief, wideminded, a thing like that would be harmless enough if it applied to dogcatchers; but as applied to an illegitimate POTUS, it's horrifically dangerous. This is like issuing a license to steal. Legal thinking like that does nothing to prevent a "fire-sale" of the United States of America.
You could put a rotten crook into office, and he can do stuff that cannot be undone. Regardless of whether he's punished after the fact, the damage is still there, and it is lasting damage.
Somehow I don't think this is what the Framers had in mind.
Thank you so very much for bringing Ryder v. United States (94–431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995) to my attention!!!
Well I think if anyone can make hay out of this mess, it would be Sarah. But it would take all the guts she's got. She would be massacred by the press and the other "usual suspects."
I hope she goes for it! That ought to shake up things nicely!
With the balance of powers being what they are, I'm not sure how the government would cope should Obama be found illegitimate so late in his presidency. But I'm fairly confident that many would raise the legitimacy of acts he signed into law, executive orders, etc.
The Supremes might not be able or willing to touch such cases considering the one raised earlier on this thread, but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code.)
The problem of the many having reservations about presidential legitimacy is that no citizen so far has managed to be granted "standing" in federal court. Ergo, there is no "release valve" at the level of the citizenry. Thus the problem continues to fester and metastasize....
In the ideal scenario, a State steps up to the plate, and challenges the authority of presidentially authorized legislation that intrudes on its sovereignty, while creating unfunded liabilities for the State that must be borne by its own citizens.
I'd give pride of place to Texas on this one. After all, Texas is the only sovereign nation-state that ever joined the Union. She did not join it to diminish the liberties of her people.
But it's just a dream, just a dream....
Dearest sister in Christ, you wrote, "but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code)." Please elaborate???
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for writing!
Fascinating insight, dear TXnMA!
Off the top of my head, I suppose many of the Framers were British-, Irish-, or Scots-born, or children thereof. But they had invested their own blood, treasure, and sacred honor in their new nation; so earned their "natural-born status" thataway.
They did not expect that their decendents would have to earn it thataway, but simply by virtue of being the offspring of American citizens.... Their generation had already paid the blood-price, as it were.
There is a more direct precedent for the current scenario: the presidency of Chester A. Arthur [1881–1885].
A legend had circulated in the public mind that Arthur was not a natural-born citizen of the United States because of his (alleged) Canadian birth. Like the Birthers today, a great many people back then thought the citizenship test rested on the jus solis doctrine. That is, the place of one's nativity is what gives you your citizenship, irrespective of parentage.
Of course that was all bunk, back then as well as today. The facts show that Chester A. Arthur was born to a "natural-" AND "native-"born American citizen — his mother — and an Irishman who was not a naturalized American citizen, and therefore under the British nationalities act of the time, was a British citizen.
It turned out that Arthur was born in the State of Vermont. But the geography is irrelevant to the question of "natural-born."
Anyhoot, on the historical record it appears that Chester A. Arthur was NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States. He served out his term. His bid to re-up was not successful.
Thankfully, he left little if any long-term public destruction in his wake.
Don't we live in interesting times, dear brother in Christ?
I cannot even begin to describe the satisfaction I take when I see people like Sally Quinn go after Sarah. :^)
I mean, check out the side-by-side comparison.
To my mind, Sally comes across as an effete, clueless, irrational, ridiculously privileged, dried-up, and thoroughly repugnant Kool-aid-drinking hag, as compared with the splendidly vital and engaging Sarah....
Just putting these two side-by-side sharpens the "cultural divide" in a way that can only be inspiring to conservatives. Or so it seems to me, a cultural/constitutional conservative.
Call it: A Study in Contrasts. These are the very "contrasts" that now divide American society and politics.
Let the games begin!
May God ever bless Sarah Palin and her family.
Absolutely agreed, Tennessee Nana. First of all, the Constitution forbids ex post facto law. Second of all, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Thank you so very much for writing!
Certainly neither do I.
Then again, which birth certificate???
Thank you for your enlightening article, ‘Betty!’
Some may also find the following of interest.
Defining Natural-Born Citizen:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
STE=Q
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.