Posted on 12/01/2008 6:04:32 AM PST by pissant
Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.
According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.
Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."
Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebulletin.us ...
I’ve had it. Time for a REAL change
BTTT! You're so right.
But I also technically have dual nationality, because of a quirk of Italian law. So could I be president?
Might be you would have to drop your Italian citizenship if that is the case. Don’t know.
Simply not true. While Pakistan might have been on the State Dept. warning list in 1981, Americans were never banned from traveling there. In fact, in that same year, Pakistan was considered such an important ally that the Reagan administration sent them $3.2 billion in military and economic aid. This whole "Pakistan travel ban" is nothing but internet rumor with no foundation in reality.
Biden was rejected by his own political party (again) in the Primaries.
At that time, 1981, Obama’s safety would have been improved traveling under an Indonesian (or Kenyan) passport. For 1981 was the year Anwar Sadat was assassinated, the year of the assassination attempt on Pope John II, the year of the terrorist bombing at USAF Ramstein that killed twenty. The Pakistani terror organization Jamaat ul-Fuqra was formed in 1980. Fundamentalist Muslim terror was on the ascendant.
Oh, so now we’re at “Obama’s safety would have been improved” rather than “US passport holders were banned from traveling to Pakistan.” Next I expect it will be “he could get cheaper rates at the Karachi Holiday Inn if they didn’t know he was an American.”
Morally yes, legally no. I am not a constitutional lawyer nor even a lawyer. The less than honorable congressman Billy Bob is. That is his opinion and he states it as fact. I believe him. He has practiced law at the Supreme Court.
We have never voted for a presidential candidate despite the fact their name is on the ballot. We are voting for a slate of electors that are to reflect our votes. In fact if Obama is not qualified the electoral college will work perfectly. They will select the candidate as per the law. Imagine the mess we would be in if we did not have this electoral college. Who would then cut the Gordian Knot if Obama is not qualified. The brilliant minds that wrote the constitution knew what they were doing.
How can he be a citizen of Indonesia and yet be born in HI? If he was born here, he is an American Citizen...is he not?
From here:
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
“That is, assuming SCOTUS determined that the original 365 electors voting the POTUS question could remain in place.
And why would they not?
What article of the Constitution would allow the Justices to declare them invalid and remove them?”
The Constitution was written by honourable men who COULD NOT conceive that someone MIGHT try to pull a scam (if it is one) like this ...
Nor, could they put contingencies into the Constitution to handle EVERY possible situations like:
... Except for alternate Tuesdays, when the moon is full ...
This IS a situation where SCOTUS WOULD have to devolve to the concept of the Founding Fathers’ “original intnet”.
What WOULD the Founding Fathers have done, if presented with this situation?
Would they JUST say:
OH WELL, the electors were selected on the basis of a perpetration of a fraud but they can stay since WE DID NOT plan for this contingency in the Constitution ...
PREPOSTEROUS!
They would have said:
THROW the bums out!
Who's there?
Obama's America Force!
Ok - agree with most everything you stated but have a few questions around some minor points.
Pre electoral college disqualification
Since the electors are voted on for both president and vice then can the electors chose a vice in place of the presidential candidate. Or is the vice candidate prevented from being voted on in the presidential vote as they were on the vice slate and not the presidential slate?
Key question: Are the electors for president only allowed to vote for candidates that were listed for president on the ballot?
If that is the case couldn’t we see McCain/Biden as a potential?
Post electoral college disqual prior to inauguration- similar question:
Biden would be the VP-elect and as such: Would he be allowed to be voted on in the EC/house or would his elect status disallow his availability for the role or similar to the previous would his not being listed as a presidential candidate prevent the EC from voting for him as president? Though I could see Biden “acting” as president until the next election cycle EC qualifies a candidate. oof.
Of course if the EC doesn’t decide then it goes to the house - and the question there is don’t we have enough states to carry since each state only gets one vote? And wouldn’t that then end up with McCain/Biden?
Post Inaug is the easy part - follow the line of succession.
No you don't. There is a big difference between technical and actual. As it currently stands you have no dual nationality and to secure it would require legal action on your part to take advantage of any such quirk.
Thanks for the reply. In one sense, I was speaking more of in a sense of justice than constitutionally. I'm not a constitutional scholar. If one candidate got on the ballot by intentional fraud and won, he should not have been on the ballot in the first place. His slate of electors would have been chosen by people based on a lie and his party would benefit by this intentional fraud.
In my mind, letting the election stand and letting his electors choose another of their choice could set a dangerous precedent making it beneficial to commit such fraud. For instance, just push forward and vouch for a candidate that can win the general election by saying whatever is required. Then, before the electoral college meets, release information "that was found" disqualifying them and replace them with the real choice of the party through its' electors.
So I was not speaking constitutionally but more just exploring potential issues in my mind. On the constitutional issue, I did read what Billybob wrote about the Greeley case and understand that, but that case did not involve intentional fraud, which this case possibly could. That aspect I felt may possibly be the unexplored waters I mentioned.
I’ve been trying to ignore this whole chain - but your last argument finally brought me around.
I’m a US natural born (ggggggrandad was in the rev), my wife is Japanese and a legal resident alien. As her english is soso after 15 years she still wants to retain her Japanese citizenship in case something should happen to me. My kids are dual citizens until 18, then because Japan doesn’t recognize dual citizenship they choose.
I’ve already asked all the questions of the legal types out of my own perverted sense of curiosity - the kids are considered natural born since they were born in the US...period. There is no way to tell them differently anyway...docs are the same.
Your argument on the foreign nationals serving under their soveriegn rule is correct (as you know), but I just wanted to back it up with my own personal experience.
This is the same reason that McCain is considered natural born - both parents were US citizens where his dad was serving overseas. One point most people miss though is the base, similar to an embassy is considered soveriegn territory. The argument that he was born off base is resolved by the foreign soveriegn rule. You don’t disqualify based on you parents doing their job.
Note that they don’t spell out legal or illegal ‘resident aliens’. Which has been the anchor baby issue for some time.
You have been just about the only voice of reason in this entire thread. Thank you. It’s good to have one person who understands law and logic around here.
Still must obtain the 270 electoral votes required. They will just revote until someone gets them or move it to the house. Only question is must the people voted for have been on the ballot for president or can just anyone that is natural born be thrown in the pot to be considered qualified? If just anyone - then maybe I’m ready to start my campaigning now ;)
And what would that difference be? According to the Italian consulate, submitting the proper documents would cause them to "recognize" my Italian citizenship, not "grant" citizenship. It's a jure sanguinis situation.
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.