Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications

The Bulletin ^ | 12/1/08 | John Connolly

[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

The issue with Natural born is allegiance not geographical location of birth. Donifrio’s case just muddies the water and aids Obama.

Donofrio tries to bend the definition of natural born in ways the founding father's would never have imagined.

[Non-Sequitur]

Something that cannot be said of both of Obama's parents.

True. But if Obama was actually born in Hawaii then the nationality of his parents are irrelevant. He's a natural born U.S. citizen.

[Non-Sequitur]

There is still a chance that the 12th could apply. If Obama’s votes are disqualified that would leave McCain with an insufficient number of EV which would then throw it to the House.

What Constitutional provision allows Obama's votes to be disqualified? None I'm aware of. The closest scenario we have to go by is the 1872 election where Horace Greeley died after the election but before the Electoral College met. His votes were not disqualified, they were spread among several Democrats including the vice president elect. If Obama is found ineligible before December 15th then it's likely that his electors would vote for Biden, and he would be the winner. He would only need 270 of them. And if that happens then the 12th Amendment becomes irrelvant.

[Non-Sequitur]

Or Hillary. Unless the SCOTUS rules that the runner up McCain is qualified to serve (we are still in deep doo doo; but, its OUR doo doo!).

Even if the court doesn't rule for Donofrio, and I don't expect them to, McCain lost. He came in second place. He cannot win. He will never be president.

[Non-Sequitur]

Biden was chosen by Obama and on a fraudulent ticket.

And?

[Nipfan]

“No, it’s funny that you and others have already have deemed him, beyond any doubt whatsoever, not eligible, but you then insist on seeing the “real” birth certificate. Why insist if he’s already foreign born, in all your opinion?”

Because there’s more than “opinion” involved. Proof is required, one way or the other and the reason we’re so convinced of his ineligibity, by foreign birth or otherwise, is his absolute refusal to produce the most basic proof of identity, his birth certificate. Why spend upwards of a million dollars fighting numerous court proceedings if you have nothing to hide?

[Uncle Chip]

Something that cannot be said of both of Obama's parents. True. But if Obama was actually born in Hawaii then the nationality of his parents are irrelevant. He's a natural born U.S. citizen.

But doesn't the Ark court decision say otherwise: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory...”

Even if born in Hawaii, wasn't Barack Obama's father a foreign sovereign???

[Non-Sequitur]

Even if born in Hawaii, wasn't Barack Obama's father a foreign sovereign???

No. A sovereign would be a head of state; a king or prince or president, something like that. To the best of my knowledge Barack Obama, Sr. was not King of Kenya.

[Non-Sequitur]

Gideon v. Wainwright (right to court-apponted counsel)

See the 6th Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona (right to have rights read to suspects)

Actually Miranda v. Arizona established the right to consult with counsel prior to questioning. Prisoners had to be informed of these rights prior to quesitoning. Again, see the 6th Amendment.

In THESE cases, SCOTUS asserted “original intent”, “originalism”, call it what you want, but they INTERPRETED the Constitution.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution all the time. That's their job. But they interpret it based on the Constitution itself, they don't make stuff up out of thin air (though some believe they do). They need something to go on, and I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where it deals with invalidating electoral votes, or even implies it. Can you point that part out to me?

[Non-Sequitur]

Correct - citizenship at birth is jus soli. BUT SHOW ME WHERE SCOTUS DEFINED “CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH” TO BE “NATURAL BORN”.

Show me where the Constitution defines 'natural born' and how it differs from citizen at birth.

Federal law classifies citizenship into two categories: citizen at birth AKA nautual born citizen, and naturalized citizen. There is no third category, regardless of what you may think.

Correct - but I STATED IT WAS MY OPINION in my post ...

An opinion not supported by any law or any Supreme Court decision I'm aware of. Which is why I don't think the Donofrio case will make it to the full court. The idea of creating some sort of higher category of citizenship for those who were born here violates every principle this country was founded on.

YOU, OTOH, flat out stated that a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen - YOU INSERTED YOUR OPINION THERE.

No. I stated existing law and Supreme Court precedent. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous. If not, the the category of natural born citizen doesn't exist because it is not defined anywhere in the Constitution or in law.

NO - IT WAS NOT MY SUGGESTION - I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS YOUR OPINION - FROM YOUR REMARKS IN THE PREVIOUS POST ...

More from you lack of understanding of the Ark decision.

GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU AT LEAST READ ARK - I DID ...

Did you?

[David]

Thanks for this excellent point. Can you elaborate? For instance, would tax code be invalid if signed by an ineligible President? I would like to avoid spreading the wealth around.

I am a tax lawyer so I can't comment directly on the tax code. But it seems to me generally that any legislation he signs is subject to challenge; Vieria's thesis which I had not considered is that the absence of a legal sitting President precludes Congress from passing effective legislation--ie. legislation would be subject to challenge even if he didn't sign it but attempted to permit it to become law without his signature. I have not considered whether I think that is correct.

But the point about the economics of legislation is this. A successful legal effort to bring the issue to a head is simply a matter of money. I believe that with a legal budget of $10mil last June, we could have resolved the issue.

Legislation having economic consequences usually has much greater dollar impact and there will be a number of persons who are adversely affected who will have resources and incentive to address the issue in court.

[Uncle Chip]

No. A sovereign would be a head of state; a king or prince or president, something like that. To the best of my knowledge Barack Obama, Sr. was not King of Kenya.

But he was or became a Kenyan minister of state. "Sovereign" can also mean "Independent" [Webster's Dictionary], thus one not under the authority of the laws of the US.

[jcsjcm]

Question i’ve been asking from the beginning... still unanswered. Exactly who in the DNC and on the hill does the required vetting re: candidates? What’s the process and who’s responsibility is it? Can individuals re: process be issued subpeonas?

This was a question I also had and sent my question to the Library of Congress - here is the question and their answer!

Patron: (My Question)
To the American Memory Team:
I am very curious as to why our government does not vet our presidential candidates before their names are placed on the ballot. I have found out as of recently that there is concern that our new President Elect Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and another candidate named Roger Calero which was on the 2004 and 2008 ballot for president still holds a green card and was born in Nicaragua in 1969. I find this troubling. I have read over many excerpts from your books in congress and it expressly states natural born for a reason. Our founding fathers knew why they did this as to ensure that there was no division of that persons allegiance. I do believe that Obama having a dual citizenship divides his allegiance thus makes him ineligible to become our President. Please help me understand this. Especially at a time when our enemy would love to get into our highest office. As an American voter I trust that they would provide me with safe choices. They did not and I am now looking back at all of the generations of my family that fought for this country and I am saddened that they sacrificed for me and I did not fight for them. Now I will fight for them and ask that someone help us to do the right thing. Thank you!

Librarian 2: (Their answer:)
Your question needs to be more specific because it is not clear what you mean by "our government." It is not the job of the Legislative branch (Congress), the Executive Branch (President and the administrative agencies), or the Judicial Branch (Courts) to vet political candidates. It is the job of the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and other party organizations to vet the candidates that represent their parties. None of these committees are government affiliated organizations; they are private. These committees do vet the candidates who represent them just as the Republican National Committee made sure that John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not go against the U. S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;. . . ." because he was born in 1939 and the law was not passed until 1952. (United States Code, Title 8, section 1403). The United States of America does not accept dual citizenship. In order for a person to be naturalized as a citizen, he or she must take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America and renounce allegiance and fidelity to the foreign state. A person can not swear allegiance to this country and owe it to another. (United States Code, Title 8, section 1448). Alaska and Hawaii became states in the United States of America in 1959. President-elect Barak Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, so he is a natural born citizen. If you would like to see the U. S. Constitution and the United States Code, you can read them electronically. The U. S. Constitution can be found on the Government Printing Office GPO Access Web site , and the United States Code is available at . To see the U. S. Constitution, click on View All under the heading Legislative Resources. On the next page, click on U. S. Constitution under the heading Congressional Materials Committees, Calendars, and Procedures. On the following page, click on 2002 edition under the heading Browse. On the next page, scroll until you see Article II. Executive Department; click on PDF. The text of the Article will be on the next page. This edition of the U. S. Constitution is annotated, so you will be able to see court cases and other commentary on the Article. To see the sections of Title 8 in the United States Code, click on Search the U. S. Code on the home page. On the next page, insert 8 in the space for Title, 1403 in the space for section, and click Search. On the next page, click on the link 8 USC Sec. 1403. The text of the law will be on the following page. The date the law was passed is in the the parentheses after the word Source. To see the other sections of the United States Code, follow the same procedure. To move from section to section, you can click on the arrows at the top or bottom of the page. Hopefully, this information is helpful.

Law Library of Congress Public Services Division

[seekthetruth]

NEW THREAD! PLEASE READ!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141298/posts

[Upstate NY Guy]

"Not any supreme court that has ever existed. Even Scalia has had his weak moments like Bush vs Gore which was not constitutional, read Levins book."

So noted, and I will definitely read Levins book.
This is depressing news. I thought because these were life appointments they could ignore politics. Naive of me.

[Citizen Blade]

Enjoy! These people recognize a Constitutional crisis when one is brewing.

You know, I don't think anything will come of this.

But, if it does, I'll never have been happier to be wrong.

[sickoflibs]

Mark Levin in his book points out the federal court had no authority over local election procedures and that the Florida court was not the decider either, it was the Florida attorney general and the republican house of representatives that would decide what vote count to keep. The US supreme court took the heat in 2000 to keep elected republicans from having to do it, which would look like republicans selecting republicans(like Al Frankin wants with him). That is why the court said their ruling did not apply to any other cases/elections. This gave democrats argument for democrat activist judges, and attacking the supreme court.

But in general judges always weigh political and practical considerations before making sweeping rulings. Note that liberal courts incrementally enacted social change to avoid a political backlash. Now is considered a good time to force gay marriage in liberal states, 20 years ago it wouldnt fly. And Robert knows you cant throw out 50 years of rulings(too fast) just because they look bogus to you(I know Scalia sometimes argues that you must). From Roberts standpoint there is an expectation of continuity in the law, for reasons of stability.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If it is not recognized right now, then submitting those documents by you would come at a cost to your current citizenship in one way or another, just like Obama's submissions to renew his Indonesian citizenship/passport would have been at the cost of his US citizenship, that is, if he ever actually had it.

Not true. From the State Dept. website:

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. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Before you get excited about that last part, the standard for actually losing your US citizenship is pretty strict. Unless Obama went into a US consulate in Djakarta and swore an oath of renunciation, he didn't lose his US citizenship.

[papasmurf]

Not to worry. A beautiful counterfeit has already been placed in the vault. He’s snug as a bug in a rug, now.

[ExSoldier]

One might assume that it would pass to Biden but that cannot be so and IMHO, McCain would have to be declared the winner.

Nope. Not how it works. If Obama takes the oath of office and is declared ineligible then the VP takes over until the election itself can ber certified. If that is ruled invalid, say hello to Madam President Pelosi. Poor Hillary is in the line of succession but just a little bit further down at #4. The Line goes thusly:

Vice Pres., Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Commerce round out the top ten but there are seven below these. In no case does the opposition in the election play a role.