Posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:01 AM PST by vietvet67
The government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications and to make public any documentation thereof; after all, when they apply for the highest office in the land, they should be held to the strict constitutional standard and every citizen has a right to see that the Constitution is followed. Certain elements of the blogosphere have recently paid a tremendous amount of attention to the question of whether or not the state of Hawaii should be required to produce the original birth certificate of president elect Obama. Regardless of claims that this is a red herring, or assertions that Paul Berg is a crackpot who should be ignored because he is a “911 truther,” the certificate should be produced. Secondly, Berg’s suit should be taken seriously, and his standing to sue should be affirmed.
While the courts have generally looked with disfavor on suits such as his, they have been wrong to do so, and they should allow this suit for a very simple reason. When no one else, i.e. government agencies, is enforcing the law of the land, only private citizens may do so, and the only manner in which they may do so, short of armed insurrection is in the courts. Within this context, Berg is effectively acting as a “Private Attorney General” acting on behalf of all of the citizens of the United States. He does so because the Federal Election Commission, the other candidates and the U.S. Attorney General have done nothing to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility. All of them could have and should have. The situation is similar to that which occurred in 1968, when the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. California Secretary of State Frank Jordan, discovered that according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was one year short of the required 35 years needed to run. Cleaver was removed from the ballot and Jordan’s actions were upheld in the courts.
The concept of the private attorney general has existed for a long time. Frequently, it has been found in class actions where someone seeks to force the government to follow its own rules. The courts have frequently allowed private attorney general lawsuits to proceed where civil rights violations are concerned. This situation is not significantly different, as the rights of the entire population to see the constitution followed should trump any other consideration. We must ask, if the government is not going to enforce its own rules, then who will, if the courts say that private citizens cannot.
As I have not seen Berg’s paperwork, I cannot state whether or not he used this approach in his petition, and if not, it may have been a fatal error. None-the-less, Berg is right in making his request and his suit should be allowed to proceed because he is certainly asserting a case based on reasonable doubt, and a presidential candidate should be required to prove that he or she is eligible for the office they seek. And, the government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications. After all, a person seeking much lower privileges, such a driver’s license or voter registration must produce a birth certificate; why not a candidate for the highest office in the land. Which situation implies a higher duty by government officials; state statutes or the national constitution?
A second approach, favored by Dean John Eastman of Chapman University Law School, which he discussed with Hugh Hewitt on the Salem Network, December 3, 2008 is based on the corporate law principle that the shareholders can sue to force the officers or directors to follow the corporate charter or bylaws. The Supreme Court has never accepted this view, with respect to constitutional issues, either. Its view that citizens have no standing has allowed it to dodge difficult issues where the Constitution is concerned, despite the fact that they should undertake enforcement of the “supreme law of the land” as Chief Justice Marshall put it many years ago.
The state of Hawaii is asserting that privacy laws forbid it from revealing the certificate. This should be considered a bogus claim. Anyone running for the presidency has placed himself in the arena of a public, rather than a private citizen. A candidate is, for all practical purposes, giving up his privacy rights, and making his or her entire life open to scrutiny by the public and the press. Their personal records should and must be part of this. If Obama supporters are allowed to investigate and report on “Joe the Plumber” with impunity, the public has an equal and reciprocal right to investigate a candidate.
There is a second and even more important reason why the certificate must be produced. As Berg’s suit, and those of other parties have pointed out, birth status is a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. If this rule is not followed, then it brings into question the issue of whether or not any aspect of the Constitution, at all, must be followed. Already we have seen challenges in the courts and in the overall media environment of certain government actions. Whether we are dealing with establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, or bailing out the financial and automobile industries, people have valid questions. Sometimes it is not enough to say “you have no standing to sue” or “this is covered under the legislative interstate commerce clause and is settled law.” It is a slippery slope argument, but such arguments are not invalid simply because of the foundation they are built on. The courts should regularly review such actions to prevent legislative power from running unchecked. The intent of the framers of the document should carry significant weight in such review.
As for the Obama birth certificate, I, personally, have no interest in the thing beyond silencing the argument over it once and for all. If the certificate is never produced, and proper birth status is never verified, one way or the other, it will likely become the core of another Great American Conspiracy Theory such as those surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy assassination conspiracies have been debunked, for all practical purposes, but they haven’t gone away. We don’t need another one of these things. We need openness, we need transparency and we need honesty. If there is a valid certificate, stating all of the relevant information as the state of Hawaii asserts, the Supreme Court or any other court should support its production for public view. I doing so, it can state a compelling public interest; the interest that the Constitution must be followed, and that anyone who seeks office governed by the Constitution must prove their eligibility, or it calls constitutional authority into question. In fact, every candidate from Hilary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani should have been required to produce their certificates when filing as candidates. The matter should not be subject to question because of the constitutional requirement.
Paul Berg isn’t entirely a crackpot. His case has merit, as do the others seeking production of the certificate. If it is produced and everything is in order, the case disappears along with the conspiracy theorists and the office of the presidency goes on without a hitch. If it is not produced, the potential for future complications could be very significant. We might even end up with President Ahhnold, who could claim that he wasn’t really born in Austria, and that he doesn’t have to prove he was born here. See what I mean?
Politics: General, Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Elections & Political Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven D. Laib is a semi-retired attorney living in Cypress, Texas, just northwest of Houston. He is a member of the California State Bar, and United States Supreme Court Bar. slaib@intellectualconservative.com http://intellectualconservative.com
Yes - my oversight. Thanks
Remember when the Democrats demanded President Bush’s dental records?
“No! I detest brainless rules-based approaches like this. It’s almost like we don’t want to single out Obama. Yes we do.”
Methinks perhaps you don’t understand the entire basis for this lawsuit. The president must be a natural born citizen, regardless of their family history. Holding people to different standards is unconstitutional in itself. Anyone who is to become president MUST be a natural born citizen, and should be prepared to provide proof of that. If your goal is to single out Obama, upholding the Consitution is nowhere near your real agenda, and you are undoubtedly contributing to the idea that this entire issue is just a partisan witch hunt. In other words, you’re doing more harm than good.
present
I've refrained from commenting on these threads in the past but really, there is no court in America that will hold Obama ineligible to be President. He's taking office January 20, we need to deal with that and not be sidetracked by non-starters like this.
Cannot prove that, but the statement does indicate he is somewhat of a crackpot, are maybe he is just a little cracked. Probably delivered by c-section that's not natural.!!!
LOL
There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.
Standing is another procedural rule of the legal system designed to put the court in a position where its orders are enforceable. So are the requirements of a case or controversy (plaintiff and defendant on opposite sides of an argument with harm flowing from one to the other); jurisdiction; and justiciability.
You may view those as dodges but they are not--they are substantive legal requirements of getting a legal proceeding before the courts; they exist for a reason.
In the case at hand, had competent counsel been engaged to pursue the issue last spring, the issue would have been resolved. The narrow time window in which a case could have been pursued to a decision between the election and the Electoral College is probably closing fast enough now that it will not be possible to get an effective challenge in place.
But other forms of action exist between the Electoral College and again after inauguration. Capable lawyers will ultimately get the issue before a court with the power to decide the issue.
Obama should be singled out because the location of his birth is in question. This wasnt the case for the last 200 years. There was no need for John F. Kennedy’s birth certificate to be produced. Common sense and reason should prevail not moronic process-run-amuck.
But what could be more of a law than the Constitution? If the SCOTUS says that this is something that should be done by the SoS of each state, well, what if the SoS is politically inclined NOT to do so?
Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be somewhat above politics, and the last resort if the rest of the country is deciding EVERYTHING based on political coercion? I mean, that is our problem, isn't it? Our public systems of information (MSM) all want Obama to be President so they wouldn't call for vetting him properly, whether it's the law or not.
I believe he's a 9/11 Truther. Makes him a crackpot by definition.
I ask everyone to go the Donofrio web site listed below and read, read, read. Our Constitution must be upheld no matter WHO is President!
The Donofrio case may be considered to have merit since it was referred to Conference by the full court, not just Justice Thomas. We will know their decision tomorrow and it takes four of the nine Justices to vote for a full hearing of the case.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Yes, I am spreading the news about the Constitutional issue because I think this is very important. Finally some more Freepers are beginning to look into this issue. I am certainly not a “tinfoil hat” wearer but have been following these cases since October.
You may be interested to hear more about this issue by listening to Plains Radio Network on line at http://www.plainsradio.com/ this evening. The exact time I do not know at this time. Currently they are playing previous taped interviews with Leo Donofrio, Curt Wrotnowski, and Freeper Joe Thunder. This will most likely be followed by the replaying of more current interviews.
You might also be interested to know that tomorrow there will be a Press Conference at the Washington Press Club at 1:00 or 1:30. Leo Donofrio WILL NOT be at the Press Conference. Any reports that he would be are completely false. It will be interesting to see what Media reporters show up at the Press Club!
Some other FR Threads are listed below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144344/posts?page=380#380
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2144360/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144417/posts?q=1&;page=1
The terms and conditions he stated are standard for obtaining a security clearance. For Top Secret the periodic re-investigation happens every 5-yrs, whereas the Secret clearance requires the re-investigation every 7-yrs (I think).
“Fictitious”, “nonexistant”, “unreal” COLB of He Who’s Birth Certificate Cannot Be Viewed.
This is not about who would be the best President. That decision was supposed to be made by us last year, and the votes are in. It does not matter who the President or Vice President is; this is large and serious for the future of our country. The Constitution is what our President must uphold, and he must first be eligible to hold the office. We need to clarify the “natural born” definition and make sure that Barack Obama fits it.
Why! He’s PreFident-Elect! Don’t ask questions!
“Prefident
Pref”i*dent\, a. [Cf. L. praefidens overconfident. See Pre-, and Confident.] Trusting beforehand; hence, overconfident. [Obs.] —Baxter.”
It’s the first I’ve heard that to get a security clearance, you can’t be a dual national. So no employee with a clearance can be married to a non-citizen, or have been naturalized, even as a child?
I’ve posted on another thread, even if he produces it now, it’s been too long to make us look like fools. It should make it look like he attempted to deceive us. He ought to be disqualified on that basis alone. However, Ido not believe he has a valid bc, and America should not tolerate a disqualified candidate. And you are correct, if the courts won’t remove him, the citizens should.
"His blue tourist passport, which he had taken across Asia, Australia and Africa as well as most of Europe, was replaced by a burgundy one that designates him an official of the U.S. government."
A Foreign Classroom for a Junior Senator http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509230360sep23,0,1103689.story?page=2
Didn’t Obama just schedule a very expensive little getaway in Hawaii? Wonder what deals have been made.
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.