Posted on 05/06/2009 7:47:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I hope I am proven wrong.
I hope for the sake of our country that I and many other concerned citizens across the country are looked upon as well-intentioned but ultimately misguided individuals who chased a bad rumor based on lies and distortions.
The reason I hope to be thought wrong (although well-intentioned) is because the price of being right about the constitutional requirements to be president not being met by the current occupant of the Oval Office is too disturbing to be imagined.
If, in fact, Barack Obama does not meet the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section I, it would throw this country into a constitutional crisis. Vice President Joe Biden would, obviously, become President Biden. The harrowing part of this taking place is that every appointment made, every piece of legislation signed, and every executive order issued by Barack Obama could, and should, be considered invalid.
Full-moon time? I know, I know; I sound like a raving lunatic. So where do I draw my conclusions that this is even a valid issue to entertain?
Let's review what's been accepted as "fact" by the mainstream press and the vast majority of Americans: Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham, 18, and Barack Obama Sr., 25.
Now let's look at some of the questions challenging these accepted "facts":
Concerned citizens across the United States since well before the November election have questioned Barack Obama's "natural born" qualification for the presidency. From sea to shining sea, at least 18 lawsuits with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, state legislators and retired and active duty members of the military, are attempting to compel him to verify his citizenship.
Candidate Obama's own Web site, fightthesmears.com, posted a "Certification of Live Birth," which, according to the Web site, proves that Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen. What the Web site won't tell you, however, is that a "Certification of Live Birth" is not a birth certificate, and that at the time, the state of Hawaii allowed foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (Stanley Ann Dunham) to have their births registered with this document based on a statement of only one relative. The obvious question must be asked: If Obama has an original "long form" birth certificate issued on the day of his birth by the state of Hawaii, why would he also have a "Certification of Live Birth"? It would not be necessary. Critics have called upon President Obama to just give the state of Hawaii his permission to release his original "long form" birth certificate. The "long form" birth certificate would include all the pertinent information about his birth: name of the hospital, name and signature of the attending physician and a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department. This simple action by President Obama would immediately end all speculation about his citizenship and the reasons for the various lawsuits. Instead, President Obama is spending time and money hiring lawyers to fight these lawsuits. Why?
Why doesn't the mainstream press cover these lawsuits? I mean, in 2004, Dan Rather did a bang up job covering something a lot less important. Rather had "authentic" memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record. Yet there are some legitimate questions about the constitutional eligibility of our president, and yet not one single major press outlet is covering it. Part of the reason is that this issue has supposedly settled by the independent authority on Obama's birth certificate, FactCheck.org. Yet on their Web site, FactCheck.org states:
"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."
So the independent authority on this question has admitted that they have not seen the original long-form birth certificate. And the questions remain.
I sincerely hope that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1961 and therefore meets the constitutional requirements to be president. If not, our Constitution must be followed and procedures put in place for future elections wherein all candidates on the ballot must prove they meet the requirements set forth by the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
***********
Peter Aparicio is a resident of Victoria and a government teacher at Memorial High School.
Hypothetical: It is proven that Obama was born outside the US. Would all laws and Presidential decrees become null and void?
If Obama was ineligible then he did not legally get a majority and neither did anyone else. Biden did, but only as Vice-President, not as President.
If Obama is ineligible to be the President, then any laws he “signed into law” have not been signed by the President and were therefore not legally signed into law.
I can’t wait for the lawsuits.
I understand all of it, you seem to have skipped a few to come to your conclusion.
“That is a political consideration of no legal importance. The 25th amendment is clear.”
On this we may have to agree to disagree. I hold that - Our political system stems from a foundation of law, and is still subject to the law. We simply have to find the correct law(s) and see the law(s) applied.
The 25th Amendment is clear only on: the order of succession, and that such succession may occur in the even of the incapacity of the President (for whatever reason).
I also disagree - though only slightly - about the impeachment provision of our Constitution. It establishes impeachment as A process, not explicitly THE process for removing a President. The language does not limit us to impeachment nor preclude us from any other form of remedy or redresss of our grievances if you will.
A process that involved both the legislative and judicial branches in prosecution would not run roughshod over the system’s protections.
Hypothetically let’s say that: the Democrat majority (not 100% of all House Dems, just a clear majority) deliberately declined to consider overwhelming evidence of Obama’s ineligibility, as well as other crimes, and refused to engage the impeachment process. However a Senate Committee wants to investigate, and several key House Democrats and all the House Republicans who have viewed and tested the evidence, spoken with sworn witnesses, etc...are called to testify before the Senate Committee.
The Senate Committee votes unanimously afterwards to take action. They present all the evidence jointly to the Justice Dep’t, and/or go the “Special Prosecutor” route.
All of the same individuals testify, the Senators and the Justice Dept arrive at the same conclusion: Laws have been broken - and there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal indictment against Obama.
Perhaps they also take their findings to (Robert Byrd) Senate Pres. Pro Tempore, and then call a news conference to go fully public with their findings as you mentioned.
Of course we are speaking in absolutely hypothetical terms here, but it would certainly seem that a “marriage” of the political and the legal system could accomplish what a balky demo majority in the House of Reps might be unwilling to.
It could at least facilitate an unprecedented level of public outcry that would in turn spur a response by representatives empowered to act. “Compelling political pressure” as you refer to it.
TailgunnerJoe’s post immediately after yours makes a good point - that if Obama was ineligible, nobody received a true majority of votes for President, and the House would possibly be empowered to vote for someone. Still not especially palatable, potentially.
Where there’s a will, there’s always a way.
It would be my hope that the dissatisfaction of voters would register so strongly that all the cabinet secretaries would then have the human decency and/or the political savvy to tender their resignations.
That said, the notion of President Biden or President Pelosi is as daunting as what we are dealing with right now
I appreciate the measured discussion and your contributions to it.
A.A.C.
She is referring to the image of the COLB that was taken from the FightTheSmears site set up by the Obama team.
Behold: The Undocumented President
Thanks for the clarification. Hawaiian officials are obstructing!
Nothing more nothing less.
FYI. Off subject FAA support systems have been hacked and breached in recent months!
Actually, that is wrong. The 20th Amendment says, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
If Obama failed to qualify, then he was not qualified during the entire time he was President elect. Biden should then be declared Acting President. Everything Obama has done would be null and void. Everything.
In turn, that would trigger race riots the likes of which this nation has never seen, which is why the USSC will not address the issue. The legal scholars on the Court know all that. They know Obama hasn’t qualified and that if he could qualify, then he would have done so by now. But they will do nothing, for fear of tearing the nation apart.
Point of Order: Biden would be President (Amendment XXV, Section 1).
Obama and Biden got the majority of the electoral votes, and I'd be willing to point you to any number of sources that agree with that. They won the election, they were sworn in in January, and the 20th Amendment no longer applies. Now if for any reason, any reason at all, Obama is removed from office then Biden is President per the 25th Amendment.
No, that is irrelevant to the case at hand. If Obama is judged to have failed to qualify, then he was never President, so XXV does not apply. It is illogical to remove from office someone who was never legally in office.
XX Sec 3 applies directly.
You are completely wrong. The election happened and the administration was sworn in. You don't get a do-over on that. If it is found that Obama deliberately lied about his qualification in order to become president then he'll be removed. But the 25th Amendment kicks in, not the 20th.
Nearly every day of the week courts declare actions null and void, and turn back the clock to the date of the nullification and undo what has been done.
But we’ll never know what would happen in this case - see #251.
Personally, I think if 0bama does not meet the minimal requirements for the office massive charges of fraud, treason, election violations, etc. could, would, should, and be demanded to be brought against the DNC. An investigation into all the congressional critters that pushed, prodded, threatened, and intimidated members into silence.
But boy, what a thriller of a book plot this would be.
That's a sound philosophical position, but there's no basis for it in the law. There is no legal basis to retroactively undo an election, and that's the sort of thing that we look upon as an undemocratic banana republic tactic when it's employed elsewhere.
If there is a Constitutional basis for it. There is plenty in the Constitution detailing how to handle a vacancy in the presidency, but nothing in the Constitution allowing a do-over on elections.
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.