Posted on 07/26/2009 7:09:59 PM PDT by null and void
What's the worst that could happen?
Much ink has been devoted to the ongoing controversy about the constitutional legitimacy of the Obama presidency.
Briefly, there is fringe of True Believers that asserts Barack Obama was not born on US soil, of two American citizen parents, and is therefore not a "natural born citizen" making him ineligible to hold the office of the president.
These so-called "Birthers" assert that Barack was not born in the United States, that is was born in Kenya, making him a Kenyan by birth or Canada, making him a Canadian citizen or even that he's a British subject.
Indeed, they assert that the mere fact that Kenya was a British colony when Barack was born gives him at best dual citizenship as a British subject, under British law, and American citizen even if he was born in Honolulu, and that this dual citizenship at birth fails to meet the constitutional requirements.
In point of fact, any citizenship claims another country wishes to impose on an American are utterly irrelevant. To say otherwise would be to buy in to the absurdity that North Korea declaring that everyone on earth is a North Korean citizen would mean that no one is eligible to become the president of the United States!
For most people the image of Barack Obama's short form birth certificate posted on FactCheck.com suffices as a release of his true record of birth and as iron clad evidence that he is, in fact a "natural born citizen".
But for the Birthers? They insist that a computer image is not a valid legal document, that FactCheck is owned by the Anneberg Foundation - the same people who hired a young Barack Obama to be a community organizer, that even if the FactCheck document reflected reality, the short form is not even sufficient to qualify a 9 year old to join a Pop Warner team.
Birthers have tried to get a certified copy of Barack's long form birth certificate release by the state of Hawaii. They view access to this original document as crucial for making their case, as the State of Hawaii will release a short form certificate showing an Hawaiian place for birth for foreign born children and adoptees of Hawaiian residents.
Sighting quite reasonable privacy and identity theft concerns, Hawaii will not release a birth certificate except to the individual in question, or a small group of close relatives, or by court order.
Obviously Birthers could simply sue in any US court to have the real long form birth certificate released. Various Birthers have sued. So far, every case has been rejected on procedural grounds, mostly for "lack of standing". No court has heard a single case on its merits.
Individual citizens lack standing. Political opponents competing for the office of the president on the very same same ballot lack standing. People directly affected by fiat tax increases lack standing, etc.
The closest any case got to being heard was Cook Vs Good, where a reserve officer requested clarification of the legality of deployment orders. Rather than allow the case to go forward, his orders were instantly revoked, removing his standing.
Federal and private attorneys have burned through nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer and campaign funds in a so far successful attempt to prevent Barack from being compelled to show a $10 document any lesser being would need to show to get a job flipping burgers.
It all boils down to "standing". To have "standing" one needs to be able to demonstrate to an American court that they, personally have been damaged.
So far, with the temporary exception of Maj. Cook, no US court has found that any American has standing.
What's the worst that could happen?
In the absence of certainty of Barack' ability to hold the office? Plenty.
No government employee, no member of the military, no citizen can know if any presidential order, finding, signature on any law, or treaty has any legal validity.
Worse, any foreign power sufficiently motivated can force the United States into a constitutional crisis at any point in a time and manner of their own choosing.
If, for example Barack Obama, acting as the president of the United States, imposes sanctions on North Korea, or Iran, or even Australia, the leader of that country would clearly have standing, and even more crucially, could go directly to the World Court to press their case and bypass all the legal nuancing a US court would suffer. No amount of courtroom shenanigans will keep the World Court from doing its duty.
It is very probable that in the absence of proper documentation, the World Court would find that the Barack Obama has no legal authority to act on behalf of the United States, and every treaty, agreement, and presidential finding he ever signed is null and void.
Every act of war engaged in under his illegal orders potentially becomes a war crime.
For the want of a $10 document, any hostile foreign power can, at any time, potentially take down the American government.
An honest president would find that this risk would far outweigh any personal embarrassment disclosure of the truth would cause him.
There is not one SCOTUS member except Alito who has not shown true unethical bias toward the liar-in-chief. When Baryy and Joe shucked on up to the court house before the inauguration, while there were supposedly cases still awaiting review challenging the bastard’s eligibility, they showed they were going to do as they were told and not unsettle the ‘bigger law givers’. And they have maintained their federal oligarchic position by denying standing, dutifully to someone, but not to their oath to the Constitution.
I had the answer in my head, but your explaination was far better than I could have made in this format. Thank you.
Of course! That must be it! How terribly convenient!
To be a natural born citizen, both parents must be US citizens, so OB doesn’t qualify since his father was a British citizen residing in Kenya. Both of course, liberals aren’t the least bit interested in the truth and never have been. The “laws” only apply to whoever they want to destroy or damage.
I agree.
But there is a rather lively debate about what exactly the term “Natural Born Citizen” means.
Here are the options:
By location of birth - Born on US soil=Natural Born Citizen
By bloodline (strict) - Both parents citizens=Natural Born Citizen
By bloodline (lax) - One parent a citizen=Natural Born Citizen
There are actually advocates for each of those positions sufficing.
I’m with you, though. The Founding Fathers wanted to insure that the president was above any hint of divided loyalties. For this one office they wanted only Americans born in American, of Americans.
British law does recognize multiple wives, up to four, so long as the husband professes to have a religion that allows them and acquires them in a country where plural marriage is legal. When he applies for asylum in Great Britain he can get social assistance enough to cover multiple residences, putting each wife in her own place. He is then eligible for assistance with transportation to go from place to place. Children from each wife are eligible for social services.
I think you’ve nailed it. ... Except, we really have no credible proof that Barry is an American citizen or that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, because we have not been privy through chain of evidence to see his actual birth certificate. My own theory is as good as any other claim he or his sycophantic enemedia have made.
Hostile? To the US or to Obama? They're not the same thing. Maybe somebody should forward this to Bibi, or even to Honduras... Alas, I have much less faith in the World Court than this author. As a bunch of socialist apparatchiks they'll do whatever they can to keep Obama in power.
“It all boils down to “standing”. To have “standing” one needs to be able to demonstrate to an American court that they, personally have been damaged.”
~~~
TANKS,Nully,,,
Does tearin’ the whole damned country down count?!?!?!?...
Nope. It's nothing personal...
“What would a illegitimate president do that is different from what Obama is doing?”
They are one in the same.They can’t be divided.
Dunno, but several judges have refused to hear the cases because of lack of standing.
There was never such a time.
The State department did discourage travel to Pakistan, but it was never forbidden.
Then I guess I wasn’t too subtle?
Can’t seem to find an answer to that. How could they have a “stop” in place (standing rule) when something like this has never happened before.
Hey Thanks I was just wondering how Hawaii could recognize the Obamas marriage since the husband was married already I can see in Kenya that would be no problem from your post.
I imagine there have been enough busybodies trying to sue on behalf of other people who were quite happy with their situations over the years that the courts did it to weed them out.
All things in moderation, I guess...
Nope. :)
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.