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 ...
Donofrio tries to bend the definition of natural born in ways the founding father's would never have imagined.
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.
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.
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.
And?
“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?
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???
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
NEW THREAD! PLEASE READ!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141298/posts
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.
You know, I don't think anything will come of this.
But, if it does, I'll never have been happier to be wrong.
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.
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.
Not to worry. A beautiful counterfeit has already been placed in the vault. He’s snug as a bug in a rug, now.
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.
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.