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
Sis is predicting that he will take off with the money and find him a nice llttle private island to live on.....Going to HI, he may well be on his way! ;~)
I hope to hear good news tomorrow, regarding Donofrio v. Wells. That would be a start, to putting an end to some of the scheming and deception going on, on so many levels in our country today.
I will predict that the SCOTUS sends the case back to NJ/Wells with stipulation that NJ do the work to prove which candidates are eligible fro their ballots and thus the electors assigned. This will cause the state of NJ to either commit the usual demcorat criminal behavior or subpoena the vault copy from Hawaii. When does Barry and family’s vacation in Hawaii start again? He could bring back a copy, and present an excellent forgery to NJ and then expect all of this to go away. But it won’t, not as long as I can find a venue onto which I can post. I think the SCOTUS has to answer the niggling question of what natural born means in the Constitution, once and for all, and they must do something to scuttle the numerous other suits wending their way to SCOTUS. And they must provide legal cover for the executive branch under which bills sign, treaties signed, and orders issued from same have legal standing and canot be challeneged on grounds of an ineligible fraud pissing in the Oval office bathroom. [And for Barack’s children’s sake, I hope clintons oval office sink has been replaced years ago!]
“So Obama won.
He fought all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid showing his birth certificate.
Anyone else, for any other job, and that person would be called a nutcase to spend so much money, to avoid such a simple task.
Clearly its over, but to anyone who thinks about this in a critical manner, its clear that he had a terrible secret to hide.”
I’ve been following the “birth certificate issue” from the time it first became known, but frankly, I don’t think any actions that have been taken up to this point are going to prevent Obama from assuming the office of the presidency.
The operative phrase, however, is “up to this point”. I don’t believe that the matter will be settled on January 20th, or at any time in the future until the facts are revealed and the original birth certificate is unsealed for all to see.
However, our defeat on this issue _today_ should not preclude us from taking action that may bring us victory at a later date. And here’s what I think could be done:
There are still conservative states with majority-conservative legislatures. I propose that between now and 2012, conservatives should concentrate their efforts on or two (or possibly more) states in attempting to pass laws governing the eligibility of presidential candidates, insofar as their qualifications to be candidates in those states is concerned. That is to say, such laws should mandate that the Secretary of State should not permit a presidential candidate (or that candidate’s electors) to be on the ballot unless and until sufficient evidence has been provided to confirm that that candidate meets all Constitutional qualifications to BE a candidate for president, including (but not limited to) the furnishing of an original copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.
Of course, this does nothing to stop the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009 from assuming office. But once these new laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots again in 2012, he will be required to comply with new and specific state laws establishing elibility for office.
I think my proposal is logical and could be reasonably expected to pass, at least in one conservative state. Once done, it would change the game plan for 2012.
- John
No. . .don’t “give up” as all it means is the adjudicator has to factor in the relatives in the decision process.
Many people have clearances that have foreign nationals in the family.
You are very much correct in thinking The One would never qualify for a security clearance, his list of known violent anti-American associates is the primary reason.
Honolulu
There are probable causes for a challange that have not faced other Presidents, but assuming for a moment nobama is a certified natural born American as so stated in the Constitution, why would any patriotic Member of Congress not challenge his failure to provide authentic evidence? Let’s all hope there is at least one who will say “show me”.
Do you know of any proceedural rules that can make this difficult for any Member to do?
“Do you know of any proceedural rules that can make this difficult for any Member to do?”
I am not at all versed on the procedural rules of the Congress. I hope others who are versed will comment on this point.
The language of 3 USC 15 is pretty clear insofar as it describes the objection procedure. Fortunately, the President of the Senate is Dick Cheney, so the matter should not be summarily dismissed on Jan 8.
O’s handlers have game-played this and we should expect some form of interference or turmoil (as in the recent elections). As I indicate in my draft letter, if the Republicans should simply ask O for evidence, it is almost certain he is prepared to run the clock until Jan 20.
This could be a well-orchestrated turning point in the history of our nation.
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.