Why Obama is Ineligible to Run For President in 2012
I am a Constitutionalist. But what does that mean really? I believe in freedom. I believe in family. I believe in compassion. I believe in less-government and I believe in God. I further believe the Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and our public servants. The same contract created our nation.
The Constitution likewise defines the limitations of our public servants in the commission of their duties. We largely call them rights. The U.S. Supreme Court makes its decisions in accordance to the Constitution as each case may require. Sometimes judges misinterpret such limitations and make unconstitutional rulings. Sometimes, they do it on purpose to serve their own agenda. Regardless, ignorance of the law is no excuse. All the writings concerning our Founders intentions are readily available. Any stooge can look them up and understand what the intended purpose and result is regarding any issue. I am of the opinion that anyone who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in a public servant role and fails to do so, should be suspended from their duties immediately and face permanent removal from public service depending on the outcome of an extensive independent inquiry.
Our forefathers were more serious. They preferred such abuses of the government trust be resolved with an immediate public hanging. We still have laws on the books instructing the local sheriff to do just that upon a guilty verdict.
But we are more civilized today. We are kinder and more gentle to those who betray the public trust. We are so civilized, we often let them completely get away with their illegal abuses of power. For example, selling guns to Colombian Drug Lords.
The simple fact is, "We the People" are the government. Those working in a government capacity, are our servants. Our Constitution is a contract that guarantees this arrangement between We the Government and the public servants who serve us.
The President is our servant in chief. I admit, I do not care to see Obama re-elected, but that is not my motivation here. My motivation is the backswing of this two-edged idiom.
Ignorance of the Law, is NO Excuse...
When you're in trouble with the law, a police officer or judge will occasionally tell you, "Ignorance of the law, is no excuse." How many times have we had this "golden nugget" laid at our feet? This is usually said just before they send you down the legal river without a paddle.
When you consider that Congress alone has passed over 4.6 million laws since its inception, plus all the nation's court rulings, state, county, city laws, ordinances and precedents, its completely impossible for any human being to know them all. Regardless, your inability to do the impossible, is no excuse for your failure to do so. So one has to ask, does that rule apply to public servants in their duties?
And What If You're the President of the United States?
Only the dead, "might" have trouble recalling an obvious case
where the law doesn't apply to everyone; especially everyone in high places. They quite often, seem to get a pass. But you, do not. And, if it becomes an issue, an army of lawyers are standing in the wings with an arsenal of lawsuits, appeals and loopholes; the privileged seem to make little if any effort to hide it.
Update: 2-1-12 Case in Point...
On January 26th, 2012, President Obama and his Attorney were subpoenaed to A Georgia court trial involving the premise of this artcile. Obama refused to show, instead, he went campaigning in Nevada. Did the judge issue a warrant for Obama's arrest? I can find no account of such an occurrence, however, if you or I had not shown up, the arrest warrant would have been issued. No Virginia, the law does not apply to everyone, only the little people of lesser importance.
But this ruling isn't about loopsholes, priviledge, place of birth, or birth certificates. Its about black and white Supreme Court Rulings. Four of them in fact.
The U.S. Supreme Court Says So...
The Back Swing
The Liberty Legal Foundation, a non-profit organization who's goal is to enforce government adhereance to the U.S. Constitution through legal challenges has filed two lawsuits requesting the Federal Courts follow current, valid Supreme Court rulings.
At the heart of the case is the long-standing Minor vs Happersett [88 U.S. 162, 168] that specifically defines a "Natural Born Citizen" as children born of TWO US Citizen parents - not one.
The problem at hand is the well publicized fact that President Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a suit arguing that since Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen, Obama is by legal definition and U.S. Supreme Court ruling, not a natural born citizen, making him ineligible to be president, or run for president in 2012. Where is the watchdog media on this? Instead of going on and on about Hawaii and his photoshopped birth-certificate, why are the media not talking about this?
Framing the Argument
The Constitution itself specifically mentions "Natural Born Citizen" but does not define it. Therefore it was left to the U.S. Supreme Court to make a determination. The Court ruled in "Minor vs Happersett" that a "Natural Born Citizen" is a child of two U.S. Citizens at birth.
Like a Fox guarding the hen house, each political party is responsible for certifying the eligibility of their candidate. If the Democrat Party certifies Obama for the 2012 election, Liberty Legal Foundation's suit will seek to hold them liable for fraud and uphold the law.
So what does Minor vs Happersett say exactly?
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Microscope on Legalese
For those who prefer Law for Dummies note the following excerps: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also..."
The key words here are "PARENTS," and "CITIZENS" - plural, not singular. This means BOTH parents. But there is an exception in the ruling. Does it apply in Obama's case?
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
This applies to children of whom one or more parent is unidentifiable for reasons of death or separation.This clause is immediately followed by: "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
In other words, we can make some exceptions for children of unknown parents. We make them a citizen and move forward. When we know who the parents are, we do not - the law is then applicable.
Coincidentally, we know exactly who Obama's parents are, there is no mystery about it.
Meet Barack Obama Senior
Meet Ann Dunham Soetoro
If alive today, Ann Dunham Soetoro, would be 67.
President Obama's mother was portrayed in Obama’s presidential campaign as both a “free spirit” and the “moral bedrock” of her son’s idealism. Dunham was a cultural anthropologist who worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia.
The Bottom Line
Aside from controversy surrounding Obama's birth place and his birth certificate, there is no variable of question here because we know who Obama's parents are and where they were born is well documented. Obama's father was born in Kenya, not Kansas as was his mother; making Obama, by law, ineligible to be or run for president in 2012.
Other Supreme Court Rulings Defining Natural Born Citizenship
The Venus: 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Shanks v. Dupont 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242
A case concerning Anna Scott and the Citizenship of her immigrant father...
"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649
This case concludes with the same ruling found in Minor vs Happersett.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
From the Constitution Itself...
We see the U.S Supreme Court has ruled upon like cases in a like manner but what exactly does the Constitution have to say on the matter?
Article 2, Section 1 : “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
The Final Nail in the Coffin
SO unless Obama can produce a birth certificate issued in 1775 from one of the original colonies, I think the final nail is hereby driven into the coffin. While the Governor of Hawaii may or may not have whipped up a photoshop birth certificate from Hawaii, its going to be very hard to explain how Hawaii issued it in 1775. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they tried.
Will Liberty Legal Foundation prevail? If everyone involved follow and adhere to the law, then yes, I believe they have every chance of success. However, there is a lot at stake here. There are several multi-gazillionaries who have invested a fortune in Obama, what's a few more zillion to buy an army of lawyers and 4 years of litigation?
But Ignorance Is No Excuse!
We are constantly told by our public servants that Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse.
Now as the sword is poised to swing the other way, I wonder if they will sing the same tune?
Or will they try to slap some lipstick on that pig?
This is going to be interesting to watch. It would be nice if the media shed a little light on this instead of sweeping it under the rug.