Skip to comments.That Bleeping Birth Certificate
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, Bergs 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. Obamas 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 Jordans 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 Bergs 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 drivers 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 Bergs 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 havent gone away. We dont 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 isnt 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 wasnt really born in Austria, and that he doesnt 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. email@example.com http://intellectualconservative.com
Ultimately, the decision to show the damned papers belongs to Obama. It’s his birth certificate, he can show it to whomever he wishes.
DoD. Just a local nub with a security clearance.
If he wants to be deemed eligible for office, the burden is upon him, assuming an authority with the legal right to do so requests. I’m just waiting for some liberal, legal dweeb to trot out a Gorebottian “no controlling legal authority” defense again.
“We also have the right to change the government to any form we want.”
You are correct, of course, and we are being outplayed.
The Marxists and Capitalists are struggling in a non-violent civil war for the government of our nation, but only the Marxists seem to know that
- frog in a pot
What can we do if the courts do not constitutionally resolve the matter?
I urge you to consider what is set out on my About page.
Anybody with a security clearance has to. I got a copy from the state and gave it to DoD. Of course no third party forced the state to produce the certificate. It was my own doing. If I chose not to, I was free to find employment elsewhere.
I am tempted to say he is flipping America the bird, but your term seems more accurate.
The front door to this top secret library will have a stained glass representation of 0s but the door will be locked. Hell all they will need is a genuine store type front leading to emptiness.
“Why are so many people so anxious to make Joe Biden president?”
Per the 20th amendment, Biden will only be an Acting President (assuming he is sworn in as VP elect, if not he likely disappears).
It is most likely we end up with Hillary, likewise a Marxist, but better than knowingly going forward with fraud.
I suggest that we prepare for that possibility, and THIS time cause a real uproar.
Or Territory. Doesn’t change the point.
Why doesn’t that bother the sheeple who thrive on class warfare? He and his wife are spending at record-breaking speed while hundreds of thousands of Americans can’t even pay their rent because they’re out of jobs. He’s planning an inauguration that is beyond anything ever done. He’s got something like $30 mil left from his campaign and won’t even share that with his fellow Democrat socialist friends.
Where are you media??
To the media he is their god and no one will question their god!
You missed the point. It’s the constitution...???? ,
I see where the State’s Rights issue can come up against the situation. It is not nor should not be the State’s duty to issue any record to which a party objects.
The true responsibility is not for anyone “other” than obama to prove he is or is not elegible under the Constitution, it solely rests with him to issue proof if is of question by any citizen. If Mr. Obama refuses to produces or if can not issue unrefutible proof he meets the requitements of the Constitution, then he must not be formally elected or sworn in.
In the American context, that would be during the late 1700's to early 1800's, I believe. Things have just gone down hill from there.
First saying thank YOU for your service. Keep in your prayers my cousin MIA Laos 1971 (Wall 2 W Row 31.
To the curent topic, has anyone asked if the BC contains info that he was adopted? There is some reason that BC is not available. Is he who he says he is? For not coughing up the BC I consider him a lie!
That term works just as well. Besides he already has photographic evidence of flipping Hillary and McCain off. Why not flip everyone off who are asking to see his birth certificate?
Thanks. Your cousin will NEVER be forgotten.
Your question about Obama is an interesting one. Hopefully the increasing media attention will get us some answers..
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.