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
I have been planning for that eventuality.
In many ways. It's a pity that the DNC didn't have more respect, to make sure that the first black winner of a U. S. presidential election, historic in and of itself, wasn't potentially tainted. But, then again, very few Democrats give a flying fig about the Constitution, so it begins to make sense. A surprising number of nominal conservatives don't seem to care, either. It's been eye-opening.
I tried to find a political black democrat that wasn't tainted. Name one!
I can think of quite a few, who are eligible under the Constitution.
Whether we would find their political views desireable in a President, is another matter.
Is that true about their argument, or is it just your surmise?
I'd be inclined to think that "state's rights"or the separation of powers may be at work here. If you favor an activist judiciary overturning state regulations, fine. That seems to be the way things are going. But should that be the case?
If we are going to go down that road, does "the public" really need to know whose parents were legally married and whose weren't?
Part of the problem is that Hawaii did allow people who weren't born in the state to get birth certifications. If they didn't, if that abuse weren't a possibility, would there still be a case here?
It seems unlikely, doesn't it? I recall a few speeches given by Barack Obama, wherein he consistently referred to Palistinians as "we," and Israelis as "them." He clearly sees Israelis, and possibly Jews in general, as "other."
The getaway is much more than expensive, according to “The StatBulletin” the only estate which fits the description of where he will be renting is the Paul Mitchell estate. The price per day of rent for the property is a whopping $8,250! Story can be seen here:
Jr can’t pay for a long form vault copy of his birth certificate but can pay an outrageous sum for his vacation in Hawaii during an economic downturn. Whatever happened to his share the wealth? sarcasm intended!
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..
If he's not qualified and someone or some country can prove it, sounds like Obama is a good blackmail target. Do we want that in a President, with access to everything? Again.
Why would Obama spend time and money making other people spend time and money forcing him to produce a document that he should have volunteered the day he announced he was running for President?
There is one member of the Supreme Court who has no "ready exit":
The Justice (usually Chief Justice) who swears in a candidate who does not meet all Constitutional requirements for the office of President has violated his own oath of office.
For that one Justice, there is no "ready exit"!!!
There is only honor or dishonor.
How many times have Physicians practiced medicine only to find out later they not only didn’t have a medical license, they never went to medical school.
How many times have attorneys practiced law for years and then we find out that the attorney fraudantly got his license and has been practicing law without ever going to law school.
Each time this happens, fingers start getting pointed at everyone from the licensing board on up.
Now to my knowledge we have had elected officials that have run with bogus credentials but we have never had a bogus official run with good credentials.
Interesting to note, social security has his mother’s death on line, as Stanley A Dunham. I ran across an article that said she went by 4 different names (not counting going by her middle name).
Stanley Ann Dunham
Stanley Ann Obama
Stanley Ann Soetero
Stanley Ann Sutero
Obama then could have gone by any of the names below
Specifics, please, and then I can answer more accurately.
Specific case, technology, location, daily access to what. . .etc.
In the meantime, it is up to the adjudicators is to issue a clearance, and it is not at all uniform in its application——sad to say. I’d run it differently.
If I'd known specifics off the top of my head, I'd have posted them, lol.
But, what I am recollecting was at Los Alamos, and involved the eventual deportation of Chinese nationals. I'll look to see what I can find, to flesh that out.
I recall the general case and was appalled at the access grated by the DOE.
DOE operates under its own rules when it comes to clearances and access, but some things should not be waived-—like when dealing with Chinese (or muslimes).
If America has to ask, he probably doesn't have one.
Wouldn't that be a mess? If true, who could handle the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Talk about unprecedented.
“...any authority for W to step into this?”
Members of Congress - who have sworn to defend the Constitution - have direct authority to “step into this”.
As I point out on my About page, 3 USC 15 gives Senators and Representatives the authority to challenge O’s qualifications at the Jan 8 joint session of Congress.
No matter what happens in any courtroom this authority survives and can be effective so long as O does not present evidence he is natural born.
Assuming we have any politicians with the guts to present a challenge.
“There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified”
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 for the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009. But once these laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots in 2012, he will be required to comply with specific state laws regarding 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.
Yeah -- but what if the Chief Justice (Roberts, in this case) held firm to his own oath and said,
"You have refused to demonstrate that you meet the Constitutional reqirements for serving as President. Neither I nor anyone else who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution can administer to you the Presidential Oath of Office -- because you have already demonstrated ultimate disdain for our Constitution.
The Presidential oath will now be administered to the Vice-President Elect."
Talk about a profile in courage!!!
Right. I do understand. I guess I’ll have to give up any hope of a top security clearance because I do have relatives elsewhere. Shucks.
I think we all knew that Obama could not get a security clearance anyway, with all his Kenyan relatives as well as his buddies who like to blow up things.
See my previous post. I don’t believe there is any way Obama could pass your clearance, could he?
The notion has been spittled several times already at FR, but phrased as ‘the election is over, Obama won, the issue is dead, the time to prove he was ineligible was before the general election, move on’ or some variation on that theme. And in fact, if the SCOTUS does not do something to aid a state in vetting this fraudulent man, there in fact will be no controlling legal authority and any act his executive branch makes/takes will be ambiquous at best. The obamanoids are becoming more numerous at FR and moire nasty and more vocal and more whiny. There favorite now seems to be to semar and malign FR and freepers, then when responded to in kind they whine that name calling is the sign of someone losing the argument, or other similar crap. Democrats are liars. Their operatives are liars. The next few days will be interesting reading at FR. Hone your jibes!
The democrats didn’t care if he was actually eligible only if he could game the system for their success. You see, the black voter is assumed to belong to the democrat party. The black voters were guaranteed to vote for a black candidate even if ineligible, so the democrats just used Barry Soetoro to manipulate black voters and whine-prone liberals. And it worked, so far ...
I would think that Article VI supreme law of the land trumps state privacy laws. The Constitutional requirement of Article II qualifications falls to the candidate to prove, not the voters to guess at.
I suppose Obama could claim Fifth Amendments protections against self-incrimination to refuse to show his birth certificate.
Barack Obama’s sister was born after he was (he was supposedly born in 1961) and she was born in Indonesia, yet she has a valid COLB from Hawai’i. So you see, anyone can get a COLB from Hawai’i, it would appear.
BTW, welcome n00b.