It’s On the Discussion Table…

November 24, 2008 at 4:04 PM (Constitutional, political)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The matter concerning the eligibility of Barack Obama has finally made it to the discussion point for the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Why is this significant? Well, as most of you who read my blog already know, it has everything to do with the Constitution and upholding Article II, Section I of same. Although what’s interesting is that it is not Berg’s case which has made it to the discussion point. It’s the Donofrio v. New Jersey (Secretary of State) case that has made it to conference status at SCOTUS. It is slated for December 5. This, in and of itself is interesting because SCOTUS normally holds conference meetings on Wednesdays. This conference will be on a Friday. The case before SCOTUS is listed on its docket for all to see. Simply type in “Donofrio” and the docket item will come up. Mr. Donofrio submitted his appeal (writ of certiorari) to Justice Souter, who declined it. Per SCOTUS rules, Mr. Donofrio had the right and so pursued, the submittal of his appeal to an optional member of the bench, Justice Clarence Thomas, who has submitted it to the docket for conference.

For anyone who believes this is simply a “race” card being played, think again. The Constitution clearly stipulates that one must be a “natural born” citizen of the US. At the time of Barack H. Obama’s birth, his mother was 18. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, amended in 1952, stipulated that the child’s citizenship must have been to a woman who, born on American soil (su solis) to at least one American citizen parent, or abroad to at least one American citizen parent, would qualify as natural born, providing that the mother had been a citizen of the US for at least 10 years, five (5) of which had to be beyond the age of 14. Since his mother gave birth at age 18, the 5 year rule is violated. Therefore, since Barack H. Obama is suspected of having been born abroad and his birth registered in Hawaii (no birth records exist for him in either Hawaiian hospital that either he or his sister claim he was born at, which in and of itself gives question to his eligibility since one cannot have been born at two different hospitals simultaneously!), he would not qualify as a “natural born” citizen. He could potentially have qualified as a “natural born” citizen had his mother and her estranged husband both been American citizens and him born abroad, but that was not the case. His Kenyan grandmother contends he was born in Mombassa Kenya.

Even excluding his American “su solis” birthright, his citizenship followed that of his mother. He was adopted by an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro, and became an Indonesian citizen. Even at the age of 20, he was using an Indonesian passport, per his own words in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father”. Should we disbelieve his own words? The US had a ban on travel to Pakistan and other countries bordering Afghanistan because of the Russian-Afghan war. Assuming Mr. Obama’s words are correct, he wilfully utilized his passport from Indonesia, either as an instrument of convenience, or he was, in fact, an Indonesian citizen. Either way, he confirmed his Indonesian citizenship. Had he taken an oath of allegiance to regain his US citizenship, he would have had to turn in his Indonesian passport on his majority at age 18 in order to regain that citizenship. In such event, he would be a “naturalized” citizen, not “natural born”. He has not presented a copy of that oath of allegiance. Again, he would not be eligible to become the US president.

The Donofrio case did not stipulate only Barack H. Obama in the case. It also stipulated John McCain and one other person. Senator McCain qualifies as natural born because both of his parents are/were US citizens located in the Panama Canal Zone on military deployment. The Zone was, at that time, US territory/property, therefore, he qualifies as natural born, both by blood and by “soil”. The third person I cannot speak to.

The Donofrio case stipulates that because the secretary of state for New Jersey failed to verify the qualifications of each of the candidates, s/he was in violation of the US Constitution. It is incumbent upon every Secretary of State to do this and not to simply take for granted that the person has been properly vetted.

But, because the Donofrio case has managed to get to the conference stage, the Berg case may bolster the Donofrio case and it may proceed to a full-blown decision. We can only hope.

You can check out the docket at: Supreme Court Docket

I’ll keep you posted here…

Comments Off

The Saga Continues….

November 19, 2008 at 1:21 PM (Constitutional, political)
Tags: , , , , , ,

As most who have read my blog already know, the Berg v. Obama case is not totally dead. It is on the 2nd to last doorstep of the process. A Writ of Certiorare has been filed by Phillip Berg, Esq. with Justice Souter of the SCOTUS. Justice Souter has given the Obama camp until end of business December 1 to respond to the writ. Should Justice Souter reject the case after that point, the final doorstep is that of another SCOTUS justice. If it does get to that point, then the last justice’s doorstep would require that the entire chamber take up the matter for discussion.

The whole thing surrounds the issue of “standing”. As I recently read in an article by an attorney, “standing” is something created by the court system by judges. It seems to me that it is more akin to an excuse for not hearing a case than for dealing with the issue at hand and is something that is all too often used to get out of having to deal with a potentially unpopular case.

Nevertheless, my question is this: since the Constitution of the United States affords the common citizen the ability to petition its government (not just Congress) and to bring suit against same, who, if not a common citizen, has standing to bring a case against the government when an issue of this magnitude which clearly involves the 1st and 2nd articles of the Constitution is at stake? By saying that the common citizen does not have sufficient standing to question the eligibility of a candidate is to say that the common citizen does not have the ability to question any of his/her governmental authorities?

What happens if Obama really isn’t and never was eligible to hold the office of POTUS because he wasn’t born to a woman who had spent at least 5 of her years on American soil beyond the age of 14? What happens to the government as a whole?

Here’s what the attorney’s article said:

  1. The Congress would not be able to pass any bills because Obama would not be legally able to sign any bills into law.
  2. The military would not be able to accept any new assignments because Obama would not legally be the Commander in Chief.
  3. Obama would not be legally able to negotiate any treaties on behalf of the US.
  4. Obama would not be legally able to enter into any legal documents on behalf of the US.
  5. The Secret Service would not be duty bound to acceed to his requests, nor would they be bound to protect him.
  6. No employee of the government would be bound to honor his instructions, commands or orders of any sort.
  7. He would not be legally eligible to represent the US abroad.
  8. No citizen of the US would be bound to recognize him as the POTUS.
  9. Obama would not be impeachable because he would not really be POTUS. He would have to be arrested and tried as a usurper of the office.
  10. The Supreme Court would have to determine who would be the replacement for POTUS. Since Biden would be 2nd in line as vice president, he would likely be the next POTUS. However, if he would be deemed ineligible by the Supreme Court because of a fraudulent candidacy ticket, then Mrs. Pelosi would likely be inaugurated as the new POTUS. Or, they could decide that the McCain ticket should have won in the event of a fraudulent ticket and could determine that he is the real POTUS.

So, you can see, it all gets confusing and is not the least unimportant because everything hinges on the Constitution. If one were to say that the Constitution does not have to be followed, then what does our Country, as a nation, expect to honor as founding documents on which to base our laws and government? If the Constitution is not to be honored as the document upon which all of our laws are based, then we become not a nation of laws, but a nation of nothing and our country would drown in turmoil.

This issue does need to be resolved and it needs to be resolved by the SCOTUS. This is their task, according to the Constitution. It falls upon them to determine if this issue of “standing” is something real or arbitrary. It falls upon them to determine if Mr. Obama must indeed submit the long form of his birth certificate, his oath of allegiance, his Indonesian passport (if he still has it), and any other supporting documentation he may have to support his claim of being eligible for the POTUS office.

I, as a constitutionalist, say that he must present this information, for all to see at this point, and put the matter to rest. Else, he cannot be claimed to be eligible for the office and anyone who worked alongside him to cover up the issue should be removed from office and tried as a traitor to this country and all it stands for. – Yes – traitors.

1 Comment

The Federalist Papers

November 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM (Constitutional, Educational)
Tags: , , ,

In the coming weeks, I’ll begin my focus on the Federalist Papers. These were documents sent to various legislative bodies of the original states of the US (not the original colonies – the original states) who were involved in the establishment of our country’s Constitution. They were written by some of the Framers of the Constitution and they shed significant light on what the intentions of our Founding Fathers. I hope you will check back periodically for your Constitutional daily dose of education which, I hope, will help in bringing our country’s founding back into focus and help to redirect our country’s path to that which our Founding Fathers intended for it.

Comments Off

The Preamble of the Constitution

November 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM (Constitutional, Educational)
Tags: , ,

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What does this paragraph really say? Let’s break it down by sentence or part thereof…

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”

The framers of the Constitution had emigrated to these lands from the kingdom of England/Great Britain. As such, they were subject to the whims of the then king, George. King George was not only king of the land, but head of the Church of England, which was highly oppressive to the Catholics of the land. This oppression stemmed from King Henry VIII, who, disliking the fact that the Pope of the Catholic Church would not grant a him a divorce from his wife. Henry wanted a divorce because his wife could not properly produce a male heir, let alone an heir that would survive more than a few brief days. In those days, everything was blamed on the woman (nothing’s really changed! LOL). Because of his inability to obtain a divorce authorization from the Pope, he had his wife tried and convicted, then beheaded. He then established the Church of England. If anyone dared challenge the King’s authority within the Church, they took their lives into their own hands. As a result of this oppression, the Framers of the Constitution wanted to make a more perfect society. In making a more perfect society, each person could worship God in whatever manner he/she so chose without being subject to a government’s interference;

establish justice

In England, each person was judged by the head of the Church – the King, through his Archbishop. There was no defense available for the common man. The Framers sought to establish a system of justice that provided a defense for the common person.

insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,

To ensure domestic tranquility was to prevent outbreaks of war between the several states and to develop a system of dispute resolution. They also sought to provide for the common defense by raising an army and a navy that could protect the shores of this country.

promote the general welfare,

This clause of the preamble is often taken out of context. It does NOT mean that the government should provide welfare to any person, take care of the public so that they don’t have to work, or do anything other than what the Constitution’s Articles clearly define; rather, it means that the Government should do what it can to ensure that the general population is not devoid of assistance in times of disaster or attack. It means that the government should not show partiality when making laws that could affect one state more than another.

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity – to free our countrymen from oppression now and at any point in the future (ourselves and our posterity). It does not mean liberalism, far-left idealism.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The Framers needed to establish a Constitution in order to bind the various states together. Each state to that point had been subject both jointly and separately to the Kingdom of England as a protectorate just as Kenya was up until the Crown relinquished it and allowed it to be it’s own country. Without the Constitution – the “stick this in your mouth and chew on it a while” document, the States could not join together cohesively to fend off the British.

Your comments welcome and encouraged.

2 Comments

Your Opinion Wanted!

November 10, 2008 at 3:34 PM (political)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Your honest opinion of who will really be running the White House for the next 4 years….. no multiple votes, please. Regardless of who you supported in the campaigns, your vote counts.

2 Comments

« Older entries