To:
Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors
US Citizens
The US Constitution must be upheld
US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates
What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:
- The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
- The US Constitution rules.
- The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
- State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
presidential candidates on the ballot. - Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
- The two party system evolved from tradition.
- States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
the major political parties. - States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
- States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
- States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
- States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
- The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.
By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.
A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.
Facts and References
US Constitution
Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;
viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility
US Constitution
Article. II.
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 US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution
Article. II.
Section. 1.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Federal Election Law:
“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):
§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”
State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law
Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
Philip J Berg response to ruling:
“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:
“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”
“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”
“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”
Read more here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html
Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”
Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :
“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”
Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the complete article here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435
Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court
“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”
“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.
The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.
The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”
“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”
Read more here:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
Summary
The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.
The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.
Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld.
Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.
Citizen WElls 
Citizen,
I will follow your advice and contact my state’s Electors; and, ask my friends and family to do the same in their states.
May I use the body of this article in my correspondence?
You can use anything on this blog.
Thanks and God bless.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Not wanting to be a conspiricy alarmist but things sure are starting to look real fishy.
The first judge, the Supreme Court Clerk incorrectly entering the documentation.
I am astonished that there isn’t more outrage from Congress.
I am verklempt (any way ya spell it!). I am choked up that you are so smart and resourceful and care so much about our country to write all this down for us in such a simple to understand style. Thank you thank you. I have been writing, but I just copied and pasted a section near the end and emailed it to myself so I’ll have it handy to copy and paste to a variety of emails I will now send to my state’s Electors and other states’ Electors, too.
The Thomas Becket Effect
Because of one of Thomas’s (Obama’s) father’s (Grandfather Stanley) friends, Richer de L’Aigle (Frank Davis), Thomas learned to ride a horse, hunt, behave like a gentleman, and engage in popular sports such as jousting. Beginning when he was 10, Becket received an excellent education in civil and canon law at Merton Priory in England (the esteemed Punahou Academy), and then overseas at Paris, Bologna, and Auxerre. (Obama’s Columbia-Harvard-Chicago road was paved by very wealthy and powerful people).
Due to his zeal and efficiency he was recommended to King Henry II when the important office of Lord Chancellor was vacant. As Chancellor, Becket enforced the king’s traditional medieval land tax that was exacted from all landowners, including churches and bishoprics. This created both a hardship and a resentment of Becket among the English Churchmen. (Rezko’s tenant buildings had no heat). To further implicate Becket as a secular man, he became an accomplished and extravagant courtier and a cheerful companion to the king’s pleasures. (Here Larry, have another snort!) Thomas was devoted to Henry’s interests with such a firm and yet diplomatic thoroughness that scarcely anyone doubted his allegiance to (George Soros’ bosses) English (financial) royalty.
However, Becket, when saddled with the responsibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury, rose to the demands placed on him and rejected his past controllers. This is what his minions claim is going to happen. I actually HOPE so!
But, King Henry had his knights assassinate Thomas. And, if Obama rises above his background, his handlers, his financial backers, his puppet-masters, he will most likely be martyred because he would still be of some use to them that way. They’ll unleash some Manchurian candidate (that they’ve made watch Taxi 500 times) that’s stashed away some where for just such an occasion. It will be someone that the media will label as a n*&^%r hate’n KKK type so that it will all look believable. The resulting unmanageable chaos would still be to their advantage. (See Burn! -Italian title: Queimada- is a 1969 film starring Marlon Brando)
Then, the only remaining question will be: will he be canonized?
For what little good it would do in Oregon, I’ll contact my Secretary of State, etc.
I’ll send this blog posting with all the excellent references.
I know it won’t do any good, considering Oregon is a lib-ral state, but at least it pokes ’em a little.
Bravo Citizen Wells……
Clear, concise, and well written!
Why can’t even the dumbest of state officials understand why you have written?
You are at the top of my daily read list!
Thank you for the good reporting on the issue!
Go, Fight, Win!
Pingback: CitizenWells - Demand For Action « ZachJonesIsHome - Helping to Keep an Eye on the Larry Sinclair Allegations
Great Article. I put it up. We all must demand Justice!
Greta, What happened to your request that all four candidates show either the original or certified copies of their original birth certificates?
Right now there are at least two lawsuits before the Supreme Court of the United States requesting same – Philip J Berg, former deputy Attorney General for the State of PA, see http://www.obamacrimes.com/, and Leo C Donofrio, retired attorney from New Jersey, see https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/.
According to one source Hawaii “Health Dept Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino says she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.” http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp. Note the statement doesn’t specify that Obama was born in Hawaii, just that Hawaii holds the original. In contrast, Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, say that she was
present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, see “Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, Affidavit Obama Born in Kenya…” https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/. Finally, Secrecy of the Rosary Films is offering a $1 million reward for the certified long-form birth certificate of Barack Obama, see http://lukeamerica2020.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/one-million-dollar-reward-obama-birth-certificate/
Why doesn’t Barack Obama just simply produce his birth certificate in a court of law or before a judge? Why doesn’t the media hold Obama to this Constitutional requirement?
Thank you Citizen! Your post was wonderful! Did you actually send it to the two judges listed? I certainly hope so. The only problem, I fear, is how strongly you seemed to push it off back onto the States. I hope they don’t take that to mean they don’t have to ask for verification of birth themselves?!?
Citizen, did you send this to Souter and Thomas or is this just an FYI for your readers? Please let us know.
I have not sent it yet.
Perhaps I will.
CW- Thank you for your concern for our country. I check your site as many times per day as Drudgereport.
Can you tell us all how many hits are you getting each day? It would help that we know this is getting out.
Ms Helga
Citizen,
Please, do send it to the Supremes; it may have some sway in hearing the cases and/or their determinations.
We have not given up… just a little down time. I think we need to be part of a HUGE, meaningful group. With no compromise.
CW,
You should lead us to the most effective group, that will have influence in 2010.
We need lasting momentum.
We still need to utilize the Constitution and insist that it be upheld. Otherwise, anarchy.
We must stand firm for honesty and character which are obviously not shown from Obama and the DNC. If we do not follow the law, what kind of a government will we have? Personally, I would be tempted to cheat also if my president was cheating and lying. That is what we are working against. The law is the law and we cannot stand if we do not follow itl.
CW- Please DO SEND THIS to the Justices you have listed above. You said we ALL had to do our part. This is too good for you NOT to send it. It is time to put your money where your mouth is. I believe in you!
Serious question. I’ve been asking myself how this issue can be ignored by so many “in power”: the press, the state governments, the courts, our so-called representatives. Conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, decades of planning? I just cannot wrap my head around how so many can ignore the fact that this man has hidden all of his past and so few seem concerned. How does this happen?
Becket works, but so does Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King”, either the book or John Huston’s movie version of the same name.
CW, did you see where Andy Martin is asking the Supreme Court to investigate Mr. Berg? I received an email about it today; however, it can be located at Contrarian Commentary. Just thought you would want to know if you did not know already.
Brenda
For national security the CIA and the State of Hawaii probabally made him a birth certificate. Then he would call us right wing nuts peddaling right wing reactionary smut.
We must not get angry no matter how bleak it seems. The sheeple will blame OB for the economy and then if God is with us we can elect a Ronald Reagan.
Excellent Website Citizen Wells. Thank you.
Andy Jones
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/index.html
Well respected Dem tells it as she sees it. But I wonder why now?
To “an observer ”
Who is King Henry in Your scenario?
Or is it not a person, but a group of people?
Obama Cannot Be President
by Dr. Robert Coambs
Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic.
Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns
(1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama’ eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).
Furthermore Obama’s eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.
(2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College
To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.
(3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).
(4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here. We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states:
“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.”
(5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:
Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise: Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.
(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work
When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is not subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.
Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.
The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.
The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.
As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS. Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward. As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true: Obama is not POTUS. At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.
Obama has ample time to act. If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid. That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible. The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid. The minor premise states “Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known”. If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible. But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.
If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS. If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS. Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.
The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time. So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it’s form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.
If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS. If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS. For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS. No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS. It is not possible to change the past. Obama never was POTUS.
None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS. Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid. Nothing.
If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy. Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS. POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama. If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS. Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground. The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.
There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism. They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and (b) It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama. This may apply to all American citizens.
If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change. Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid. Obama might be eligible to be POTUS. But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009. If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS. Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.
Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President. The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to. However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law. It would be up to his discretion. Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.
This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court. The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly . These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them. No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism. Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.
Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority. These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this. Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS. However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.
Therefore, So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS. If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS. Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic. Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.
SUMMARY
Major Premise:
To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise:
Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.
___________________________________________
Note 1. The unknown status of Obama’s eligibility is typified in a current court case in New Jersey.
It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.
Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:
“The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”
In other words, Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State appeared unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS. If she was aware of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.
____________________________________________________
To reply to Dr. Coambs, please leave a comment on the following thread:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/11/sitrep-obama-citizenship-nov-11-08—-a-key-known-unknown-sinks-obama.html
With current events the way they are, all I can think of is a “nursery” rhyme and the following of fictional character V….
“Remember remember, the 5th of November–gunpowder treason and plot. I can not think of any reason that the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”
I have been following all articles and blogs regarding Obama. The only question I can pose is this: how long will it be before all truths are learned?
Si vis pacem para bellum. Si vis bellum para pacem.
This is hysterical… ABC GMA is going to interview Ayers…. Isn’t that special.
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/bill-ayers-going-on-the-record-no-not-us-on-good-morning-america/#comment-3145667
Based on information that has surfaced to date, an particularly in the wake of the Donofrio v. Wells lawsuit and other similar suits, I am fairly comfortable with the conclusion that John McCain is not and never was a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. That is not to say that McCain is not a citizen, or even that he was not a citizen at birth. Rather, it is to say that the geographic circumstances of his birth (outside any and all U.S. states, outside any and all U.S. territories) were not such as would bestow upon him Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status.
While I am not extremely comfortable with the conclusion that Barack Obama is not at this point a natural born citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution, I am beginning to think that this is what the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately conclude based on a full set of facts, once those facts are discovered, pursuant to federal court orders compelling disclosure to that effect.
The following is my theory. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu of married parents, of which his mother was a U.S. citizen, and his father was a subject of the United Kingdom by virtue of his Kenyan nationality. At this point, and at least temporarily, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Fast forward to when Barack Obama turns 18. He is now an adult, and remains a natural born citizen. By virtue of the fact that Kenya is no longer a colony of the UK, Barack is also a full-fledged citizen of Kenya. As a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, Barack now has options which, as an adult, he is fully empowered to exercise. For example, now that he is an adult, he can formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship. Since he has not renounced U.S. citizenship he has held since birth, he is free and clear to run for president of the U.S. once he attains the age of 35.
But let’s say he does nothing for the time being. He is an 18 year old adult holding dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya, just living his life. He enrolls in Occidental College as an out-of-state freshman, ostensibly of U.S. nationality and citizenship. Tiring of Occidental, he learns of opportunities available at Ivy League colleges and universities for foreign nationals to matriculate at a steep tuition discount, lower entrance requirements, or both. Possessing Kenyan citizenship, Obama thinks, hey, why not apply and see what happens. He fills out a Columbia application, indicates Kenyan citizenship, signs the application, and sends it to Columbia. Much to his surprise, he is accepted, and he matriculates at the age of 20 as part of Columbia’s program for accommodating students of foreign nationality. By the time Barack Obama reaches age 21, he has failed to formally renounce U.S. citizenship. By operation of Kenyan law, he loses his Kenyan citizenship. Retaining his U.S. citizenship, Barack Obama finishes his degree at Columbia, and begins living the rest of his life.
IMHO, the Supreme Court will consider Barack Obama’s personal behavior between the ages of 18 and 21 to be directly relevant to the question as to whether he presently possesses Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. More particularly, they will be evaluating his actions during that time for any evidence of deliberate actions which are inconsistent with a desire on his part to preserve his Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. They will be presented with the documentation comprising his Columbia application and find where he declared himself to be a Kenyan citizen for the purpose of gaining admission and/or obtaining a break on tuition. Based on this, they will conclude that Barack Obama forfeited his previously-held Constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status. This despite the fact that Barack Obama never gave up his U.S. citizenship proper.
Now that I’ve run this up the flagpole, I’d be interested to know if anyone thinks it deserves a salute.
Publius, NJ
Pingback: Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Jusctices answer, US Constitution, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 20
Pingback: Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution, Citizen Wells open thread, August 30, 2010 | Citizen WElls
Pingback: Speaker Boehner and congress, Legal experts speak out, Obama eligibility, Obama issues | Citizen WElls
Pingback: Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial | Citizen WElls