Obama not eligible, California lawsuit, Dr. Alan Keyes, Ambassador, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr, Markham Robinson, CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, California Democratic Party Electors, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, November 12, 2008

A lawsuit was filed against CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, and the California Democratic Party Electors
on November 12, 2008. Dr. Alan Keyes, Ambassador, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr, and Markham Robinson initiated the Petition for Writ of Mandate in
Superior Court in Sacramento California. All California Electors are
listed as defendants.

The Petitioners are described as:

1. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Petitioner herein, is the Presidential candidate of the
American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
2. Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the
American Independent Party and is the Vice Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in
the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
3. Markham Robinson, Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American
Independent Party, Vice Chairman of America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American
Independent Party;”

One thing is readily apparent in this petition. Alan Keyes unquestionably has standing.

Here is the main argument:

“65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying
the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other
documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.”

Read the entire petition here:

40 responses to “Obama not eligible, California lawsuit, Dr. Alan Keyes, Ambassador, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr, Markham Robinson, CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, California Democratic Party Electors, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, November 12, 2008

  1. Well if Ambassador Alan Keyes doesn’t have standing to bring a case against bambi then

    The Usurper Obama is not only above the law…he ranks right up there with (g)0d! that spelled backward is DOG!

    How in the world can the main stream media ignore 17 cases against Obama in Federal courts? Two of them sitting in the United States Supreme Court!

    This is not a test of our election process…it’s a clear and dangerous test run against our CONSTITUTION!

    If the courts don’t act to end this comic charade by following the law of the land…I’m afraid our system of government is gone forever!

    Then not only those who voted against this jerk, but also those who voted for him will suffer equally!

  2. Pingback: Alan Keyes California Lawsuit Against Obama « Mcnorman’s Weblog

  3. Things could get interesting…thanks for sharing, Mr. Wells.



  4. What are the homeland security rules?Sleeper cells i believe in.
    Why not.Its was told that the next attack will be within.Before Obama takes over our army,our lives,our economy he need to opened all of his records.If found guilty Bush need to declare MARTIAL LAW and stay in power even if pass 1/20/09 until things settle down.If we are harmed by Obama lawsuits will fly all over the place claiming he was not vetted.His race should not take priority over our safety.He used the race card to put a hole in people hearts.But now its time to take the blinders
    off and protect all americans.

  5. Hi CW this alan guy should pack more punch in who has standing to question ones eligability to be POTUS of our country but then again liberal judges don,t care anyway you slice it.

  6. WOW! This is the one many of us have been waiting for. I just read the entire pdf and it certainly is better written, more clear, more concise, than the Berg suit. But thank you, Berg, for starting all this.

    And Keyes has “standing”.
    And this one requires the CA Secretary of State to demand to see Obama’s proof of natural born citizenship since apparently all he had to do was hand in a signed paper before now. And as we all know, he’s been refusing to show anyone his original birth certificate showing the doctor’s signature and name of hospital. Why?

    So far 17 lawsuits which, by the way, the Obama camp has finally made a statement about just generally calling them all “garbage”. The fact that they felt the need to say anything shows they are being pressured by reporters and citizens. Good!

    My gut feeling tells me THIS one will be the one to finally stick. But Obama knows this already. That is why he has already made a deal with the Clintons. No, not just for Secretary of State. That is simply the beginning of putting all the chess pieces into place. I think the deal is that Hillary replaces him and in return he gets no jail time.

    No jail time? No problem. Just get out so that wise, experienced people can get in and our country will be safe from the the lying, socialist, opportunist Obama.
    You can bet that when Obama is replaced there would be no Civilian Army requiring that all 16 to 25 year olds get 3 months bootcamp training for.

  7. I just hate MSM for not doing there jobs but then again when have they

  8. hope someone in every state brings up this matter about obama BC I;m afraid we may have armed conflict in this country If we find out the truth the constitution is worth fighting tooth and nail down to the bare bones

  9. This matter should have been delt with along time ago it should not have gone on this far and the dems should be held to account.

  10. I,m clinging to my guns and religion

  11. Should it come to past that BO is ineligible, no democrats should take the office of the rsident, because all of them supported this fraud.
    I do not need proof, their actions speak louder than words.

  12. Standard news wire is reporting that:

    “The Presidential Election is not Over”

    “Faith2Action has placed a full page ad in next Monday’s issue of The Washington Times National Weekly.”

    ” The ad asks these three questions:

    (1) “Was Barack Obama born in Kenya?”

    (2) “Is he really a citizen of Indonesia?”


    (3) “Does the Constitution still matter?”

    Read the full report here:


    The ad itself can be viewed at


  13. More and more are awakening from the deep slumber

    Or what may have been their deep faith that the lawful would prevail over the lawless.

    Now the message is coming home that

    Faith Requires Focused ACTION!

  14. Spread the word on the FOX blogs:
    Hannity, Greta, O’Reilly etc.

    Call Michael Savage, as he has had Berg on
    his show, and still talks about this issue!

    Let’s create a tidal wave!

  15. Unavoidable scenario: If SCOTUS disqualifies Obama BEFORE 1/20/09 inauguration, McCain is POTUS per remaining electoral college electors; if SCOTUS disqualifies Obama after 1/20/09 inauguration, Hillary likely becomes POTUS per vote of Dem controlled House of Rep. Either way, is clear Obama will NOT be or remain POTUS.

  16. Ohhhh, now all of a sudden the Republicans are interested in the Constitution!

  17. Good Afternoon, Citizen Wells:

    http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-two-eligibility-issues-refuse-to.html Obama:

    Two Eligibility Issues Refuse To Go Away

  18. patrick I,m not a republican

  19. Everyone should really re-read Donforios case, it’s the simplest, most single issue that makes Obama N OT eligible to be POTUS…it wouldn’t matter if Obama was born in the White House, he would still NOT be eligible to be the President. This is a VERY STRONG case he has and it should be the end of this story…read his updated page…. http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

  20. just the facts maam

    lets get this same kind of suit going in other high electoral vote states.

    this is one way of skinning this cat.

  21. The Rally Congress petition has passed a milestone today in the number of letters and emails sent to congress.

    Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis
    Sign the Petition : 100,433 Letters and Emails Sent To Congress So Far


  22. I need 47 more persons from each state other then Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia as I have them already to sign a letter to Secretary of State Rice and send this via USPS to her address in Washington. This is a letter drawn up by an attorney friend of mind. It is powerful, to the point and cutting around any court determining that any of us have standing. Please request a copy from me at dllawler at yahoo dot com.

  23. Patrick doesn’t really understand just who the constitutional conservationists really are or have been does he?

  24. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/find-out-whether-barack-obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen-as-required-under-article-ii-of-the-us-constitution-and-stop-the-electoral-college-from-voting-for-him-if-he-is-not/




  26. I’m posting this on several blogs today to see if I can encourage some “viral” email and posting activity and to encourage some people to send something like this to their local newspapers.

    I am repeatedly amazed, stunned, and frankly staggered, at the unwillingness of my Democrat acquaintances and correspondents to face this issue. The outcome for them could be particularly bad. It seems to me that the rational course of action under such extreme circumstances is to engage in Risk Mitigation.

    It is a fact that Obama has yet to provide the necessary documents showing his eligibility for President. Millions of people in the US know this. The military knows this. Foreigners, even heads of state know this. In particular, if Obama is NOT a US citizen, the country of which he IS a citizen knows this for sure. And would be in a position to perpetrate great harm to Obama and to the US.

    The rational and intelligent approach would be to get this resolved. Seriously, if this were happening to my preferred candidate, I would be screaming the loudest. If I believed in my candidate I would want this cleared up NOW to prevent unrest domestically or internationally. If there were the slightest doubt, the sooner we know the truth the better. The truth (whatever it may be) cannot be hidden for ever. The truth WILL out. It is just a matter of timing.

    The time is NOW – this will not get better later. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Electoral College meeting in December and formalizing his election. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Inauguration in January. No treaty will be safe if there is doubt about the constitutionality of our president. No executive order or signed law will have any power. The military is sworn to protect the constitution, not the president. What will they do (what MUST they do) if eligibility and constitutionality are still at issue?

    Do you have any idea of the ENORMITY of the problems if Obama is indeed not constitutionally eligible?

    And, this is NOT brain surgery or rocket science. This is easily resolved. Please, regardless of your emotions and affiliation, do every thing you can to get this problem resolved. Simply raise a public outcry that Obama must provide the same records that every other presidential candidate has provided. Question why he has not done this so far and why he continues to refuse and to throw dozens of lawyers into the gears to prevent this disclosure from happening.

    America – what is going on?

  27. from: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/obama-born-in-kenya-new-information/

    “2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.” was Sponsored by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton and Webb. Why? Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly Legally Eligible when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 and again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause?

    “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;”

    This Clause has no particular relevance to McCain and the following Clause, which it is reported McCaskill and Obama attempted to REMOVE shows that:

    “; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:”

    It seems clear that McCaskill and Obama were attempting to create a blanket Resolution covering ALL Foreign Born candidates. Why do that if not to benefit a Foreign Born Democratic Candidate, who did not have a US Military background?

    McCain did not need this resolution, Richardson did not need this Resolution, so far as I can see nobody needed this Resolution unless somebody in the race was born outside the USA and was “Covering his/her Ass” and the only individual in the race that that could apply to was Senator Obama! This in turn would show that the Senator is a liar who has been peddling untruths about his birth for at least 16 years!

  28. I thought the SCOTUS has refused to hear the lawsuit on the grounds of no standing. If that is so, how can the lower courts have any affect?

  29. I’m praying that God intervenes and stops this conman from getting the Presidency – he has cheated to get elected with ACORN ‘s help. I think this man has been planning to hijack the country for years and years and he will turn it into a Police State with a dictatorship. People are very frightened of this madman with serious personality flaws getting into the White House and talks about terrorists not being tortured but is prepared to leave newly born babies from botched abortions on slabs. The man’s inhuman and the people who voted for him must be mad too!

  30. I know this is going to sound really silly, but knowing the way things have transpired throughout, not one in a decision making, authoritative position to require Obama to show his COLB, and with the Hawaiian authorites saying it’s valid, keeping it under lock and key, supposedly, all this time, I have to wonder whether they’re really working behind the scenes, creating a COLB that will be so like a real one, that by the time these cases get to court, if they ever do, they’ll have evidence that can’t be refuted. I know it sounds farfetched, but there are powerful factions that want this man in office, and will stop at nothing to place him and keep him there, perhaps even longer than 2 terms.

    There has to be more that someone needs to work on as a back up case, so if this COLB proof also proves to be without a way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it has been tampered with, or that it is false documentation, this evil will not be allowed to permeate the country.

  31. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Constitution Of The United States of which they have sworn to do so…..What then be the purpose of the Supreme Court and or have those select judges betrayed us by joining up with the forces of the New World Order? Nuff said.

  32. When BHO is determined by SCOTUS to be ineligible, will you personally vow to be civil? When your messiah(foolish name to put to a human, who is so undeserving) is sidelined will you promise to stay at home, not to protest and loot. Tell me and the world! Give your word and keep it! Everyone be civil to your neighbors!

  33. gholtron, I wish the law were easier to explain AND that I were actually a lawyer, but here goes:

    Jurisdiction is determined by the source of the EXACT law that it is alleged has been broken. A ruling from a lower court passes up to a higher court only on appeal. The SCOTUS is essentially an appeals court.

    The lawsuits so far that have made it to the SCOTUS have not been dismissed on the merits of the cases, which would set a precedent for dismissal of any futher such suits. They have been dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiff; that is, the SCOTUS said the plaintiff did not have the legal right to sue. It’s essentially a technicality and while it ends that particular suit it does not bar any future suits on the same issue(s) by plaintiffs who have legal standing to sue.

    That is why there is so much excitement over the Keyes suit. California law clearly states that other candidates for an elected office are among the people who properly have standing to contest election results.

  34. Warrior From Pennsylvania

    Will the Supreme Court stop the Inaguration if Obama does not provide a natural born Birth Certificate?

    I hope the Lord and the electors intervene and stop us from having our first Islamic President of the United States.

    His liberal, socialist Cabinet will have many evil suprises for us in the future.

    Protect our Constitution as to this issue or our First, Second and remaining Amendments will be only words on a wrinkled old piece of paper as to how things really should be in our beloved America.

    Will Obama wilfully lead us down the road as was experienced by the Roman Empire?

    May Almighty God lead us to repentance for our national sins! Pray to God that this travesty of injustice will not prevail.

    America is on her last leg and a weak one at that!!

  35. Maybe I’am old fashioned but I always believed that we had the FBI to protect the USA from exactly this kind of threat. Where are the patriotic agents I always believed would save the country when criminals were trying to take control of our government. People need to be arested and charged for the crimes they have committed, and continue to commit. We cannot allow the country to be taken over illegally. Where are the ” G MEN” ?

  36. Where are the REAL “G MEN” would be more appropriate.

  37. Warrior From Pennsylvania

    I went to the Internet and got the names of all of the men and one woman on the Supreme Court. I wrote a personal letter to them about Obama running ‘rough shod’ over our American Constitution.

    I sent FAXes to Casey and Specter put Biden, Pelosi, Reid and others.

    If the Supreme Court allows this greatest travesty of the 21st century, then our First and Second Amendment rights will become no more than words on a wrinkled old document called our sacred Constitution of the United States.

    Take a similar action and complain to your Senators and to the judgeds on the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

    Unite around the Constitution!!

    As a Warrior and a prophet, this is our last chance as an American democracy. Believe it!

  38. Pingback: US Supreme Court Decides Obama NOT Eligible to Serve as President

  39. Warrior From Pennsylvania

    Wow! No more ‘hits’ on the issue of Obama and the Supreme Court. Americans apparently are so disappointed in the whole system that they have totally given up.

    Will the Supreme Court bring this to the light of day, or will they bury it in other business of our worried nation.

    The court and President Bush need to stop the Inaugeration until this most serious problem is smoothed out, one way or the other.

    Let people riot in the streets; let American justice prevail!

    Use martial law if it takes this method!

  40. Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”

    At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. To date, he has refused to produce his 1961 birth record, despite numerous lawsuits (Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).

    To understand what this 1961 birth record is that he refuses to produce, one needs to understand Hawaiian “Birth Certificates.” An analysis of Hawaiian Birth certificates is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:

    In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

    Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.

    To sum it up, Mr. Obama produced a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth (a summary), and posted it on his website. He called it his “Official Birth Certificate,” but did not disclose that it derives from a 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. Furthermore, it is not yet publically known whether this Certification of Live Birth derives from a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician), or a 1961 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital, and could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth). Moreover, Mr. Obama refuses to release this 1961 birth record to clear this up, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so. Furthermore, neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected his birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny. For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.

    Mr. Obama’s birth certificate does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President. However, the most important foundation question is what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal is to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, no matter who he is, no matter which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.

    Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.

    The answer to this burden of proof question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.”Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

    It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.

    It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.

    Once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

    The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”

    So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion – preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Let’s examine each standard and choose the one that is best suited to ensure that only a qualified President elect becomes President.

    Preponderance of the Evidence – (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases, e.g., personal injury lawsuits.

    If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard therefore does not seem high enough.

    Clear and Convincing Evidence – (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. This standard also does not seem high enough.

    Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants to ensure that an innocent person is not deprived of his life or liberty. True, the Presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justifications for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard are not for proving the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that an innocent person does not lose his life or liberty. Ensuring that these freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections rings throughout the justifications for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard being applied to presidential candidates so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required of him.

    At this point, I would like to conclude that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply to the President elect, but unfortunately, I do not get to decide this issue. Who then, should determine which standard applies? Moreover, who gets to interpret it?

    Should the states get to decide this question? If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion. One might also expect to find up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards. This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It’s arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate. Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state’s record each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age), and resulting in unequal risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.

    Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens? Let’s assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state’s interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state’s candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation. Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

    So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate’s burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?

    Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead? Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.

    Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S. Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits with a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a Presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.

    Should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)? No. The FEC filed a motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.

    What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party? Should such a bias organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.

    What about leaving it to the Electors? Are they any less bias than their respective parties?

    What about the United States Supreme Court? The first paragraph of their own website makes the following promise to the American People – “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

    If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.

    “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify. The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it’s arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect’s natural born citizen evidence during this time period. If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?” Furthermore, what will be the fate of the Constitution, the Court, and the country if it is later discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen? Will every treaty, law, military act become void ab initio? Will the nation be launched into a state of civil unrest and unyielding division?

    As of this post, the Court has not granted a writ to hear the Berg v. Obama case. While we are waiting for this historic news, perhaps we should at least look at Mr. Obama’s only submitted evidence of being a natural born citizen – the posted 2007 computer-generated laser-printed “Certification of Live Birth” on his website. So let’s review the facts and his evidence, and then apply the burdens of persuasion. I used my general interpretations of each burden of persuasion since there is no clearly defined one being applied by anyone else, anywhere.

    Preponderance of the Evidence – No. What is a computer-generated printout like Obama’s Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice’s website.

    Furthermore, since it is not clear from which 1961 document this printout derives from, the one with the doctor’s signature and other traceable evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), or the one fraught with the potential for fraud, including registering an out of the country birth as an in state birth after the birth (Certificate of Hawaiian Birth), it’s arguable that either source is no more likely than the other, so it does not appear to satisfy this more likely than not standard.

    Clear and Convincing Evidence – No. If the Certification of Live birth doesn’t satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

    Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – No. One would need to feign ignorance and act with the utmost bad faith to argue that a Certification of Live birth proves that he was born in Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, since it doesn’t even satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

    This is where the road to the White House should end for Mr. Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth. Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement to be President.

    I’ll close this post with a quote: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

    Copied with permission from http://www.vibe.us

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s