Tag Archives: US Constitution

2012 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Questions and answers

2012 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

Presidential Election

ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES 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.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

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
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

Obama eligibility issue growing, Charles Rice, Law School Professor, Notre Dame, US Constitution, Natural born citizen

Obama eligibility issue growing, Charles Rice, Law School Professor, Notre Dame, US Constitution, Natural born citizen 

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

From Zach Jones, patriot, writer, veteran, legal mind and friend.

“Dear Rush, Glenn and Hannity:
I hope you will consider the following article written by Prof. Rice of Notre Dame Law School. 
 
This issue is not going away.  As a Veteran (Navy 75-80), I feel that anyone serving under Obama today is having his or her service tarnished and they don’t deserve this. 
 
Hope you will do what you can to help.
 
Respectfully, Zach Jones”
Charles E. Rice is professor emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame University in South Bend IN. He is the author of What Happened to Notre Dame?

“Barack Obama: Is he or Isn’t he an American citizen?
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
By Charles E. Rice
 
The speculation about President Obama”s eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.

The Constitution provides: “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.” Art II, Sec. 1. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law defines the term “natural born citizen.” Nor has the Supreme Court provided a definition that covers the questions presented in the Obama case.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).”

“I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as “birthers” have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama”s curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.

The courts are not the only entities empowered to deal with such a question. A committee of the House of Representatives could be authorized to conduct an investigation into the eligibility issue. The classic formulation of the Congressional role is Woodrow Wilson”s, in his 1884 book Congressional Government:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function…[T]he only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. (p. 198)”

“The American people do not know whether the current president achieved election by misrepresenting, innocently or by fraud, his eligibility for that office. I neither know nor suggest the answer to that question. But it would be a public service for the House of Representatives to employ its authority to determine those facts and to recommend any indicated changes in the law or the Constitution.”

Read more:

 
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=49420&t=Barack+Obama%3A+Is+he+or+Isn’t+he+an+American+citizen%3F

Why did Professor Rice title his article:

“Barack Obama: Is he or Isn’t he an American citizen?”

Once again, and I am not a law professor, the constitutional issue is whether or not Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

Congressman Paul Broun, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, Broun response, Broun Paul Boehner no more status quo

Congressman Paul Broun, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, Broun response, Broun Paul Boehner no more status quo

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

We have come to  expect anti American unconstitutional positions from the Democrats. The following actions and attitudes from Republicans are unacceptable.

When asked about challenging Obama’s eligibility during the certification of Electoral College votes in 2009.

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”…Ron Paul, December 2008

The day of the reading of the US Constitution in the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner allowed “citizen” to be used interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner was interviewed by Brian Williams last friday after the reading of the US Constitution in the House Chambers and the shout of “Except Obama, except Obama” when the Natural Born Citizen clause was read. Williams continues the Orwellian tradition of the mainstream media of obfuscating the Obama eligibility issues by using citizen instead of Natural Born Citizen. Boehner, as Speaker of the House, should know better and should have corrected Williams. Otherwise, we have just another Pelosi look alike.

From The Post & Email February 2, 2011.

“I sent the following email to my U.S. congressman, Rep. Paul Broun:
Dear Rep. Broun,
I saw your interview following the SOTU with CBS.
I think it is imperative that just ONE elected Representative in D.C. stand up for the Constitution. I am PRAYING you are that hero. Barack claims that his father is Barack Sr., a British/Kenyan subject/citizen. It makes no difference where he was born, by our Constitution, he is not eligible as a dual citizen. He has admitted his dual citizenship on his own website, and in his own writings.”

“Rep. Broun’s response:
Thank you for recently contacting me with your kind remarks regarding the strong stances I have taken in Congress. Your words were very encouraging, and I am excited to hear that you are engaged in the political process.
In these tough times we must all work together to make America better for future generations. For my part, I will continue to fight for life, fiscal responsibility, and transparency in government. I hope that you will join this fight and encourage your friends and family to be as engaged as you are.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/02/02/constituent-to-u-s-congressman-be-a-hero/

The response from Congressman Paul Broun’s office appears to be a form letter, standard response. We need to contact Paul Broun and educate him. Once again, when you are discussing Obama’s eligibility issues with congressmen or those around you, keep it simple. While I agree that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his father being British/Kenyan, it is subject to debate. Ask the non debatable question first.

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

Next mention that the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, could find no birth certificate for Obama.

Then inform them that Tim Adams, who worked in a Hawaii elections office in 2008, has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate in Hawaii for Obama in 2008.

If they mention the COLB, inform them it is a document that refers to another document and is not proof of birth in Hawaii.

Keep it simple and non debatable.

John Boehner call me, Call John Boehner, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, You just took the oath, You just read the US Constitution

John Boehner call me, Call John Boehner, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, You just took the oath, You just read the US Constitution

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“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.”…US Constitution

I

Am

Pissed!

John Boehner, you just took the oath and read the US Constitution! The requirement for president is not citizen! It is Natural Born Citizen! And while we are at it, the State of Hawaii has not verified that Obama was born there!

From The Hill January 6, 2011.

“An individual who believes President Obama wasn’t born in the United States interrupted a House reading Thursday of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Birthers accuse Obama of not having been born in the U.S., despite the release of his birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii.”

“Update, 3:51 p.m.: In an interview to air this evening on NBC Nightly News, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reacted to the outburst and said he believed Obama is a U.S. citizen.
“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.””

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136379-birther-interrupts-house-reading-of-constitution

The following statement is a lie:

” despite the release of his birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii.”

John Boehner, call me!

We will be calling John Boehner!

112th Congress, Ron Paul et al, Do your damn job, US Constitution, Natural born citizen, Obama eligibility

112th Congress, Ron Paul et al, Do your damn job, US Constitution, Natural born citizen, Obama eligibility

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”…Ron Paul, December 2008

 

All US citizens have a duty, an obligation to obey the law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Congressmen, as elected officials, have a higher duty to uphold the law and the US Constitution.

We have a patriot Army Officer, LTC Terry Lakin, lanquishing in prison for doing his duty. Now we have a spectator in the US House being arrested and led away for doing her duty to obey the law, the US Constitution, which trumps any House of Representives rule of order. Ordinarily I might agree that someone disrupting the House proceedings should be led away and chastised. However, in this case, Theresa deserves a medal for shouting out “Except Obama, except Obama.” when Rep. Frank Pallone read the part of Article II, Section 1 mandating that only a “natural-born citizen” may be president.

Military officers and ordinary Americans are having to challenge “authority” because Congress did not do their job in January 2009.

January 8, 2009

“Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.”

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/dates.html

Ron Paul, et al, do your damn job!

In it’s entirety from Citizen Wells December 28, 2008

“Why I ask, should not the ‘injunctions and prohibitions’ addressed by
the people in the Constitution to the States and the Legislatures of
States, be enforced by the people through the proposed amendment?” 
“The oath, the most solemn compact which man can make with his Maker,
was to bind the State Legislatures, executive officers, and judges to
sacredly respect the Constitution and all the rights secured by it.”
Rep. Bingham (See Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1090 (1866))

 
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional Oath of Office

Natural Born Citizen

Why Barack Obama must be challenged

US Constitution

“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.”

To understand the intent of the founding fathers in using the words
“natural born citizen”, to define presidential eligibility, one must
first examine any influential documents and opinions from those
involved in crafting the US Constitution. What is clear and indisputable
is the following:

  • A naturalized citizen is a citizen by no act of law such as naturalization.
  • A child born to US citizens on US soil is a natural born citizen.
  • The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the following:

“the children of citizens of the United States that may
be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

 
Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, written in 1758, was a
valuable reference guide for the founding fathers.

Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course,
that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the
right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that
of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they
may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were
born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a
person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a
foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice John Jay, on
July 25, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander
in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any
but a natural born citizen.”

The Lightfoot lawsuit in CA states the obvious:

“This letter shows that the meaning of natural born citizen, is one
without allegiance to any foreign powers, not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction at birth.”

After the US Constitution was written, further
clarifications can be found

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the
United States.”

1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Rep. Bingham on Section 1992 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the
time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be
born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to
be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more
precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign
sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance”
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance
to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.” Read more

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 1898 Reveals the following:

“Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English
rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United
States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to
affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.”

“It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English
common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of
the United States.”

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,
I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen”
applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United
States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners,
happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of
royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,
were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad,
were not.”

“Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German
subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned.
After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary
Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his
birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the
Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not
pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”

“And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of
such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United
States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth
Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first
clause of the first section reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.

The act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same Congress, and it
is not open to reasonable doubt that the words “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” in the amendment were used as synonymous with the words “and not
subject to any foreign power” of the act.”

Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325,328 (1939) differentiates between a US citizen
and a natural born citizen.  Ms. Elg, was born in Brooklyn, NY to an
American mother and a Swedish father was a US citizen, but not a natural
born citizen.

Leo Donofrio explains the basis for his lawsuit:

“The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other
“Citizens”.  And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment
only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”.  The
Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens.  They
put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the
Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.” 

“The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn
a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British
jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject
to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United
States.  And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution
as being eligible to be President.  But the grandfather clause only
pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution.” 

“It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to
anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their
intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause
which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Application of Natural Born Citizen and Citizen to Barack Obama

Barack Obama was born to an American Mother and Kenyan Father.

Is Obama eligible under the Natural Born Citizen provision?

Philip Berg states:

“Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff
believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia.
Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries
multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United
States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.”

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues.  They
are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President.  Since
Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the
jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth,
then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers
of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original
birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be
eligible to be President.” 

“My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and
therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen”
of the United States.  A “natural born citizen” would have no other
jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States.
The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. 
The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born
citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.”

“The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility
fail to hit the mark on this issue.  Since Obama was, “at birth”, a
British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of
Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in
Hawaii or abroad.  Either way, he is not eligible to be President.  Should
Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii,
it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.” 

“Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”.  And as will be
made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction
“at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.”

Lightfoot lawsuit

“Mr. Obama is a son of a citizen of Kenya, that in 1961 was a British
protectorate, whereby regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or US, he
was a foreign citizen based on his fathers citizenship, he was a subject of
a foreign power and foreign jurisdiction and does not qualify as a natural
born citizen.”

“In adherence to the natural born citizen provision, the first presidents
of this country, such as George Washington and John Adams, that were born on
this soil, in Virginia and Massachussetts respectively, had to include an
additional constitution provision in addition to the natural born citizen,
“…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution…”, in order to allow themselves, as Britizh subjects at the
time of their birth to be sworn as Presidents.  Since Mr. Obama is not 221
years old and was not a US citizen at the time of the Constitution, he, as a
British citizen at birth does not fall under this provision and does not
qualify as a natural born citizen and is not eligible to become the President
regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.”

Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

It is clear from the above that Obama is not eligible to be president.
For there to even be a ruling contrary to the letter and spirit of the
law, Obama must at least prove that he was a citizen of the US at birth.
This means that Obama would have to prove that he was born in Hawaii.

Unless Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii, he is in fact not a US
citizen and is an illegal alien

At this point, no legal proof of Obama being born in Hawaii has been
provided. The Hawaiian Health Dept. official stated:

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official
birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits
the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a
tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with
the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee
and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified
that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed
that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital
record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

According to Philip Berg:

“There are records of a “registry of birth” for
Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.”

So, how is it possible to not be born in Hawaii and yet have a
birth certificate record in Hawaii?

[§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State. 
(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child,
the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii
as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the
birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health
in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of
health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may
deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth
certificates and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established
by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1] Hawaii statute

From the Keyes lawsuit:

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
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.”

If Obama was born in kenya, his mother had to be nineteen years
old for Obama to be a US citizen. Berg explains:

“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of
his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen,
which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would
have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were
after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was
only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under
the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the
time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born
abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen
parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the
child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register
Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b),
Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944).”

 Under the best case scenario for Obama, he is a US citizen, not natural
born, and the worst case scenario, Obama is an illegal alien. If Obama
was born in Kenya, he is an illegal alien.

At the time of Obama’s birth, he was a Kenyan citizen and under British
rule. For there to be a ruling on Obama’s potential eligibility for the
presidency based on being a natural born citizen, Obama must provide proof
that he was also a US citizen at birth and that would require proof that
he was born in Hawaii. To date, no legal proof has been provided. In fact,
every effort has been made by Obama to avoid proving his eligibility. He
has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and employed numerous attorneys
to evade his dubious past.

Obama must provide a vault (long form) birth certificate to prove he is
not an illegal alien. Think about it. We know that Obama is not eligible
under the US Constitution.

Are we going to let him steal the presidency as an illegal alien?

 https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%e2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

112th Congress sworn in, Oath of office, US Constitution, Natural born citizen vs citizen

112th Congress sworn in, Oath of office, US Constitution, Natural born citizen vs citizen

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

The 112th Congress was sworn in yesterday, January 5, 2011 using this oath of office.

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If any members of Congress do not understand this part:

“support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;”

Please let us know.

Also, if you do not know the difference between citizen and Natural Born Citizen, and why the founding fathers chose this special clasification of citizen with two US Citizen parents, let us know. We will explain it to you.

John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker of the House. In his speech he dedicates the 112th Congress to following the will of the American People and US Constitution. I heard John Boehner’s speech yesterday after he became Speaker of the House. I smiled then. As I watched the video and listened to his words, I came close to tears myself. Tears are not a bad thing. Apathy is.

Oath of office, Military, Congress, Cub scouts, US Constitution, Duty, Citizen Wells open thread, November 22, 2010

Oath of office, Military, Congress, Cub scouts, US Constitution, Duty

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Oath: a solemn appeal to a deity, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one’s determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.: to testify upon oath.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”…US Military officer’s oath of office

Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

One of my friends who I see with some regularity always sees me working on my computer and often on this blog. He asked me recently why I do not take a day off from writing on this blog. I responded with one word, duty. It is my duty.

The first oath that I took.

Cub Scout Promise

“I, (say your name), promise
to DO MY BEST
To do my DUTY to GOD
And my Country
To HELP other people, and
To OBEY the LAW of the Pack.”

Cub Scout Motto

“DO YOUR BEST”

LTC Terry Lakin takes his oath seriously. He is facing court martial.

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret), takes his oath seriously. He is the plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama. He and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo have a  Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference tomorrow, November 23, 2010, before the US Supreme Court.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/washington-times-scotus-kerchner-v.html

Members of Congress, we demand that you follow your oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”

Congress 101, How to act like a congressman, US Constitution, Support military, Listen to public, Act like you have some damn sense

Congress 101, How to act like a congressman, US Constitution, Support military, Listen to public, Act like you have some damn sense

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

New members of Congress recently received indoctrination on how Congress works. If past results are any indication, forget everything you heard unless it pertained to…

  • Uphold and defend the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land.
  • Support the military.
  • Listen to the public and act like you have some damn sense.

Most in the military take their oath to defend the US Constitution seriously. One military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, is living that oath.

From American Patriot Foundation.

“American Patriot Foundation: Updates on LTC Terry Lakin’s Case
http://www.SafeguardOurConstitution.com
 
 
THANK YOU to everyone for the tremendous response and participation in “Terry Lakin Action Week”- your phone calls and messages are making a difference. We apologize to anyone who hasn’t received a response yet back to an email- we do our best to keep up, but it is hard sometimes to keep abreast of all requests and comments received.
 
PLEASE KEEP UP THE PRESSURE- PHONE CALLS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS MATTER- AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO WALKED INTO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OFFICES TO RAISE YOUR VOICE IN SUPPORT OF LTC LAKIN.
 
Just this week, there were significant new developments on the eligibility front:
A state legislator in Texas introduced a bill requiring presidential candidates to file birth certificates- with the notable comment below:
 
“This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don’t know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place,’ Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. ‘If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.
http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2010-11-17/birth-certificate-bill-filed-presidential-candidates
 
AND— former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in an interview in Anchorage pointed out the failure to vet Barack Obama in 2008:
 
Sarah Palin chatted with KWHL’s Bob and Mark Show to discuss the re-release of John Ziegler’s documentary How Obama Got Elected and her travelogue series, telling Bob and Mark that the hagiographic coverage of Obama in 2007-8 is now “coming home to roost”:
 
We know that Obama wasn’t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost, if you will, which is inexperience, his associations, and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn’t – isn’t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy. So, you’re right, it’s not about me and whether you like my politics or not. You can push all that aside, and just pay attention to what that message is in this documentary, and that is that things have got to change for the better in the state of journalism. Otherwise, you know, it could be part of a demise of our democracy if that cornerstone erodes.
 
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/video-sarah-palin-we-know-that-obama.html
 
Be sure to download and read our Congressional Blunders report avaiable from the home page of our site.
 
// Margaret Hemminway
// www.safeguardourconstitution.com

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
Support Terry’s Communications Efforts
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/support-the-foundation.html

Add a Banner to Your Website
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/banners-and-graphics.html
Forward this email to anyone you feel may have an interest in Terry’s case.”

High ranking military officers are speaking out, questioning Obama’s eligibility and at least one general has called for Obama’s resignation. If you were in Congress in  2008 and 2009 and bought in to the Orwellian lies from the media and Obama camp and the hustle from Obama, pay attention and admit that you made a mistake. If you are not willing to trust members of the military like LTC Terry Lakin, then pay attention to this.

Obama the hustler.

“Bartle Bull, lifelong liberal Democrat, Civil Rights Attorney, called Obama a “hustler.””

(From Atlas Shrugs)

“The Biggest Hustle in Human History”

“Is the President’s resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application. …”

“Curiously, since I relayed a report of Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago (he was apparently never a law professor, as some have claimed), the Illinois Bar has decided to partially redact what little public information it had available on its website related to the President’s legal status.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com/2010/11/19/obama-hustler-democrat-bartle-bull-called-obama-hustler-obama-resume-hustle-no-professor-no-law-license/

Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution, Citizen Wells open thread, August 30, 2010

 Obama the hustler birth certificate defiance, Judicial misconduct, US Constitution

In response to Obama, the hustler, continuing to arrogantly defy presenting a legitimate birth certificate, an article from the Citizen Wells archives dated November 12, 2008 is presented.

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

Read more:

 
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-tenth-amendment-bill-of-rights-us-supreme-court-federal-judges-state-judges-state-election-officials-electoral-college-electors-philip-j-berg-lawsuit-leo-c/

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Earler today Citizen Wells presented a great interview of Margaret Hemenway conducted by Andrea Shea King. During the interview a reference was made to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr,a legal expert, and his take on standing in court cases. Here is an article by DR. Vieira from October 29, 2008.
“America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?”
“The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [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.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).”

Read more:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

Margaret Hemenway Interview:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/08/24/the-andrea-shea-king-show