Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes (pictured) and other members of the American Independent Party have filed suit in California Superior Court to stop the the California Secretary Of State from giving its 55 electoral votes to President-Elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided that proves he is a natural-born citizen of the United States and thus meets the U.S. constitutional requirement to take office. The certified Electoral College tally occurs next month. The Keyes v. Bowen petition for writ of mandate can be read here.
There have been other legal challenges filed in 17 other states, but all of the ones reviewed thus far (all of them haven't been reviewed yet) have been dismissed because the plaintiffs were judged to lack standing to bring suit. However, Mr. Keyes, who is conservative, was the American Independent Party candidate for president and thus may be considered to have standing to bring charge as a plaintiff.
The writ: "To avert a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through aborious legal challenges, this writ seeks to resolve such complaints. It was incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his citizenship, but, to date, Senator Obama has failed to do so. At this point, Senator Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his vault (original hospital) birth records and supporting hospital records."
It continues: "This writ requests a court order barring the SOS from both certifying to the Governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship in Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain."
LifeSiteNews.com writes that in response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Mr. Keyes commented, "I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure", he said. "I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation."
Booker Rising readers may recall that Mr. Keyes ran against then-Illinois-State-Senator Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate here in Illinois in 2004, a race he lost.
26 comments:
an interesting name for your blog
the parallels between Obama and Booker Washington are numerous.
a new reprint of Booker T. Washington's classic autobiography has just been released in a new special collector's edition to commemerate this election and the connection bewteen the two men:
http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Autobiography-President-Commemorative-Collectors/dp/1440455058
You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html
Parallels between Booker T. and Obama? Are you joking?
Was Booker T. Washington a pampered bi-racial twit who thought he was above the laws of his country?
The biography I read of Washington made him sound like a very upright, enterprising, honorable man, inventive and dogged in the face of opposition. Hmm, memo to me: go back and see if there is something I missed. Don't see any parallels.
Didn't Barack Obama beat Alan Keyes in the Illinois 2004 election for US Senate?
Why didn't Mr. Keyes make an issue about Barack Obama's citizenship then? Keyes ran a nasty smear campaign that bombed and was a signal to the GOP that they chose to ignore. Smearing crap gets you nowhere.
Grow some dignity.
BTW, since Homeland Security/ICE goes after illegal aliens, how come they haven't deported Obama if he is illegal?
DUH!
He is not saying that Barak Obama is illegal but that there are questions as to whether is is a natural born citizen (a requirement to become President but not Senator).
For instance Arnold Schwarzenegger can be Governor of California but not President of the U.S. because he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.
There are real questions about Barak Obama's citizenship (like his African grandmother claiming to be at his birth in Kenya and a form from a Catholic school he attended in Indonesia stating his citizenship as Indonesian). There may be legitimate reasons for these discrepancies and they could be easily cleared up by his showing the vault birth certificate.
I don't think it’s too much to ask that the man who was elected President Barack Obama prove he is an American Citizen. The media chased down Joe the Plummer, Sarah Palin and made a issue of McCain's age and that he was born in Panama do their job and see if this man legally meets the US Constitution standards to hold that office. Obama is a fraud from top to bottom. He appears to be born is Kenya, but claim Hawaii, but won't show his birth certificate, he appears to be more Muslim then Christian, more Socialist then free Enterprise, most likely is a Indonesian Citizen per adoption and pretends he bearly knows Bill Ayers.
Its sad that the very people like Judges, who take oaths to uphold the US Constitution and refuse to allow this to be looked into and dismiss without authority. I always admired Alan Keyes and feel he is a decent good human being and takes about this country and I like the fact that he is a Christian who is NOT afraid to stand by his moral values on life and liberty.
I didn't vote for Obama because he is a liberal and a fraud and not because he is black, because I would vote for Mr. Keyes because I like that he has good meaningful values that make this country great.
Please Mr. Keyes, please be steadfast to push forward and not stop on your lawsuit to demand President elect Obama prove he is a US Citizen and not allow this miscarriage of Constitution and its principles which guides us for so many years.
I have now lost what little respect I had for Mr. Keyes. Why he waited until now to bring this argument, it seems petty and mean spirited.
Does he really believe this could have gone undetected for so long.
Has anyone seen Alan Keys birth certificate? He ran for president too, I'm just wondering.
America needs to focus on how to get out of the crisis that has been created; we shouldn't allow people like this to distract us with such tomfoolery.
Focus people focus, don't follow him down the garden path
Why did Alan Keyes wait? He didn't wait. He never went after Obama in the same manner that Obama's team goes after people.
Obama's team thrived by trying to dig up dirt, sending vipers everywhere with loads of money. Money that Obama initially said he would not take.
Alan Keyes stuck to the real issues, but how much coverage of him did you see?
Alan Keyes sees it as I do. He noticed the controversy via other people's research. The difference is that Keyes saw a real legitimacy in the case so he has every right to jump in. He may potenialy preserve the constitution if Obama is a fraud.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the arguments are to defend Obama, rules are rules. Obama needs to face up and show his authentic birth certificate to Congress,the U.S. Surpreme Court, or other appropriate authorities in the matter. Not factcheck.org because of the connections between Obama's past ties, the unrepentent Ayers, and ACORN. If he does not, he will be labled as a factual hypocrite to say the least!
Obama has spent much money (estimates of greater than $500,000) on lawyers and the like to hide something that can be fixed for about $12; this is not my kind of economics! Can you imagine the state of the economy if government costs would rise by a factor of 40,000 to get things done? Your transparency is appearing more translucent, if not opaque. Show your “certificate of live birth” with the name of the hospital and the doctor and end this once and for all.
BTW, why would anyone put their birth certificate in a vault ? Most folks I know keep it in a file cabinet, dresser drawer, desk drawer... but to keep something like a birth certificate in a vault like fort knox gold bars is not normal. Obama - show the real Birth certificate & get this behind us all.
This is a VERY serious matter. Barak Obama MUST produce a certificate of live birth. There is also a case, Berg vs. Obama in the U.S. Supreme Court right now. Obama and the DNC are required to respond to a writ of certiorari by Dec. 1 (Monday) to the request to produce a real certified copy of an Obama Certificate of Live Birth in response to the case. Justice Thomas is said to have mentioned a hearing on the matter that will occur on Dec. 5. Those who seem to think this is a joke are only denying reality. The Supreme Court does not care who is effected by a ruling that bars Obama from taking office, they will uphold Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution regardless and are jealous of their powers.
I would say that, in this moment of time and because of the serious nature of the situation, Obama should show the original birth certificate which is on aged paper. Suspicions are rising; I believe the longer Obama avoids the issue, the longer Obama's team has to produce a really great forgery of a certificate of live birth on new paper. I can't see any other reason for delaying evidence to clear his name other than outright corruption and arrogance on a grand-sized scale. Personally, I believe both aspects are intertwined.
Please go to http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 and sign the petition! Write your representitives too! Volumes of letters and emails will matter more than your articulations so don't be intimidated to write them. Spread the word! We are the people and if you can't get behind the very title of the U.S. constitution, why be concerned enough to post or read comments, read articles, or perhaps, listen to talk radio and watch television on this issue?
Alan Keyes is both credible and has legal standing to file this suit. If Obama does not produce the requested documentation then he should not receive California's 55 electoral votes.
Eldrige Cleaver ran for President in 1968, and was removed from the ballot by the California Secretary of State after review of his birth certificate revealed that he was only 34 years of age.
Obama has to-date only produced a "Certification" of Live Birth, which anyone who has a real "Certificate" of Live Birth knows is not the same thing.
I am therefore supporting Mr. Keyes by supporting the United States Justice Foundation (USJF)at http://tinyurl.com/6kbauq.
I have also signed the World Net Daily Petition at http://bit.ly/OuRk.
I have also written letters to the Supreme Court Justices in support of similar lawsuites filed by Philip J. Berg, and Leo Denofrio.
Obama has no excuses. If he cannot prove himself, then he doesn't deserve to be POTUS.
There we go again, challenge Obama on any level and you are called a racist. On that level alone I think that the public has a right to see the Constitution complied with; just to piss off Mr. Anonymous above.
Show us your proof of your live birth certificate President-Elect Obama and put this and the political bigots like Mr. Anonymous above to the dark shadows.
Are you serious..."you should seriously consider suicide". Wow...whatever you do, don't challenge King Obama...why is it so difficult to produce the appropriate document. It seems to me that if for no other reason just to get all of us "conservative wacko's" to shut up...? I know it is human nature to love to force others to eat crow...so why doesn't BHO want us to eat crow...one document come on BHO!
Keyes, you've been out on the lunatic fringe for so long you have lost all sense of reality. This birth certificate issue has been laid to rest long ago, along with the Foster "killing", the Clinton-cocaine "connection" and those other hobby horses of the lunatic right.
Check
snopes.com
and
factcheck.org
Move over, Corsi, here comes Keyes!
Good grief...
Keyes, you've been out on the lunatic fringe for so long you have lost all sense of reality. This birth certificate issue has been laid to rest long ago, along with the Foster "killing", the Clinton-cocaine "connection" and those other hobby horses of the lunatic right.
Check
snopes.com
and
factcheck.org
Move over, Corsi, here comes Keyes!
Good grief...
Keyes, you've been out on the lunatic fringe for so long you have lost all sense of reality. This birth certificate issue has been laid to rest long ago, along with the Foster "killing", the Clinton-cocaine "connection" and those other hobby horses of the lunatic right.
Check
snopes.com
and
factcheck.org
Move over, Corsi, here comes Keyes!
Good grief...
snopes.com? factcheck.org? These are your creditable sources? You're either kidding or high on crack. I hope you're just kidding and I'm not kidding.
The funny thing about the left is that they were super-duped. The republican voters were only duped; they did sense more grief and danger even if McCain could have possibly won. The lefties always seem so sure of their party. They almost always seem to be shallow and brash; only filled with emotion that isn't balanced with logic.
For the most part, republicans and democrats are sleeping in the same bed. They're both evil parties. It's all too easy for the intelligent mind to understand the puppet show. Since it's not apparent for everyone, I'll help shed light for all of those who dwell in the fog. Bush wanted Obama to win.
Has Allen Keyes heard of the crab syndrome. If you have a lot of crabs in a pot and one trys to escape, another crab will pull the other crab back in the pot. I would say that Mr. Keyes is a first class hater. Besides, this has already been done and it was proven before Obama could run for the democratic primary. Get a life Mr. Keyes. You are still mad from whem Obama beat you in Chicago. If this is how you show your support, why don't you put a hood and join those other idiots. You and Clarence Thomas.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the moderate African-Americans here who express themselves intelligently without hate, insults, and stupidity. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves!
Are you so brainwashed by Obama that you no longer care to defend the "rule of law" and the U.S. Constitution? This case is an extremely complex issue and one that Obama has now spent over $800,00 to avoid addressing! The birth certificate is NOT the only issue either as Donofrio's case makes a good point that Obama was a British citizen at birth through his father and Obama has even stated that in the past! Hence, he CANNOT be a natural-born citizen. then there is the issue that he was adopted by his step-father, renounced his American citizenship, and never, in fact, reinstated it! How could he be here as an illegal...his aunt is here hiding out now! In fact, Obama's own website cleverly states himself as "native born," NOT natural born!
Start acting like reasonable people and demand that Obama answer all three challenges immediately! Did any of you ever wonder what else he may be hiding? And don't even both to waste your time calling me a racist or a hater! I voted for Cynthia McKinney, a REAL "African-American, who has always told the truth and did exactly what she promised to her constituents. Did any of you ever stop to think that if Obama is unable to take office, a race war could well begin that could result in the deaths of thousands of African-Americans and other minority voters? And potentially leave George Bush in office for 2 to 4 more years? Biden will NOT be able to take office if the case is decided prior to inauguration.
Less emotion and more logic pleeeeaaaassse! And I think Alan Keyes is someone I could back in the future if he will defend the Constitution and the Civil Rights that are so rapidly dwindling today!
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."
Are you all bleeping idiots.. Do you really think they would let someone swear into office without checking to make sure they are a citizen of the United States of America. Seriously. Cowards.
I swear that anonymous guy is alan keyes and talking in 3rd person. BTW.. that guy is a nut job.
I have a question, if Obama if found not to be legally born and was in fact lying, can he be removed from office, and if so then all the laws that he made and congress passed must also be removed too.
(notice i didnt call him president obama)
Alan Keyes should be the president, or run in 2012, i'll vote for you in a heartbest.
Obama screwed up his swearing in, they had to swear him in a second time has anyone witnessed this second swearing in? did he swearin using the bible or the koran? the reason why he was sworn in is because the ongoing process of finding out wether or not he was born here is ongoing, the supreme court probably asked him if he was born her, and he submitted that hokey birth certificuit and took him on his oath.
now with all his cronies in high offices themselves, the paper trail of lies might just end up in a shedder, all proof of him being born in kenya gone forever. you got leon pinetta taking over the CIA, kiss all those documents goodbye.
but thank god for the NSA and OSA, if a sitting president becomes over confident, these two national security agency's which the FBI wont even mess with, take the reigns and act. lets say NY gets nuked by bermuda, obama doesnt retaliate, and millions of new yorker die of radiation, the NSA assumes power and launch's a strike. JFK faced that same delemma in the cuban missile crisis, the NSA had taken control of our military, and was about to act, kennedy called kruschev, as a last ditch effort, and the two powers decieded not to launch. i was there, i remember that day, it was broadcast on live TV and radio to the american people.
as far as i'm concerned, we have NO president, and i will refuse to call obama one until he can without a doubt, prove to Alan Keyes and the rest of us, that we are wrong!
Post a Comment