Of all of the cries and entreaties for vigilance in protecting our U.S. Constitution, this one by Dr. Kate rings most clearly and strikes most deeply. The document that our forefathers, in their wisdom, signed and embraced as the guide which we as a free people would follow and defend, stands today at a precipice. Lawyers, judges, citizens, journalists, and wise men and women are standing to sound the alarm but many other lawyers, judges, citizens, and journalists, guided by misplaced loyalties and emotional desires which trump law and reason, have turned a deaf ear. However, the citizens speak, and speak loudly, and Dr. Kate speaks it well for all of us here in this essay that she has written. (There is an amazingly edited music video following Dr. Kate’s text.) ~Lorna
By Dr. Kate, an Exclusive for TD Blog
© 2008 DrKate
Author’s note: I am grateful to TD’s readers and writers for the inspiration and information to complete this essay, and am always grateful to TD for publishing this work.
The Constitution. The 4,400 words, just words, in the document that became the founding guide for governance of “We the People” in these United States of America. “Stand by me”, this living document beckons to us now. Stand up and stand by me.
That our Constitution is a living document is proven by its 28 Amendments and the number of legislative and Executive branch rules and actions that have been scrutinized, upheld, or dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of consistency with the Constitution. No matter the political upheaval.
The Constitution: this is what is at stake in this election if we do not stand up and mandate that Barack Hussein Obama prove he is eligible under the U.S. Constitution to serve as President of the United States.
It is not about the birth certificate ….it is about citizenship and who is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States right now, in 2008. It is not about race , affirmative action, or the ‘popular vote’. It is about the rule of law, a nation of laws, and our Constitution.
The condition of the founding fathers’ spirit and intention for America was eloquently stated by Samuel Adams:
“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” (Emphasis added)
The Symptoms of Demoralization
Before I begin this essay, I want to speak to the many naysayers, disbelievers, and those who are simply anguished, and who (a) doubt the ‘validity’ of the lawsuits, or criticize the attorneys involved, and who (b) doubt that, or would be surprised if, the Supreme Court will do anything on this issue. Many are thinking the Court will want to avoid civil unrest and believe that it will succumb to “public pressure”, the standing issue, the ‘popular vote’, or the ‘procedural errors’, and dismiss the cases outright. Many people have forgotten that the Supreme Court has historically and knowingly taken on controversial issues despite the perceived threat or reality of civil unrest. Think of the civil rights cases.
To me this ‘disbelief’ or “surprise” is a telling sign, as it reveals in part how little people understand or know of the history of the U.S. Constitution in our founding as a structure for governance, nor the laws, amendments, decisions, and proceedings that mark our growth as a Nation. Fundamentally, though, the ‘despair’ reveals a loss of trust in our national government, our legal system, and our political systems, resulting in a cynicism that threatens our very existence as a Nation. Right. Now.
As I worked on this article, I have been humbled to read The Federalist Papers, The Living U.S. Constitution, and dozens of links posted here from readers about the vision and viability of a United States of America and scholars’ view of its meaning and interpretation over time. It occurred to me in doing this research that it appears that our educational system has failed in the last several decades to inform and educate the citizenry about the Constitution, the responsibilities of citizenship, and the history of and progress of our Nation. This is a major reason why there is a dearth of interest in the Constitutional eligibility of Obama, and ridicule of anyone interested in the issue.
And, if we had been more aware of our Constitution and the laws of our country, we would have collectively spotted Obama as ineligible for POTUS more than two years ago. The signs of Obama’s deceit have been plainly out in the open: his claim to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment; his admission that he was born of dual citizenship; the sealing of all of his records and refusal to release his long-form certificate of live birth, and his endless autobiographies about his Kenyan father; his travels to Pakistan; and his adoption in Indonesia. While our lack of knowledge does not absolve Obama, the DNC, the RNC and Congress from doing their job in verifying his eligibility, the lack of awareness on the part of the American public, the media narrative, the money, and Obama’s seeming collusion with Congress has left us in a very uncomfortable position now-facing the dissolution of our Union.
We the people have not been served well by eight years of an often “imperial” Presidency, where the Executive played for and won significantly increased power and then often abused the executive power. “Rubber stamp” Congresses, be they democrat or republican, have failed to protect our Constitution from attack. But the cumulative abuse of power over many years, the lack of transparency, and the cynicism and non-attention we have received collectively from all three branches of government has indeed negatively impacted the American psyche and increased our feeling of powerlessness and isolation. We stand here today with no champion of the people except ourselves.
The condition of the people’s lack of respect for and trust of its national government, the law, financial institutions, and ‘political leaders’ of our society represents, according to this video of an ex-KGB agent, the perfect ‘demoralization’ of the populous which then paves the way for ‘destabilization’ of a country in the foreign affairs, national security, and economic arenas.
The Consequences of “Forgetting”
There are factual economic, social, Constitutional, military and financial consequences of forgetting what damage an ineligible POTUS will do to our Country and the Constitution. These consequences are so serious that our government will not exist if we forget the rule of law, and what our Constitution demands. These are succinctly addressed in an article by Edwin J. Viera, Jr. entitled “Obama must step up or stand down now”.
Of the nine (9) reasons why Obama should step down if he has not proven his eligibility, the two that most notably concern me are:
No laws of Congress are valid
“Congress can pass no law while a usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
He Could not be Removed Except by Force
If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him-with physical force, if he would not go along quietly-in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Bear in mind that as an imposter Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, “he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline-and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives” (Viera, J.).
‘Let there be Light’
The call for ‘light’ is “the divine prompting to awaken and use our creative imagination,” and I respectfully ask the reader to focus this light of yours on the issue at hand: our Constitution. Remember those who focused their own insight on its creation for the good of our Country and not for any personal gain.
Many writers have used the phrase, “intending the mind”, where “intending” is fixing the mind and focusing with a clear and steady flame, one that brings illumination. Forget the lawyers, the media, the money, the ‘inevitability’ meme, the potential for civil unrest, and focus your mind like a laser.
The power of the Constitution’s 4,400 words are as a seed, that when nurtured becomes a tool by which to unfold the creative potential that lies within that document. This was the vision passed along by the Founding Fathers as an enduring guideline for our growth as a Nation. As a light in the dark. They expected future generations of American citizens to unfold the creative potential of America.
I maintain that the extensive research that has been done on this subject, especially here at TexasDarlin, has illuminated the subject of eligibility clearly-while it is not exactly, in my view ‘beating a subject to death with a stick’, what more research can be done on this? Thousands of people have sifted through the literature and our collective research and words written here form an archive of this important time in our history.
In addition, the text of the lawsuits that have been filed and are now before the Supreme Court provide very clear explanations of the issues of eligibility, and strategically address different parts of our system that should be providing the ‘checks and balances’:
Berg: (eligibility by birth place and multiple citizenship status) Obama, the DNC, FEC, Senate Committees, and later, PA Secretary of State. The Berg case is significant because it addresses multiple checks and balances and the potential corruption by a party and its candidate. Berg reveals we have no ‘checks and balances’ to assure candidate viability, and Obama himself refuses to provide the information. Berg’s case was recently referred to all nine Justices for conference by Justice Souter.
Keyes:(eligibility by birth place and citizenship) CA electors and Secretary of State. Keyes, a former candidate, and two Electors, go after the seating of the 55 Electors from California in an emergency stay effort to block any vote from CA’s electors until the SOS verifies the eligibility of Obama.
Donofrio: (eligibility at birth) NJ Secretary of State. This case sites specific language in NJ legal code that requires the SOS to ‘verify the eligibility’ of every Presidential candidate before placing the name on the ballot, and cites the failure of the SOS to verify Obama, McCain and Roger Calero, the socialist candidate who was actually born in Nicaragua.
Thankfully these courageous individuals, supported thousands of individuals’ research contributions, donations, and other activities, have seen the light and have stood for our Constitution on behalf of all of us. The cumulative effect of the numerous lawsuits, in my opinion, has reached “critical mass”, to borrow the scientific concept, where the effect cannot be contained or hidden anymore.
The main point of the ‘let there be light’ analogy is to say that the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama is clearly and significantly in question. It is not a rumor, it is not an axe to grind, it is not about race, the popular vote, or affirmative action. It is about our Constitution. We the People have illuminated this subject. And We the People deserve and demand an answer.
Points of Light Identified & Described
Point 1: Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States
This simple, elegant statement is the only statement in our Constitution that sets out the requirements for POTUS. No amendment to the Constitution has modified this language, including the 14th Amendment.
In a series of well researched and written articles, Judah Benjamin and Texasdarlin have set forth the analysis that the “natural born” requirement is one of allegiance more than place of the birth. As the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, the framers realized that there would always be foreign powers who would try to take the reins of power in the United States and thus created the ‘natural born’ category to prevent a foreign national from usurping the office of the President. As birth and allegiance go together, a natural born citizen of the United States at birth holds no other allegiance except to the United States. One cannot be a natural born citizen if one has been a citizen of another country, and in Obama’s case, at birth with allegiance to the British Crown (and later Kenya).
On assessing the danger of a usurper and the question of a standing army, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers, also reasoned that “the supposed utility of a provision of this type [regarding a standing army in peace time] must be founded upon a supposed probability, or at least a possibility, of a combination of the executive and legislative in some scheme of usurpation. While this statement was in relation to the raising of a standing army in peace-time, it was a clear recognition that there would always be an internal threat to our country from schemes of usurpation. The strong federalist viewpoint favored the protection of its Citizens from all acts detrimental to the Constitution, and empowered this to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We have had the privilege of two scholars, Judah Benjamin and Attorney Leo Donofrio, here in discussion of their historical and legal perspectives on the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of POTUS. With eloquence and credibility, both arrived at the same conclusion from different perspectives and reasoning. Historically and legally then, and examining the history of common law and National law, the ineligibility of Obama is revealed and illuminated, once again with great clarity and insight.
Point 2: Citizenship by blood and by birthplace-allegiance
The second point of light, or ‘ray of hope’, is the research shared here on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as arising primarily from singular allegiance to the United States, and only for the POTUS. A significant finding posted in a comment (h/t Ali, Jane) on TD’s An Institution Dies [Updated] thread leads to the following site, where author P. A. Madison considers the definition of “natural born citizen”. Excerpts from the text follow.
“One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example) they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature, or jus naturale, the laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations.
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Additional alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law.
In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “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.”
Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “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”.
As an important historical thread, this language was further codified in Section I of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, as the ‘citizenship clause’:
“All persons born or naturalized n the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside” (emphasis added).
Continuing with P.A. Madison’s article:
“What better way to protect the office of the Executive from foreign influence then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father? Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised under foreign influences in another country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues (emphasis added).
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”
Remember also that there is still a question as to Obama’s birthplace. If he was indeed born outside the United States to the married couple Ann Dunham and Barack Senior, his mother was not old enough to pass on to him U.S. citizenship at birth. In this instance, then, Barack Hussein Obama would have been born a British National (1961), then a Kenyan citizen (1963), and would have only acquired U.S. citizenship through some affirmative act of law, such as naturalization, and would not be entitled to be called a “natural-born citizen”.
The research that has been conducted on the topic of natural born citizen and the meaning of Article II, the legal cases on-going to verify Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility, and the discussion and insight here at this site have furthered our understanding and once again illuminated a subject that was once dismissed as a dispute over the forgery of Obama’s birth certificate. It has been an historic discussion that should be preserved for all time as ordinary Americans have rediscovered once again the roots of and passion for our Country and our Constitution.
Now, in the light, we are all standing with clarity.
The Role of Supreme Court
Article III of the U.S. Constitution specifies in Section I that “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court”, and provides in Section II that ‘the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority…”
Clause 2 of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution specifies that
“This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding..”
Clause 3 of Article VI also binds all offices or public trust under the United States, all senators and representatives, state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the states, to support this Constitution.”
The Supreme Court is the final authority on the supreme law of the land, and we citizens have succeeded in bringing a clearly constitutional question directly to them. Our collective attention and intention has provided this opportunity to the attention of the highest court in the land.
What is shockingly disturbing to me is the sheer number of people potentially involved in this deception: the parties, the House and Senate members, the Commissions, the state Secretaries of State, and the candidate himself. Equally as disturbing is the simple question: why is there no intention to provide this most basic information? It is a combination, in my view, of laziness of public officials, ignorance of the law-perhaps as a result of education- a stressed out and demoralized public, the “masses” vulnerable to the hopium, and very possibly of that a scheme of usurpation and avoidance of the Constitution has been underway for some time. And a host of other interests who find it convenient to go along now whom we can only scratch the surface on.
Article V permits the Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution, and requires ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Thus if we, as a nation of immigrants, want to amend the Constitution to allow people like Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to some other tests regarding his character, residency requirements, et cetera, we can do this. But not by January 20th, and not by the popular vote.
The Supreme Court’s role is to provide this guidance to us when no one else will do so, and when the candidate himself is attempting to usurp the powers of the United States by evading Constitutional scrutiny. In classic Alinsky style, we have a person who has been ‘elected’ by the popular vote unwilling to prove himself eligible to serve as POTUS, and who is callously willing to risk (and use) civil unrest to avoid having to prove himself eligible.
The orientation of the Supreme Court Justices is of course important to even suggesting an outcome of the December 5th conference of the Justices on the Donofrio case and the upcoming conference on the Berg case. The terms “strict constitutionalist”, “strict or liberal constructionist”, and “strict naturalist” have been applied to several of the Justices which will undoubtedly influence their response to each of these cases. From Black’s law dictionary
Strict construction is construction of a statute or other instrument according to its letter, which recognizes nothing that is not expressed, takes the language used in its exact and technical meaning, and admits no equitable consideration or implications;
Liberal (or equitable) construction expands the meaning of a statute to meet cases which are clearly within the spirit or reason of the law, or within the evil which it was designed to remedy, provided such interpretation is not inconsistent with the language used. It resolves all reasonable doubts in favor of the applicability of the statue to the particular case. It means, not that the words should be forced out of their natural meaning, but simply that they should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation with respect to the object and purposes of the instrument.
Strict constitutionalists advocate for a strict adherence to the original intent of the words of the Constitution not favorable to ‘interpretation’ or ‘social considerations’,
Strict Naturalist has a philosophical orientation intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered b rational intelligence of man, and would grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral and physical constitution.
Given the question before the Supreme Court, and the varying perspectives therein, I believe that Barack Hussein Obama has a problem with the majority of the Justices. We the people are in the right forum, with a compelling issue has never before been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. It a serious matter of the Constitution which only the Supreme Court can decide.
It is never too late to stand. Nothing is inevitable.
Spotlight on Barack Hussein Obama
The man claiming the job of POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama, has already admitted his dual citizenship at birth and his Indonesian citizenship through adoption in his writings, interviews, and on his website. These multiple citizenships at birth and throughout his life instantly disqualify him from the office of POTUS under Article II of the Constitution of the United States. On his website, Obama claims he is a “US citizen under the 14th amendment” and a ‘native born’ American. Why would a ‘constitutional law lecturer’ put this qualifying statement on his website?
Like a classic Alinsky-type diversion, Obama has withheld his Hawaiian long-form certificate of live birth so as to divert attention from more basic problems with his at birth and multiple citizenship. So what if the long-form shows his birth in Hawai’i? Obama appears to be blocking all access as a means to evade the requirements of the Constitution. And most arrogantly, Obama refuses to answer questions posed to him in a writ of certiorari before Supreme Court Justice Souter.
Based on our collective research, it is my understanding that Barack Hussein Obama cannot serve as POTUS until the Constitution is amended according to the processes provided by Article V of the Constitution: 2/3 of the State legislatures of all 50 states must approve. The “popular vote” has absolutely no bearing on the processes that are required to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Well, what does happen next? We all have this question in our minds as the palpable unease seems to engulf this time period. The longer Obama delays proving himself eligible, the worse it become for him, but this is again is, in my view, an Alinsky tactic of the highest and riskiest order.
Supreme Court dismissal of all cases. This is our fear and the true naysayer’s taunt. In my view, a number of things are important here, like the legal reasoning behind the dismissal, whether Obama verified himself to the Court, or if the Court is silent. If the Court is silent in its dismissal I believe at that point the ‘take over’ feared and discussed in the Trojan Candidate has occurred.
To be sure, the concern about Obama will not go away and will increase. While the legal challenges will undoubtedly occur even if they are continually dismissed by the Supreme Court, concerned Americans will have to regroup and assess the next strategies for taking our country back.
Supreme Court takes one, or all cases to consider as a block. This is the nightmare scenario of Barack Hussein Obama. He will either have to prove himself eligible or defend why he doesn’t have to, or why the 14th Amendment changes the situation, or advance that Article II discriminates against millions of citizens, that he ‘won’ the popular vote and electoral college, or whether he argues arrogantly that America is racist and ought to give him a chance. No matter what the outcome, civil unrest is likely but I don’t believe large scale armed conflict is likely.
If Obama is disqualified, the reaction of Obama. his supporters, and perhaps foreign governments, will be the ‘ground truth’ of whether he was able to fully inflict Alinsky “in your face’ thinking, and was indeed the Trojan Candidate with ulterior motives. Remember that Obama’s campaign manager has invited 3 million of his supporters to Washington sometime after the 20th of January. I believe the now-public announcement of Bush’s movement of a whole Brigade to the Northern Command (Colorado) to assist with civil unrest is a warning shot to all who think such civil unrest could overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Remember that the 12th and 20th Amendments to the Constitution spell out clearly an orderly process by which replacements are chosen in case of the failure of Obama to have qualified for the POTUS,
If Obama is allowed to stand without proving his eligibility, the worst has happened. I can’t forget Viera’s warning about whether our government, its laws, or its military has to follow the President at all. Just a reminder-
In the Declaration of Independence ‘we the people’ declared
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…” (emphasis added)
It is time, once again, to stand, never to lose that vigilance again. Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as POTUS is certainly not a “light and transient cause”.
Stand by Me
I thank you for ‘standing by me’ in this lengthy essay, and for standing by our Country through your research, comments and observations. I want to leave you with a very positive sense about what you, the readers, and TD, Judah Benjamin, and millions of others in this Country have done in illuminating the historic, dangerous dilemma we face with a potentially ineligible candidate.
Speaking for myself, a woman of mixed cultural heritage, I would never want a woman to acquire the office of the President as some sort of favor, or because she speaks eloquently, is a woman, because she got the popular vote, or because she was republican or democrat. No one, I think would want anyone ‘representing’ their gender, race, or religion to achieve the POTUS by essentially by-passing the law. Martin Luther King will always be right in judging a person ‘not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character’. I want an eligible, competent President.
America, with all her blessings and faults, has always been a beacon for millions around the world. It is the ‘great American experiment in democracy’ and we can once again rise to the occasion and stand for the rule of law. Understand that every person around the world, having read everything that is here, would understand our collective concern. The “night we waved goodbye to America” has not yet arrived.
American Patriots are standing, and none of us are prepared to go down without a fight.