Obama Citizenship

TRSoL: ?Best of? Links on Eligibility and More

By Phil

The Right Side of Life is in vacation mode for the next week. This means I probably won’t be doing any postings (even though I’ll also be watching about Schneller v. Cortes) but will check in from time to time to monitor the site and check comments. For this time, however, I wanted to create a posting with some of the better — and more controversial! — postings found on my site. And, of course, there is some news (as of 6/17) to be shared as well.

Thanks so much for the many well-wishes for my family’s vacation. Never fear: I’ll be returning “full time” in just over a week to, as my high school Bible teacher once proclaimed, “afflict the comforted and comfort the afflicted.”

Once again, whether you’re a friend or adversary, thanks so much for your readership and commentary.

Enjoy,

-Phil

As many who have been actively following the eligibility saga are aware, we — those of us who question this President’s eligibility — are pejoratively called “birthers,” because, in essence, we are categorized as wanting to see Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate which, to date, has not been released of his own recognizance. I re-frame the issue this way because it is also a fact that while a presidential candidate is not legally obligated to furnish any kind of documentation to satisfy the requirements of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution, there is similarly no law that forbids we, the People, from making such demands. In fact, one could go so far as to say that the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution are the “pressure valve,” as it were, that allows any non-enumerated power and authority to be reserved to the States and/or the People thereof.

So, while a portfolio of ad hominems has been bandied about by the opposition (I call them “illegitimizers”) — such as “crazy,” “wacky,” “unhinged,” “fringe,” “fantasy,” etc. — one would think that such a “conspiracy theory” (it’s actually not a conspiracy theory, because the facts could very easily be proven or disproven via the Hawaiian Department of Health and any one or all of the three branches of the federal government) would simply be ignored by the “mainstream media,” by conservative talk show hosts, and even the Republican party.

Yet, the “mainstream media” continues to bring the issue up! To wit, the following 8-minute (they actually took that much airtime!) video from MSNBC (h/t TheObamaFile.com):

Gosh! As much as they want to dismiss the entire question, they are, by definition, continuing to make the eligibility issue an issue! Philosophically, it’s one of those “to deny the object is to affirm said object’s existence”-kind of things.

I’ll use the video as a springboard into a complete listing of posts based on what was brought up. First, let’s lay the groundwork for the argument:

• Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know -- Want to know the facts about the saga? Check this posting first.
• Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation -- What documentation do we believe exists in Mr. Obama’s past that would help reveal who he is, but which parts aren’t viewable by the public?
• Obama Citizenship Facts -- A fellow blogger uses a posting on his forum to more fully analyze Mr. Obama’s citizenship
• The Obama Timeline -- Another blogger who has done quite the exhaustive analysis of Mr. Obama’s history on the planet

The above links are a part of a widget on my sidebar, to the right, entitled, “Who is Barack Hussein Obama?”

Next, based on the timeline of the video, here are my links to Ms. Maddow’s coverage:

• ?Birthers? versus True Extremists; FoxNews Opens Biased Debate; Did Brunn Actually Post?; Hated Christians and Jews -- I was asked by some in the opposition to do a write-up on Mr. von Brunn; here it is
• Eligibility Update: Fox News Poses Certificate Question, Dr. Polarik Speaks Out on Fox?s Coverage, Mario Apuzzo on COLB -- Is the online certification of live birth actually authentic?
• Politico?s Coverage of the ?Birthers? -- My response to The Politico’s ignorant reporting on the issue
• Eligibility Update: Sen. Leahy on Obama, COLB Anniversary, Obama an Illegal Alien?, Berg Promises Appeal, Billboard Update, and Why Care? -- A recent update on the WorldNetDaily $80,000 billboard campaign
• Rush: We Haven?t Seen Obama?s Birth Certificate; What About that 2008 HI Trip? -- The “Maha Rushie” himself in his own words
• Rep. Posey Speaks Out on Eligibility Bill -- While Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) introduces legislation in Congress about eligbility — and at one point had a singular co-sponsor — well, guess what?
  • Support rising for eligibility verification demand (WorldNetDaily)
    • Now 4 congressmen cosponsoring Posey’s documentation plan
  • Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions (WorldNetDaily)
    • Despite near media blackout on coverage, 49.3% ‘troubled,’ think he should release birth certificate
• Joan Walsh, Editor-in-Chief, Salon.com, raises an excellent question: If the “birthers” are so “fringe” and “extreme,” why won’t the GOP rise up and disavow the issue?
• Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com?s Obama Citizenship Admission -- You do realize that Internet sites do affirm that Mr. Obama was a British subject at birth, right?
• Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB -- There continues to be doubt as to the “genuineness” of the certification of live birth
• WND: Obama Campaign Paid $1 million to Fight Eligibility Lawsuits? -- Circumstantial evidence suggests this could be true

Also, what’s up with these “citizen grand juries?”

• Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration (Updated), Application Form -- Mr. Stephen Pidgeon, one of several lawyers who brought suit on eligibility, officially began the process

You can see a current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits here as well as an archive here.

And what about all the talk on the 10th Amendment resolutions going on around the country? While I cover headlines on this issue, fellow blogger and friend of this site Michael Boldin of TenthAmendmentCenter.com covers this kind of constitutional issue in full detail. His site has been featured numerous times in The New York Times.

What about the 2nd Amendment? Check out what could be happening in the Judiciary in the not-to-distant future with grassroots efforts at the State level.

I’ll conclude this posting with not only thoughts from “revolutionary and radical” Thomas Paine but also thoughts from the constitutionalism blog:

What doesn’t work is for citizens to demand change from others without writing the language in which that change will be implemented. If you file a court action, complaining of some injustice, and demanding relief, you might “win” the judgment but lose the case if you don’t draft the order for the judge to sign. Leave it to the judge to draft it and he is likely to accept a draft prepared by your opponent, which doesn’t give you the relief you thought you won. Similarly with other reforms. We can’t leave the drafting of the language of proposals to others. If we want it done right we have to write it. That applies not just to court orders, or to legislation, but to how we want the Constitution to be interpreted. That is why I have proposed Clarifying Amendments in my Draft Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They need never be ratified if enough of us use them as a standard for our demands for how we want the Constitution interpreted.

I spent a couple of years in Washington, lobbying for various causes without pay. I learned how other lobbyists developed the kind of influence they have. It’s not just that they bring money or votes. I didn’t bring either of those. But I found I could earn access to members of Congress by helping them review their legislation to make sure it was what they wanted. Most members don’t know how to draft legislation to the point where it is ready to be submitted, dropped in the “hopper”. They provide a rough draft to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), who then puts it in final form, doing the numbering and finding the cites to existing legislation that would be affected by it and that it would amend. But they usually don’t fully understand what the member wants to achieve, or get it quite right. A member will have a few legislative staffers to help with review, but they tend to be busy with other tasks, and they don’t always understand exactly what the member wants, either. Of course, sometimes the legislation is really the staffer’s idea and the member needs to make sure it is also what he wants. So I learned how to do that research and draft legislation ready for the hopper. I would try to anticipate objections from other stakeholders, and avoid ambiguities, so they would have less reason to tear it apart. I found that that was what the most influential lobbyists did. They didn’t ask members to have legislation drafted for them. They did it themselves, giving sympathetic members a finished product. Interest groups who didn’t do that seldom got anything like what they wanted, if they got anything at all.

The same principle works for publicity. The way to get articles written in the major media the way you want them written is to submit press releases that are ready to print without editing. Journalists are lazy. They would rather submit a press release and put their names on it than to write an article from scratch. You might have to submit hundreds of such press releases to get one published, but often all it takes is one to justify the effort to have written all the others.

Or consider court rules. They can be as important, if not more so, than legislation, although they are adopted by the judges, sometimes in defiance of legislation. Such rules tend to be written for the convenience of judges, but the language they contain usually started as the language in a lawyer’s brief in some case. If enough lawyers submit enough briefs suggesting the same language for judicial rules, that language is likely to be adopted.

Another important area is administrative regulations. Agencies submit proposed regulations for public comment, and if enough members of the public object, they may withdraw proposed regulations, or greatly modify them to respond to objections. But what works best is for people not just to object to the language of regulations, but to propose alternative language, especially if enough people propose the same language.

In the field of rule drafting don’t expect most lawyers to be experts. Most lawyers aren’t even that good at drafting contracts, and drafting legislation, regulations, or judicial rules requires more advanced skills that it takes most people years to acquire. Even staffers in the Congressional Research Service aren’t that good at it.

Speaking of contracts, consider how often you are presented with contracts written by others and asked to sign, on a take it or leave it basis. Read all such contracts carefully. Don’t assume they have been subjected to thorough scrutiny to protect the interests of people like you. If you find language that seems against your best interests, it probably is. Strike that language out before signing it, or propose alternative language.

What is most difficult is to draft things in a way that wisely intervene in what are highly complex systems, with many feedback loops that make them incomprehensible even to the best experts. Intervene the wrong way and you get hundreds or even thousands of unintended bad consequences. You can take it as a general rule that if it is simple, obvious, and direct it is probably a bad idea. All the simple solutions are already in use. The measures that might actually improve things are almost certainly going to be subtle, complex, indirect, and not at all obvious. That also means they will be difficult if not impossible for most people to understand, and may be impossible to sell. The way most successful reforms get done is that the one person who understands them sells people on trusting him. Most people relate to personalities more than to ideas.

Most people who supported ratifying the U.S. Constitution didn’t support it because they understood it. They supported it mainly because George Washington did, and they trusted him. They also expected him to be the first president, and figured that with him in that position, if any problems arose he would take the lead in fixing them.

So read the Draft Amendments. Study them. Learn why they are written that way, and not another way. You may thus acquire the skills you will need to get anything useful done.

Be sure to check out the embedded link in the quote.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on June 17, 2009 (boomark / email).