Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> The Right Side of Life

Obama Citizenship

: The Right Side of Life

Ignorance Alert: Helping an Election Tracking Site Understand the Obama Eligibility Question

By Phil

Recently, I came across an otherwise informative site that tracks elections across America called TheGreenPapers.com. I characterize the site as “otherwise” informative because while there’s plenty of great info on elections to satisfy even the biggest political junkie, they are somewhat misguided — in my view — on the presidential eligibility question.

The key commentary in question is entitled, “TRYING TO ARRANGE A GOOD TEA TIME!!! Tired old Birchers and misguided young Birthers will, this Summer, gather together to ask the Lord’s Blessing.” The commentary is a long but worthwhile read for good context; I’m going to analyze excerpted paragraphs. They sound a lot like how I post things here at TRSoL, but they arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion:

Of course, here’s the real deal (based on my own personal experiences and resultant intimate knowledge about Birth Certificates):

I, for one, happen to be a natural-born American citizen (if we presume that “natural born” here means native born– that is, born in some place that is [or at least was, at the time of birth] legally part of the United States of America)… don’t believe me?… then just ask me!

In Mr. Berg-Andersson’s opinion, there may be no difference between “natural born” or “native born” citizens, but I don’t find the verbiage, “native born” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. At least he knows there’s a difference between the two.

Secondarily, many have asked Mr. Obama, albeit through intermediaries, about his place of birth, and most have been met with pejorative labels and other forms of rudeness. Of course, none of this is the point, as I’ll demonstrate shortly.

But let’s just say I am, for some reason, required to prove my American nativity (using that word here with more meanings than one): how would *I* handle something along the same lines as the demands of Birthers that President Obama publicly provide his so-called “long form” Birth Certificate (or, as one Birther famously declared at a “town meeting” with her Congressman, a document “saying that I am an American citizen, with a seal on it, signed by a doctor, with a hospital administrator’s name, my parents, my date of birth, the time, the date”)?

“Nativity” is a reasonable qualifier to use, but it’s imprecise, as I’ll soon show.

I have, right in front of me as I now type this, a copy of my own original Birth Certificate, issued a little over a week after I had been born by the State of Connecticut: it is a negative image (white type on black background) but, yes, it includes the County and Town (every place in Connecticut, even an incorporated Municipality, is part of a Town [really, what elsewhere would be called a 'Township']) of my birth, my mother and father’s name, the date and the time and, yes, indeed, the signature of the attending doctor (who signed the form which was submitted to the State 4 days after my birth) and, yes, it has a raised seal…

At the very least, as least you can prove (1) that you actually acquired this from your local health department (e.g.: there was a receipt for the transaction), and (2) that you could independently confirm the additional details as provided on your copy. Hang on, though, as we’ll soon be getting to the bigger point…

now for the “dirty little secret”: this copy I am now looking at is the onlyexisting copy of my original birth certificate! Neither the State of Connecticut, nor the City/Town of New Haven, nor what is now Yale-New Haven Medical Center (where I was born [as was, I might add, former President George W. Bush]) has a copy– I know: I’ve checked over past years and decades (and, indeed, made a few phone calls and other inquiries to make sure of this fact in preparation for my writing this very piece). This means that if any of you out there wanted to get a copy of my original Birth Certificate, you could not get one (you’re not getting mine!): more to the point, assuming I myself did not have this copy of my own, I would not be able to produce a copy of my original Birth Certificate because even *I* can’t even get a copy of said original!

More to the point, were I ever to present my original Birth Certificate as proof of my identity, let alone my birth, I would thereafter be liable to arrest- in any American jurisdiction- for having committed a crime!

Good points, all, but still misses the bigger point (it’s coming)…

But, then again, why would anyone- Birther or otherwise- even bother to look into the origins of my Birth Certificate (well, maybe now they might: if only to prove how “fair and objective” [in quotes here because these would be neither] they “really” are)– as my Citizenship (just as is the case with my Patriotism) is beyond all reasonable question? Well, I miswrote (purposely) within the rhetorical question that ends the previous paragraph, for there arethree circumstances that are much different between President Obama’s situation and my own as regards our respective Birth Certificates:

Actually, Mr. Obama’s eligibility — if not citizenship — is in question; I promise, the point is coming…

1. President Obama was a candidate for, then won, the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for, then was elected, President of the United States;

True…

2. Barack Hussein Obama is, arguably, at least as foreign-sounding (if not more foreign-sounding) a name- to most American ears- as is Richard Berg-Andersson;

OK, and we’ve had at least one Roman Catholic as well as Masons for president…

3. Unlike myself- who at least passes for White- President Obama is, for all intents and purposes, Black (as the fact that his mother was White did absolutely nothing as regarded the perception of Obama’s race by the vast majority of those Americans he encountered [and who, likely, were not even aware, at first, that he was of "mixed race"] while he was younger)!

Well, great! I’m glad we’ve established that we did not vote for the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater!

For, had *I* been a serious contender for a Major Party’s presidential nomination (which I will never be, but please bear with me here! [;-)]), mynatural-born Citizenship would have never been questioned precisely because of how almost all Americans would surely perceive my race to be (though I’ve fooled you all, haven’t I? [;-)]).

Indeed, let’s be most blunt here: the Birthers are nothing if not about abject White Racism!

But, even leaving this aside, the Birthers are also not really all about the Constitution:

Yeah, he had to go there, didn’t he? Well, not really, but if the guy about whom you’re speaking at least looks black, then better throw the white-guilt race card, eh?

Well, at least Mr. Obama ain’t no Jew, huh?? (I say in an obviously and retardedly sarcastic tone). Makes about as much sense (which would be zero), huh?

I will remind everyone that it wasn’t folks like me who started the whole logical fallacy that race has been or ever will be the driving force behind questioning Mr. Obama. Instead, it’s this little thing that has conventionally been known as vetting; I’m sure you’ve heard of it.

Instead, it is those who either fear the President or who are legitimate “O-bots” (I now define this as anyone who is so “in the tank” for this President that they’re not willing to (1) have a mind of their own outside of their own collection of friends (known as “group-think”) or (2) mindlessly cast pejoratives upon those of us who do have the audacity to question this President) who attempt to make race an issue when it is only they who operate under the President’s relative melanin tone.

After this unfounded point, Mr. Berg-Andersson writes several paragraphs about the founding fathers, their intentions, and so on and so forth (I have scads of comments on this site that attribute to the existence of these types of discussions, which are overall mute for reasons I’ll get to at the end of this post).

Continuing:

The provisions for election of President and Vice-President of the United States in the U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment require that, as regards the Electoral Vote recorded in each State (and, since the adoption of the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961, the District of Columbia), [t]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. This colloquially-named ‘Tabulation Joint Session’ of Congress then formally declares- in the form of the President of the Senate so declaiming- who has been duly elected President and Vice-President, by virtue of each having a majority of the Electoral Votes from the several States and D.C., or- having failed of a such a majority- directing that the House of Representatives (if necessary) immediately elect a President and/or the Senate (again, if necessary) immediately elect a Vice-President.

In other words: as I have many times declaimed myself on this very website,Congress is the “umpire” of Presidential Elections– only Congress can declare “Game Over” (to the point where, even though it is still not popular for me to say in at least some political quarters, the U.S. Supreme Court didnot “select” George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney back re: the 2000 Presidential Election: rather, Congress formally approved of the result by which these two had been elected, regardless of the circumstances by which this had come about!)

…and as many times as I’ve heard individuals play the “Joint Congressional Session confirms eligibility,” it still simply is not true. Fortunately, however, he has qualified the facts of the law but has drawn a very imprecise conclusion based on the law.

I’ll reiterate since it’s been a while (you can go look this up on the National Archives web site, I think):

The only point of having the Joint Congressional Session is to certify the votes of the Electoral College. That’s it. There is nothing written in federal code that specifies that the Joint Congressional Session is tasked with proactively (key word) checking up on eligibility. Instead, this is a function that can (not shall) occur via the objection clause; of course, that clause does not have to occur for any given Joint Congressional Session.

Secondly, I must correct Mr. Berg-Andersson: the Joint Congressional Session is the final Legislative stage of the General Election timeline; there is nothing in federal law that says that presidential eligibility challenges must cease beyond the electoral vote certification. The process simply becomes exponentially harder, as the presidential nominee becomes the President-Elect, and only impeachment can occur beyond that point.

Thirdly, a brief word on the Electoral College RE: eligibility. Realize that at least a third of the several States require their Electors to vote along party lines. Also, most Electors are, quite simply, party hacks, to be blunt about it (after all, wouldn’t you want a die-hard pol who’s not an elected congressional member to maintain his/her vote for the party’s candidate? Of course you would). This means that while in theory the Electoral College was meant to check on the validity of a nominee, modern politics has relegated this function to the press and the People, for the most part.

As promised, here’s the “main thing” concerning the eligibility issue:

Even if a birth certificate that had evidence of actually coming from a health department were produced for Mr. Obama (outside of a third-party blog or some JPEG document online), that would not legitimately answer the question, even if you had one hundred lines of details on it.

The issue is — wait for it! — Mr. Obama’s citizenship at birth!

That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. While it’s all good that he was likely born in the great State of Hawaii, even a third-party blog — to which many in the opposition have referred in the past — admits that he had dual citizenship at birth.

Now, if a leading third-party web site currently maintains this verbiage concerning the President, wouldn’t that be enough reason — under any type of circumstance — to fully vet this man’s background?

A note for the opposition:

Before you go off venting in the comment section about this or that particular Court case, I want you to think really hard and deep about any Supreme Court case that dealt directly with the question of presidential eligibility.

Let’s not debate other questions; let’s debate the question at hand.

-Phil

P.S.: Before I went about publishing this posting, a concerned citizen sent me a link to a given Court case with which many might be familiar that at least partially answers certain questions pertaining to natural born citizenship. I’ll be covering that in a separate posting.

Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Subscribe via RSS feed and/or email updates

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a BirthCertificate
  • Hawai’i State Department of Health – Vital Records “Obama” page
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com?s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on May 27, 2010 (boomark / email).