Obama Citizenship

The $20,000 Question: How Does Anyone Find Out if a Prez is Eligible?

By Phil

US District Court Judge Clay Land in the Middle District of my home State of Georgia (out of Columbus — the central-western part of the State) laid out a 43-page opinion of why he is sanctioning eligibility attorney Dr. Orly Taitz with a $20,000 fine:

Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0

You can find coverage of this story (h/t to several concerned citizens) from the AJC.com, Examiner.com, and TalkingPointsMemo.com, with the typical spin that we’ve come to expect from the media. The SonoranNews.com is also reporting on this story.

Yet, all such coverage is really missing the point of what I now call the $20,000 question.

Let’s take a closer look at just one part of the above judicial opinion, specifically pages 26 and 27:

Adoption of counsel?s legal theory would make the judiciary the arbiter of any dispute regarding the President?s constitutional qualifications. Our founders provided opportunities for a President?s qualifications to be tested, but they do not include direct involvement by the judiciary. In addition to the obvious opportunity that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate?s qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism for removing a President who ?slips through the cracks,? which is how counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the Presidentcan be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4;seealso id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing him from office. Except for the Chief Justice?s role in presiding over the trial in the Senate, that mechanism does not involve the judiciary. Id. art. I, § 3, cl. 6.

And allow me to put this into context (via page 25):

Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.

As a concerned citizen, with the above having been laid out, I do not agree with the judge’s assertion that a given eligibility theory “would make the judiciary the arbiter of any dispute regarding the President’s constitutional qualifications. [emphasis mine]” Why? Because, in the same context, Judge Land similarly states that “if the President were elected to the office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his constitutional disqualification…” Therefore, while the Judge may disagree with the current case before him, he has quite clearly and obviously left open the concept that the President could be found to be disqualified from office.

What the Judge — nor has anyone else, to date — has answered is the following question:

What if we, the People, discover at least anecdotal evidence that suggests that the President may not be qualified after a general election has taken place and after the Legislative process has been exhausted? What then?

I’m not going to go about repeating all the reasons why some of us question this President’s eligibility; I always append a reasonably complete listing of links at the bottom of every eligibility posting for my readers to begin their research. Even so, this is not the point.

This is also not an issue whereby the “opposition” to those of us who question must subsequently prove why we think that the President might, in fact, be ineligible for office. Yes, that can make for some excellent academic discussions as to the nuances of law, but the bottom line is that the question is asked and has not been conclusively answered. After all, if it was, the question would no longer be an issue (and, no, for those in the “opposition,” an argument that the so-called “birthers” are simply “ignoring the evidence” is merely a cop-out to the real question).

So, here’s the challenge. In my opinion, Judge Land is not saying that the eligibility question is irrelevant; quite the contrary, as I’ve just shown. Therefore, if it can be found that Mr. Obama used fraudulent or other means to conceal his ineligibility, how do you find out?

Who makes this call, especially in light of apparent ignorance that many in the Legislative branch may not know what a natural born citizen is?

This just in (h/t SentinelRadio): An archived page from the Nairobi, Kenyan Sunday Standard claims in 2004 that Mr. Obama was Kenyan-born (click image for larger picture):

…and could this article be confirming the village from which Mr. Obama could have been born?

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 Birth Certificate
• 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

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on October 14, 2009 (boomark / email).