Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> A Natural Born Citizen...Orly

Obama Citizenship

: A Natural Born Citizen...Orly

"Not our job"!

By Orly Taitz, Esq.

On Monday December 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States denied without comment the case of Wrotnowski vs. Susan Bysiewicz that was a direct challenge that Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the eligibility requirements defined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in denying this case without comment, is affirming the role of the Supreme Court as defined by the Constitution. Simply stated, the Supreme Court has the power to review federal and other cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases and the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional if they so find, but the Supreme Court does not have the power to rule on provisions of the Constitution.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution is not a law created by any entity authorized to pass laws, but is a provision of the Constitution defining the requirements to be eligible to be President of the United States.
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 is a constitutional provision.

The Supreme Court, in denying Wrotnowski vs. Susan Bysiewicz, is not stating that Barack Hussein Obama meets the requirements of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. They are saying that they are not authorized by the constitution to rule on the constitutionality of a provision of the constitution. Also, they are saying that "if you do not like the provision, Change the Constitution! We cannot do that!"

Changing Article II, Section I, Clause 5 requires an Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Alito alluded to that during his confirmation hearings during the time he was being questioned by Senator Charles Schumer discussing provisions in the constitution with wording that left no doubt to the meaning. There have been many attempts to eliminate the eligibility requirement of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. All have been rejected and studies indicate that the American public support keeping the clause by about 62% to 31%.

The Supreme Court of the United States has thrown the ball to the President. They have very carefully followed the duties of the Supreme Court assigned to them by the Constitution. It is now up to President Bush to do the same! The President will have to rely on an opinion of his Attorney General as to the definition of "natural born".
Whoops, the constitution does give the power to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of Presidential Executive orders.

Here we go back to the Supreme Court, properly authorized to rule on "natural born". Hopefully, history relating to the question and the overwhelming number of conclusions identifying the definition that were so elequolently detailed by Leo Donofrio in his blogs and case and Cort Wrotnowski in his case that their definitions will prevail.

There has never been a situation since the constitution was ratified to take it to the Supreme Court for a definition but it was discussed at length in the XIV Amendment and was left alone without the words natural born appearing anywhere in the amendment.

It is not an anti-Obama issue as Donofrio has stated many times due to the fact that John McCain is ineligible for the same reasons. However, Obama fits the profile specifically identified by Chief Justice John Jay in his letter to George Washington on 25 July, 1787:

"to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."

Senator John McCain, although born in Panama in a hospital in Colon, was born of citizens of the United States, who were in the service of the United States in Panama at the time of his birth.

Posted for Starbeau by Robert Stevens

(with apologies to those who find this attribution confusing)

Full post as published by A Natural Born Citizen...Orly on December 21, 2008 (boomark / email).