No Blair House for Obama Until After Electoral College Count

USLaw

An interesting speculation for those few who have been handicapping the chances the powers-that-be will figure out before the planned January 20th inaugural what a small minority of internet bloggers have already discovered– that widely presumed President-elect Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States. (NOTE: Senator Obama’s ineligibility is on account of the conflict between the requirement the president be a “natural born citizen” and a) the fact Mr. Obama’s natural father was a British citizen at the time of the senator’s birth and b) the less probable fact that the public record contains no proof Mr. Obama disavowed the Indonesian citizenship he may have taken advantage of in his young adulthood to travel abroad and qualify for financial aid at as many as three different American universities.)

It has been reported that the Obama family has been denied their request to move in to the Blair House before January 5th, the day before the scheduled affirmation of the Electoral College vote count. The Blair House is essentially the White House’s guest house– it is located across the street– into which incoming presidents have traditionally been invited to move five days before January 20th inaugurals. The Obama’s made the reasonably seeming request that they be allowed to take up the residence early to enable their children to start school. The White House denied this request.

Could it be that the Bush Administration suspects it is possible that Obama’s Electoral College selection will be derailed before the affirmation of the Electoral College balloting as a result of an unfavorable ruling in one of the petitions before the Supreme Court contesting his “natural born citizen” status? Could it be that Obama transition team sought to surround him with the trappings of an official residence the day before so as to reinforce the symbolic impression that his selection has already been affirmed by the Electors? Could it be that President Bush, no stranger to electoral uncertainty, doesn’t wish to make the traumatic possibility of an electoral default even more difficult by having the office snatched from a presumed president-elect while he appears to be a president-in-waiting living in an official residence just a shotgun blast away from the Oval Office?

Can you picture the stand-off in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue should the people’s choice be denied entry to the White House after he got so close….

Handicappers, stay tuned. This could get very banana republic…

(Tin foil hat pulled tightly around skull, the expressed belief about Senator Obama’s lack of natural born citizenship need not be taken as advocacy for denying his voters’ their wishes. Rather, it is the author’s belief that the Electors, the Courts, Congress, and Mr. Obama should take the steps necessary to insure that no constitutional eligibility questions linger past the inaugural that could diminish the authority of the Office of President. Such steps might include perfecting any existing defects in citizenship, clarifying legislation, a Supreme Court clarification, and/or a Constitutional Amendment. Just as Congress approved legislation today to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State to avoid a violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause should Hillary Clinton serve in that capacity, remedial legislation might be possible to insure the integrity of the Natural Born Citizen clause.)

Share your thoughts by commenting below. And be the first one of your friends to ace the newest presidential trivia. (Supporting our advertisers, supports our research.)

Filed Under Barack Obama | (trackback)

Comments

18 Comments so far

dfree on December 13, 2008 3:03 am
what do you mean by ’shotgun blast’? You threatening the President elect? Perhaps a call to the Secret Service is in order…
USLaw on December 13, 2008 3:21 am
On the fence about changing it to a ‘rock throw’ as compromise between the potentially misconstrued shotgun blast you pointed out and the quaintness of a stone toss which might belittle the important of this matter.

The metaphor must provide the necessary flavor of the riots that could very well meet the outcome of any constitutional crisis that derives from almost any decision in this matter, even the one that will widely be perceived as a non-decision.
JoeE on December 13, 2008 11:05 am
You can’t do anything that would change the fact of someone being a natural born citizen or not. It’s something that happens at birth. You can change the constitution by an amendment, but not before the inauguration. We will probably have a ‘President’ who is not,in fact, THE President. The consequences are unimaginable. But no one has the guts to do anything about it. Not even the pusillanimous Justices of the Supreme Court.
Mike on December 13, 2008 2:11 pm
This is a red herring of grandiose proportion, and is founded on two notions nurtured by certain possibly misguided individuals.

The most extreme version is that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii, and his Hawaiian birth certificate is fraudulent. The adherents of this theory overlook the fact that Hawaiian state officials have stated that his Hawaiian birth certificate is authentic, and also a birth notice published at the time of his birth in the Honolulu newspaper. The less extreme version cited above is based on the notion that Obama is not a US citizen because his father was not a US citizen at the time he was born.

[Ed: That is not exactly the theory alluded to in the post. The theory is that a) if Senator Obama was born in Hawaii to a British citizen father, he was a dual citizen at birth, but not a ‘natural born citizen’ and b) if Senator Obama was born outside of the US, was neither of a US citizen or US natural born citizen at birth. The primary issue pertains to what it means to be a “natural born citizen”, not what it means to be a citizen other than a “natural born citizen”. See more editor commentary in comments below.]

Unfortunately for the adherents of this theory, the US Supreme Court held over 100 years ago that anyone born in the US (except children of persons here with diplomatic status) are citizens by virtue of their birth in the US, irregardless of their parents’ citizenship. The US Supreme Court has already declined to hear this challenge, although the adherents seem hopeful that they might somehow reconsider between now and January, and block Obama’s inauguration. In order to get a court order blocking the inauguration, the challengers would be required to show they have a likelihood of success on the merits, which is a tall challenge in the face of 100 years of contrary jurisprudence.

Since this is a Constitutional defect, it does not seem logical that Congress could resolve it, even if they could get clarifying legislation past a Republican filibuster in the Senate. And the “cases and controversies” limitation on the US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction means that it is unlikely that the US Supreme Court could resolve the issue in the available time. Most observers predict that instead, the Court will decline to hear these challenges for (valid) procedural reasons.

[It is quite conceivable that Congress could enact by statute a definition of “natural born citizen” that is permissive to the facts and circumstances of Senator Obama’s citizenship. Whether that definition could trump definitions otherwise inferred from threads embedded in over 200 years of US jurisprudence and other means to infer framer’s intent is an open issue, notwithstanding the basic supremacy principle which subjugates congressional legislation to constitutional edict.]

I think the refusal to make Blair House available until the traditional time frame is driven by cost and security concerns, and possibly a touch of pettiness.
CT Reisdent on December 13, 2008 2:34 pm
I can’t even begin to imagine the outcry and accusations which will fly if he is unable to take office.
John on December 13, 2008 6:46 pm
Mike’s post is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so. There seems to be no end of these comments that appear to deliberately ignore known facts or misconstrue the issues. The question is “natural born” citizenship, not mere “citizenship,” and the citizenship of the father is germaine to the “natural born” question, since it has never been authoritatively established that the child of a non-citizen father is a “natural born” citizen. (And there is much historical evidence to suggest that such a one cannot be “natural born.”) To claim that one of the two major objections here is that a certain very secretive person “is not a citizen because his father was Kenyan” can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to confuse those who have not been following this story, since there has been more than enough time and information to make the patent falsehood of that statement obvious by now. Similarly, too many aplogists for the secretive one have been mischaracterizing the statments of Hawaiian officials as having “verified” his birth certificate or a so-called “fact” of his birth in Hawaii. No Hawaiian official has said either of these two things thus far. The statements thus far made were very carefully worded, and are equally consistent with a birth on the moon or a birth certificate issued by a foreign country. They “have” his “original birth certificate” in their archives is all that has been said. I suspect that Mike is well aware of the deceptiveness of his comments. Note, too, that the difference between being falsely (and snidely) accused of being “possibly misguided” and being rightfully (and honestly) called to task for being “certainly deceptive” are likewise as different from each other as guilt and innocence. Is someone paying him to post these things? Say, perhaps, with money fraudulently obtained from foreign campaign contributions?
–John
JohnUS on December 13, 2008 6:51 pm
And speaking of pettiness…

…and while we’re at it, unmitigated gall, and insufferably arrogant hubris …

Who but an egotistical tyrant-in-waiting would make such an outrageously premature (and insulting) request in the first place?

Just who does that overweeningly grasping man think he is, anyway? … Nero?

John

[Ed: The theory of the speculative case is that Obama asked for the ‘accommodation’ so as to symbolically reinforce the impression his victory has already been affirmed by the Electoral College.]
Laura on December 13, 2008 7:07 pm
It is posts like this that make right wing folk sound nutty. He was born in Hawaii, who his father is or where his father was born is not relevant. Obama is an American, the Supreme Court has refused to hear this wacky argument. Only in the delusional minds of right wing nuts is there as case against Obama’s citizenship.

[Ed: Obama may or may not currently be “an American” (as you put it), but even being so is insufficient. Americans are are bound by a Constitution that requires their President to not only be an American, but to quite specifically be a “natural born citizen”. The nationality of one’s parents and place of one’s birth indeed matter greatly– according to the earliest common law principals of jus sanguinis and jus soli– in determining one’s citizenship and the exact nature thereof. Being a naturalized citizen, native born citizen, or any other type of citizen other than meeting the legal test of being a “natural born citizen”, does not qualify one to serve as President of the United States in accordance with Article II, Section I of the current US Constitution (unless it is otherwise amended). The “natural born citizen” test does impose particular constraints on the place of birth and parental lineage, in large measure to satisfy the Framers concerns about persons holding the Executive office with potentialy divided loyalties.

With all due respect, it is not true that “the Supreme Court has refused to hear this (adjective removed) argument”. As you can see, there are several cases related to this issue on the Supreme Court docket and several others in state courts.]
Scy on December 14, 2008 8:59 am
You Freepers just aren’t insane . . . you are FUCKING insane.
s on December 15, 2008 3:07 am
The Kenya thing could one not look at Obama’s mother’s passport? Freedom of information act?? Would that not count? If she had flown to Kenya and then flew back what were the dates? A pregnant woman should not fly close to delivery time could end up with in flight labor. If she did not leave the country then he would have been born in the US correct?
Mike on December 15, 2008 8:13 pm
As of today (12-15-08), the Wrotnotsky Application for an Injunction has been denied. In order to get an injunction the applicant must show two things, 1. irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, and 2. likelihood of success on the merits. In view of the likely harm of an ineligible person being inaugurated as president, I speculate that the problem is that the applicant was not able to demonstate the required likelihood of success on the merits.
Linda Purdy on December 18, 2008 4:20 am
The only people concerned with proliferating this urban legend are those of the right wing who don’t want a liberal democrat at president and will stop at nothing to try to keep such a person out of office.

Y’all are crazy and need to stop this stupidity. We have finally been allowed to elect a good man as president and look forward to the coming administration, unlike the former years of stolen elections.

Get off the merry-go-round and accept the results of this legitimate election.

Sen.Obama IS a US citizen by virtue of the fact that his mother is (was, God rest her soul) a US citizen and he was born on US land. All other arguments are conter to US law that addresses those who were born outside US land, which he was not. Hawaii law dictiates that certificates of Birth are not released to anybody except if they have a valid legal interest, which none have proven to have as yet. All courts asked to hear the case have not as there is not enough legal evidence to bring such a case to the courts. Proof that he was born outside the US has not been held up with ANY evidence and therefore will not be heard before a court as it stands right now. I doubt any sufficiently legal evidence is available, and therefore will never be heard in a US court of law.

[Ed. Just be aware the issue is not so much Senator Obama’s citizenship as the Constitutional requirement that he be a “natural born citizen” which is a class of citizenship that imposes certain tests. There is a strong case to be made that the legal test for being a “natural born citizen” is being born on US soil to two citizen parents; not a test that Mr. Obama can pass given that his father was not a US citizen.]

Give it up and accept that a liberal democrat is going to be sworn in as President. You may not like it, but then I didn’t like it that W was sworn in after stealing the election twice, so it is serendipity and Karma, if you will, that we finally got a president-elect that most people really want.

nuff said
Common Sense on December 21, 2008 9:02 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that the biggest bunch of name-callers on blogs are always leftists. Linda Purdy prefers to sling names and insults in lieu of any intelligent debate.

Reminds me of the names constantly hurled at GWB.

These Internet name-callers lower the course of political, legal, and societal debate to nothing more than a 2nd grade lunchroom brawl.
RichMo on December 24, 2008 3:48 pm
Stop fooling yourselves: This is NOT a Left or Right thing. It’s the truest-bluest AMERICAN thing. For the first time, since our founders, a president may take office who was bound by his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.

If we all allow this to happen…the U S Constitution will be changed forever: Precedent will be set. That means in 35 years 9 months from this moment, a son or daughter of Hugo Chavez can be POTUS.

Let’s pretend that Obama’s records are being held by accident. Chavez…or some other unknown usurper WILL do this On-Purpose.

May of us have taken our freedoms & responsibilities for granted; Please understand that as STRONG as the US Constitution is, it is equally as FRAGILE.

Once broken by neglect, the pieces of the Constitution are liable to be scattered to the wind.
gadfly on January 2, 2009 12:51 pm
Now this is really rich. The right wingers are now concerned about the fragile nature of the Constitution. Too late. The Constitution
has been used as toilet paper by this administration.

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then neither are all the illegal aliens’ offspring because neither of their parents are citizens. Why hasn’t Lou Dobbs caught wind of this argument? It’s much better than anything I’ve heard him say.
Randolphraven on January 3, 2009 5:40 pm
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.

Here’s proof. From the CIA website no less! Reagen was graciously allowed by then President Carter, I true gentleman to set up shop in the Blair House in MID-NOVEMBER!!!

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v42i5a04p.htm

cant anybody in the media dig this up? and call Bush on his phony history?

you rightwing nutbags swallow whatever the bush admin throws out as fact without question

[Ed. Interesting CIA article.]
Abby on January 4, 2009 3:11 am
I was a lefty. I hated GWB and the war. I have NEVER voted GOP and I have voted in MANY elections. I voted for McCain, as did my entire leftist family, Dems all.

My husband and I are deeply saddened that our country may be presided over by a man who presumed to declare himself African American. When he, in fact, grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii and attended elite prep schools; hardly the average African American experience. Perhaps even calling himself Indonesian on his college papers? Thereby not embracing an African American heritage until it was good for him? When he wanted to be elected?

I would accept him as my president as I accepted GWB -IF- he proves that he is an American and meets the requirements of our Constitution. I was brought up to understand that our beloved country was based upon the Constitution. To think that the Constitution is disposable because a man has dark skin and a personality that attracts people is heart-breaking and sanity destroying. Sometimes, I believe that I am a tin-foil hat person…I cannot let the lack of proof go.

I would beg Obama to please reassure the older/middle agers of the USA that he does respect our country; ‘Show us the birth certificate!’
Eric on January 16, 2009 6:49 pm
I love comments like Abby’s above.

I mean, it’s priceless: Obama doesn’t have the “average African-American” experience? Who did you think was going to be our first black president? Ice-T?

And of course Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution. The Constitution has a long procedure for electing a president, and the whole process includes the final step of allowing Reps and Senators to challenge if they are not satisified.

Anyway…a final thought for Abby: he’ll be your president next Tuesday, whether you like it or not.

Cheers!