4um: THE SAGA CONTINUES - John McCain and Barack Obama

Title: THE SAGA CONTINUES - John McCain and Barack Obama - Can They Even BE President?
Source: nolanchart.com
URL Source: http://www.nolanchart.com/article5206.html
Published: Oct 14, 2008
Author: nolanchart.com
Post Date: 2008-10-14 23:39:11 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 2008 Election, Both Constitutionally Ineligib
Views: 647
Comments: 8

Are Senators John McCain and Barack Obama Both Constitutionally Ineligible to be President? New Developments!by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

On September 1st I reported that both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama were being taken to court on charges that they were constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. The article text is below in its entirety. There have been several updates since then.

On September 17th, the Associated Press reported that US District Judge William Alsup said Congress passed a law one year after McCain's birth in 1936 that "remove[s] any doubt as to persons in Sen. McCain's circumstances in the Canal Zone," thus "retroactively rendering Sen. McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already." Alsup threw out the case while chiding the plaintiff, Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party, that he had no standing to file the lawsuit because he is not a candidate for president. All legal challenges to the constitutionality eligibility are resolved for Senator McCain. It should be noted that McCain fully complied with providing documents, although understandably he did not want publicity on this subject.

However, on October11th the AP published an article entitled "Candidates meet 'natural-born' test despite rumors." This title is misleading because only McCain has been cleared in a court of law, and the article admits at its very end that the lawsuit has not yet been dismissed.

obAlthough the remainder of the mainstream media has decided to omit reporting on this obviously inconsequential event, this YouTube video interview of the plaintiff Philip J. Berg outlines his case that I describe below. Berg charges that Obama has not produced his birth certificate to prove him wrong, and that the document posted at factcheck.org is a fraud. Berg claims that Obama using legal delay tactics to postpone Berg's lawsuit and Obama has requested a hold on producing documents to the court. FOX Toledo news published an article confirming the above here and obamacrimes.com fully described the lawsuit here.

As a disclaimer of sorts, I have already voted for a third party candidate due to my overseas living situation. However, I am still looking forward to the third party debate that George Dance writes about in "Third-party internet debate Oct. 19"

Unbelievably, this year’s presidential election will be between two candidates who, in a fit of supreme irony in our Constitution-bashing Age, both may be constitutionally ineligible to be President. Both Senators have civil suits pending against them that they are ineligible to run for POTUS. Please note I personally have absolutely no challenge whatsover that they are both US Citizens and at least intend well for the country they are contesting to lead, just that perhaps both do not constitutionally qualify to be President. I also have no pretensions that either civil suit will stop either of them from running and in all likelihood either Senator McCain or The Barackcuda will be coronated in January 2009. However, I have to wonder why in this year of all years, why there cannot be at least one candidate from the major parties where there is no controversy, they were born in Nebraska or New York and grew up there eating corn and hamburgers with two (2) American parents, and that is the end of it. The Washington Times stated on August 28 that "legal scholars say there is no precedent on the subject because all previous presidents have been born within the 50 states or territories that became states."

Remember part of our founding fathers reasoning in setting the requirements for President. They simply did not want to take a chance of any person with say, an aristocratic European background from a country starting with "Eng-" and ending with "-land," immigrating to the USA, becoming a citizen and then President. They wanted to reduce as much as possible the chances of President having loyalties to another nation besides the USA. Is this really that out of tune with the modern globalized world? Should we not allow Arnold Schwartzneggar at least the eligibility to become President if he serves California faithfully for many years? I echo the founding fathers when I say "No Freaking Way, Man." If you start allowing any ex-foreign national or non-natural born citizen to become President, you can not allow yourself to be a hypocrite. How at ease would any of us be, say if a certain ex-Saudi, ex-USSR'er or ex-Pakistani immigrated to the US, became a US citizen, and then President? Sure the odds are against that ever happening in our current I-am-so-petrified-mommy-of-the-scary-terrorists-mommy-please-save-me world in which we live in today, but really though, if you run for President for a party I do not think it would hurt to have an official constitutionality check by a federal court. After all, the presidential oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, so there should be an official check at some point earlier in the process to determine whether the candidate legally qualifies for the office in the first place!

Well, here is the case for John McCain in brief. The facts are clear, but the law is a bit muddy. John McCain was born from two natural born US citizens on a military base in Panama. He grew up on base after base all over the world in the military empire, switching homes and schools at least 20 times. However, the case for constitutionality simply rests on his birth. The below proof is the most rigorous and detailed that I have come across, and its details can be found here:

1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both. 2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents. 3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents. 4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16. 5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen. 6. By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States. 7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States. 8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States. 9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen. 10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen. 11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution; he should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots; and his past results should be disallowed, including unbinding all of his committed delegates.

On August 11, the chairman of California’s American Independent Party (presidential nominee is Ambassador Alan Keyes) sued McCain, the GOP, and the California Secretary of State using the above argument, challenging McCain’s right to place his name on the California ballot in November. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge William Alsup on 9-11-08. For more details read the August 28 article from the Oakland Tribune here.

The case against Senator Obama is perhaps a bit more convoluted as the basic facts of his birth and life are disputed but the law is fairly clear, plus its politically more interesting. Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg on August 21 filed suit in US District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania against Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Committee. He stated "filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated." Note Berg donated money to and is an active supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the past he served as chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, he was a member of the Democratic State Committee, and also was Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

1. Senator Obama is not a naturalized citizen and/or 2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia and/or 3. Has dual or conflicting national loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg alleges Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate from the state of Hawaii is a forgery per three independent document forensic experts. He alleges Obama was born in Kenya as his mother (Stanley Ann Dunham, aged 18) traveled there with her husband, Barack Obama, a Kenyan national, but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy. [Wiki trivia: Obama, Sr. and Dunham married in 1961 while Obama, Sr. was still married to his first wife from Kenya, whom he never divorced. Obama, Sr. is dead now, but divorced from Dunham in 1964. So the Barackcuda is literally a son of a bigamist.] Berg claims Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed the same; that Barack was born in Kenya and his mother subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth. If Obama was truly born in Kenya, Berg claims, the contemporary laws hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. As Ms. Dunham was too young, therefore citizenship could not legally be passed on to him. Therefore Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

[Since Senator Obama was once a constitutional law professor, one might have expected him to publish or have a paper ready defending his citizenship status. And pigs will fly.]

Next, even if Obama is deemed "natural born," that United States citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian. I surmise Berg’s intent is that after this time period Obama never officially regained US citizenship is ineligible to be POTUS, but perhaps its just to suggest conflicting nationalist loyalities. Either way, Wow. Lolo Soetoro and Dunham divorced in 1980 and both are now dead.

Berg alleges Obama has used multiple names throughout his life such as "Barack Hussein Obama," "Barry Soetoro," "Barry Obama," "Barack Dunham," and "Barry Dunham." He then charges that Obama lied on his Illinois bar exam where he failed to acknowledge the use of any other name. Berg concludes that at the very least there is still the issue of multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries.

What is correct? What is right? Decide for yourself. I do favor clear and open federal court proceedings on both cases. As one will likely become POTUS, the mandate from the Electoral College will be tainted if this wound is allowed to fester. Their reign will be compromised from the start if this critical issue is not dealt with in an honest and public manner. As is often the case in our two-party democracy, when the "chief of the successful partisans" steps into power, the losing side will whine incessantly about how they lost. What hope do the American people have of their President obeying his oath to defend the Constitution if they see these candidates brush these claims under the carpet or act in a dishonest manner in defiance of the rule of law? Why must I feel that even I, by writing a simple column, am doing a better job of championing the Constitution?

Here is Tom Paine from the post-Revolutionary War world of 1782. He was referring to the European powers of his day but, sadly, I believe his comments apply to our America:

"[The purpose] of other nations are, in general, little more than the history of their quarrels. They are marked by no important character in the annals of events; mixed in the mass of general matters, they occupy but a common page; and while the chief of the successful partisans stepped into power, the plundered multitude sat down and sorrowed. Triumph on one side and misery on the other were the only events. Pains, punishments, torture, and death were made the business of mankind, until compassion, the fairest associate of the heart, was driven from its place, and the eye, accustomed to continual cruelty, could behold it without offence.

But as the principles of the present Revolution differed from those which preceded it, so likewise did the conduct of America both in government and war. Neither the foul finger of disgrace has hitherto put a blot upon her fame. War, so much the trade of the world, has here only been the business of necessity; and when the necessity shall cease, her very enemies must confess, that as she drew the sword in her just defence, she used it without cruelty, and sheathed it without revenge."

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Yes, whether anyone likes Obama or not--and I think I have made it clear that I don't like him, not because of his color but because he is just another statist who thinks he can run people's lives better than they can--they should care whether he is even an American or not. At least you would think so.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Former UT law student sues, questions Obama's citizenship

Philip J. Berg, a former University of Toledo law student, is suing Sen. Barack Obama, asking questions about the Democratic presidential nominee's citizenship. Berg doesn't believe he was born in the United States and if the Illinois senator is elected, it would cause a crisis within the U.S. Constitution. Obama's campaign contends he was born in Hawaii. FOX Toledo's Kristi Leigh investigates.

Story aired on Octocer 13th.

Every election, it's the same old song and dance from the Democrats and their liberal allies when it comes to donor and vote fraud.

This year, the Obama-Biden campaign broke their pledge to accept public financing during the general election. Now it turns out they padded their coffers with contributions from "mystery" donors that don't exist (as reported by Newsweek).

They will soon be trying to pad their totals at ballot boxes across the country with votes from voters that do not exist. From Ohio and Florida to Wisconsin and Nevada, there are reports of fraudulent voter registration forms being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a liberal group that is dedicating its resources to electing the Obama-Biden Democrats.

What's worse is the Obama-Biden campaign has funneled more than $800,000 to ACORN for work on get-out-the-vote activities conducted by the left-leaning organization.

With 30 million illegal aliens living in this country, an illegal war underway on two major fronts, massive domestic spying and contingency of government planning already affirmed by congress, and we still wonder?

I have come to the conclusion that almost everyone in Washington--and I emphasize almost everyone--is a crook or would-be totalitarian. Ron Paul is an exception and I guess there are a few others but not many. Most politicians are a lot like cops. The ones who would do just about anything to have either job are the very people who should never have either job.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton