Get the exclusive (almost) Weekly Digest.

    Home Education

    Ob*ma and the Rule of Law

    December 2, 2008 by Brandy Vencel

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    “I do solemnly swear {or affirm} that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution

    When I said yesterday that I felt compelled to give some lessons in basic civics around here, I meant it. This isn’t because of any of my dear readers, but rather because of the constant misinformation I see spewing from various news sources on the internet, television, and even the radio.

    But before I begin, let’s talk a bit about the rule of law in the context of getting a new job. For instance, let’s say Man X applies to be a doctor somewhere. What needs to happen as Man X navigates the process? Well, first of all the hospital needs to make sure he has the proper credentials. To be a doctor, there are requirements of schooling, insurance, and testing, just to name a few. If Man X hasn’t met the requirements, Man X cannot properly be called Doctor X, nor can he work at the aforementioned hospital as a doctor.

    Regardless of how charming Man X might be, he is not above the credentialing process.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that Man X is fully qualified. Now, we can call him Doctor X. And let’s say Doctor X is so fully qualified that he wasn’t just hired as a regular doctor, but as Chief of Staff. And let’s say that Doctor X needs to hire himself a personal secretary. And let’s say the hospital has a written rule against nepotism. And let’s say Doctor X hires his sister to be his secretary.

    Regardless of how charming and competent Sister X might be, and regardless of how charming her brother, the fact remains that there is a rule forbidding such a hire from taking place, and they are not above the rules simply because they are charming and competent.

    If you were the hospital, or a board member of the hospital, it would be your job in this instance, regardless of how much you like or dislike Doctor X, to inform Doctor X that he cannot hire his sister because he is in express violation of the written hospital rules.

    And if Doctor X ignored you, then I think we would all know how much Doctor X respected the rules of the hospital, or even rules in general, and we would anticipate much rule-breaking at the hospital.

    But now the story is carrying me away a bit.

    Ahem.

    The primary job of the President of the United States of America can be summed up in the oath he takes: namely, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The President must master the Constitution and be mastered by it, just as a Christian must his Bible.

    From day one, Mr. Ob*ma has done exactly the opposite. He has chipped away at the Constitution already, and is doing it even now, and most of us don’t even realize it. He seems to believe he has been elected Emperor, to invent and twist laws at his will. I didn’t fully see this at first, but my eyes are open a bit wider each day.

    Let’s go through the three main Ob*ma-related issues being overlooked by the media today.

    Ob*ma May Not be Eligible for the Presidency

    I say may because I think he might also be fully qualified. By qualified, I mean according to the Consitution, which, by the way, doesn’t require all these newfangled qualifications fabricated by the media such as “experience.”

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution

    Now, I’m sure you all know that there were rumors circulating about both candidates back during the election. Back in February of this year, the New York Times questioned whether John McCain was a natural-born citizen due to his being born in the Panama Canal Zone. At the same time, the Times tries to redefine “natural-born citizen” by saying that there was “scant explanation” of what the phrase means.

    I’m thinking my readers are smart enough to figure out what it means.

    It means that the person was born a citizen. This would be in contrast to being naturalized. Apparently, where you live is evidence of alliances, as the person must not only be a citizen, but a citizen that chooses to reside in his own country for over a decade.

    However, Mr. Ob*ma has yet to produce a Birth Certificate. Now, before you all blow me off as a crazy person, just stay with me for a moment. Ob*ma’s marketing squad produced a Certificate of Live Birth. My understanding is that a COLB is something that is commonly used to register a birth that took place abroad, or at least not in a hospital. These certificates can be issued up to one year after the birth. Or at least this is what I’ve read. {If I’m wrong, by all means send me a link and I’ll correct the error of my ways.}

    All of this is to say not that the COLB is fraudulant, but that it isn’t any sort of official evidence of the place of birth.

    There is more to this topic, and I don’t have the time to get into it. However, since the media isn’t really covering this story, you might find it interesting to know that there have been a number of lawsuits filed concerning this issue. One of them, Donofrio v. Wells, was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. There will be a conference on December 5, 2008, which is in only a few days now. Please note that this case doesn’t just concern Ob*ma’s eligibility for office, but also John McCain’s and a guy named Roger Calero’s, all of whom were on the New Jersey ballot for president, and all of whom the petitioner claims are not natural-born citizens. I already explained the situation with McCain. Calero was born in Nicaragua and Ob*ma’s place of birth is considered yet-to-be-determined.

    Ob*ma is Not the President-Elect

    Presidents aren’t actually elected by the people. Not directly, anyhow. They are elected by electors, who are members of the Electoral College {yes, they are real people}. Electoral votes are not cast on the night of the election, even though the members of the media like to pretend that they are in fact authoritative enough to cast electoral votes in place of the actual citizens whose job it is to do so.

    The electoral votes haven’t been cast yet at all, as the E.C. does not convene until December 15, 2008.

    If you are really interested in the process, you might find it interesting to know that they don’t convene as one huge body, but each state has its own convention. Also, the electoral votes are not officially counted until January 6, which is the day that the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate will meet in joint session for this purpose.

    Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution says:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The 12th Amendment clarifies how the E.C. is to work in practice.

    It drives me crazy to see Ob*ma out there touting his “Office of the President-Elect” insignia, and the media chanting the title away, when the title is not yet his. This reveals a total lack of respect for the Constitution, the very document he is scheduled to swear to preserve, protect, and defend.

    Ob*ma Cannot Legally Appoint Hillary Clinton

    WorldNetDaily explained this beautifully today. In a nutshell, the Consitution in Article II, Section I says this:

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

    Now, I didn’t actually know what an “emolument” was, so I looked in my trusty Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, and this is what I found:

    The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office, as salary, feels and perquisites.

    Hillary Clinton is therefore forbidden from appointment to the Ob*ma administration because she helped give the position of Secretary of State a raise. The Consititution is explicit: if you raise the pay for an executive position, you can’t take that job in the near future, because this would create a conflict of interest. This means that not just Clinton, but also all members of Congress are ineligible for this position in the Ob*ma administration until they finish the individual terms for which they were elected.

    See the Wall Street Journal Law Blog for details.

    It seems that a President, who should specialize in the document he must defend, as I keep saying, would check the law before making flippant appointments. And one would also think that the media would do some basic fact-checking before running away with their stories.

    Overall Disrespect of the Constitution

    All of this begs the question: Can an elected official with such obvious disregard for the Constitution really be expected to uphold it? My answer to this question is no. Which leads to another question. What exactly will America look like in four years?

    *I’m trying to limit Google searches by altering the name. There have been many problems with attacks on blogs, and I’m trying to avoid it here.

    Get the (almost) weekly digest!

    Weekly encouragement, direct to your inbox, (almost) every Saturday.

    Powered by ConvertKit

    8 Comments

  • Reply groovsmyth December 26, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Pardon, Brandy. I followed Elizabeth’s link trail – a very good recommendation. Credit to you for the writing!

    You might find it interesting to note that, although the Senate passed a resolution holding up McCain’s eligibility, there is evidence that he was not born in the Panama Canal Zone, but in the Republic of Panama.

    The breaking of the Presidential oath to preserve the Constitution may indeed be nothing new, but it will reach new heights of blatant violation on 20 January, if there aren’t enough Statesmen left in the nation with the moral courage to weather the consequences of saving the Republic.

  • Reply groovsmyth December 26, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Excellent analogy, Elizabeth, and well written. The dumbing down of America has finally been achieved through television, apparently. What the general population considers incidental details and/or “a technicality” is very much how the day-to-day business of order is accomplished. It will be the ultimate farce if all the dolts who appear on all the reality court shows are held to a higher standard of the Rule of Law than the POTUS. It’s a recipe for unraveling the entire system, and the juvenile liberals are so caught up in the “party” that they can’t even recognize the logic that holds society together. Anarchy won’t be far behind.
    Want to help re-build the Republic-lost? Visit http://aipnews.com and join the grassroots return to self-government.

  • Reply Rachel R. December 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    My understanding is that the documentation issue is over the distinction between a certificate of birth and a certification of birth. One apparently has much more information on it. Also the fact that he has never produced a paper copy of anything, that anyone seems to know about – just a low-resolution image with the certificate number blocked out. And FactCheck.org apparently has ties to some organization that Obama has ties to, so there’s a real conflict of interest there.

    Also, the senate specifically passed a resolution affirming McCain’s eligibility.

    (I did not vote for either one, so I have no bias toward either of them.)

  • Reply Brandy December 2, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Great discussion here, people! I have a deep affection for you all…

    Okay, so some things are becoming clearer, while others are getting murkier. Here is where I am currently at in my research about the citizenship issue. (Can I just say that I wish it were easier to find the true details about the case?)

    Anyhow, I’m browsing through a book called The Citizenship Flowchart using GoogleBooks. I’m noticing a few issues that I predict will come up. But first, please note that citizenship is always definied by the immigration laws at the time of the child’s birth. In fact, some of my reading would say, for instance, that Rahime would not be a citizen had she been born in the 1960s. But since she was born after some immigration redesign in 1978, she has no problem.

    The Nationality Act of 1940, according to the book I mentioned above allowed “mothers to give their children citizenship but only if the alien fathers had not legitimated the children before they were age 21. Thus, if before the effective date of the 1940 Nationality Act (January 13, 1941) the alien father legitimated his minor child, the child was not a citizen.” Since Ob*ma is not illegitimate child (he bears his father’s name), this might be his biggest hurdle in the case. In addition, there were some residency requirements, but I don’t know enough about Mr. Ob*ma to analyze whether he met them or not.

    In the case of John McCain, the issue would be different, not just due to immigration at the time of his birth, but also because the Panama Canal Zone was considered U.S. soil at the time.

    I am not sure about the third guy, whose name I keep forgetting. Nicaragua would be an issue, unless his parents were both citizens and just happened to be there at the time of his birth, or were there on active military duty, or something like that. Of course, his year of birth would govern some of that, and I don’t know what that is…

    By the way: Rahime, yes! I am tired, too, of all the law-breaking around here! I’ll be doing a little special on President Bush tomorrow if I have time. Unfortunately, the breaking of the presidential oath is nothing new…

  • Reply flacius1551 December 2, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    I was born in Hawaii in an airforce base hospital in 1969 and I have a “Certificate of Live Birth.” This isn’t the original birth certificate, which my mother misplaced, it is a record from the state office that produces such things. I used it to get a passport without any problem.

    However, I don’t think it actually matters what kind of documentation of birth he has. His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen as well, no matter where he was born on earth.

  • Reply Rahime December 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    From what I remember, the “natural born citizen” clause has always been ambiguous (it’s a subject of personal interest to me, so I did some research on it years ago), and hasn’t either been defined by the Constitution or directly by Supreme Court case law. Obama was born a citizen, as was McCain, because he was born to a citizen. I was born on foreign soil, but because my parents were citizens I was born a citizen, not naturalized.

    So, really the question isn’t whether or not he was born a citizen, but rather whether, in order to be “natural born,” one must be born on US soil. Although historically the tendency has been to use natural born to refer to place-of-birth rather than lineage (and native-born to refer to citizenship inherited from one’s parents), neither interpretation has been consistent.

    It seem as though it’s high time the courts dealt with the ambiguity…and someone actually produce a birth certificate for our nation’s presidential candidates. (Does it seem strange to you that this is even an issue? It seems to me that verifying a candidate’s birth certificate would be one of the standard procedures before allowing them to run for president…or serve as senator for that matter…you can hardly get a driver’s license without one for goodness sake.)

    As far as the rest goes, I completely agree. It drives me nuts to see so much of our country running on blatantly broken laws.

  • Reply Brandy December 2, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    My understanding was that the paperwork was a little different in Hawaii. I checked out the Hawaii.gov website, but I couldn’t find anything about paperwork for births covering the COLB v. Birth Certificate issue. I had read there was a difference in some newspaper a while back, but didn’t make note of the link because I assumed I’d never write about the topic. Actually, I disregarded all of this until I noticed the Supreme Court case and figured it must have more credibility that I originally believed.

    What I was hoping for was not information about birth certificates in general, but birth certificates from Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth. For instance, at the top of my children’s California certificates of live birth it says, “Certificate of Vital Record,” but I wouldn’t look for that on someone else’s form unless they were from the same state at the same time. Make sense?

    However, I am totally open to this being a big nonsense sort of issue. FactCheck.org has a sensible analysis. I didn’t see this until today.

    Of course, this makes me wonder why the Supreme Court is agreeing to conference on the case? It doesn’t make sense to me if it is all a rumor…

  • Reply Anonymous December 2, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    I was born here, in the U.S., and my birth certificate definitely reads: CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH.

  • Leave a Reply