The Obama Ballot Challenges: A Crisis of Confidence

American Thinker

Just  a few months ago, FOX  News reported on polling data which suggested that “[i]f Americans could  cast a ‘confidence’ vote in the style of European parliaments, President Barack  Obama would not fare well. A 56-percent majority would give his administration a  vote of ‘no confidence.'”


Ample  evidence abounds for Americans to have no confidence that the economic justice  activist-turned-politician is working out for the good of the country.   Even at the most fundamental level, doubt remains as to whether the man  occupying the White House is constitutionally eligible for the  job.

There  are two factors causing lingering doubts.  The first is based upon Obama’s  secrecy in refusing to release relevant records for inspection and  authentication.  The second is that the Supreme Court needs to rule on the  application of the Constitution’s requirement, “natural born citizen,” with  respect to Barack Hussein Obama II.


Obama’s  bizarre secrecy


Numerous  polls have confirmed that a significant number of Americans have doubts  concerning the apparent birthplace of Obama.  CBS  News reported on April 21, 2011 that only one in four Americans believe that  Obama was born in the United States.


After  abruptly “releasing” an elusive birth certificate on April 27, 2011 (previously  pronounced to be non-existent) — after more than three years of stonewalling —  doubts still remain.  Gallup  reported that even after the infamous internet posting ceremony and sermon, those willing to say Obama was  “definitely born in U.S.” rose only nine percent, from 38 percent to 47  percent.


Recently, Public  Policy Polling revealed that 51% of Republican primary voters have doubts over the venue of  Obama’s birth.


That’s  a sizable and entirely unnecessary problem.


Any  doubt over presidential eligibility is unacceptable.  The American people  shouldn’t have to “believe” that Obama is constitutionally eligible. Trust is  for gods; skepticism and verification is for politicians.


The  recent development of the state  ballot challenges represents the right of the people to remove the doubt.   Petitioners are demanding that evidence that meets the standard of  courtroom admissibility, if it does exist, be produced to confirm Obama’s  eligibility.


If  Obama is not willing to be completely transparent, then he should step down.   To the bewilderment of his sycophants, the cloud of skepticism hanging  over Obama’s head is commensurate to his unique background, not his skin color.   No one doubted the eligibility of Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton,  or Herman Cain.


Doubt  remains because, legally speaking, Obama hasn’t “released” anything.  To  meet a basic legal standard of evidentiary competence and admissibility,  certified paper copies must be produced, and the original document in Hawaii  must be made available for the states.


Rather  than produce irrefutable evidence, Obama posted a “highly  suspicious” image of a birth certificate on the internet.


Curiously  (or maybe not so curiously), Obama refuses to produce certified copies and  release the original for inspection and authentication.  As with the case  of the Certification of Live Birth document that the Daily Kos somehow  obtained and posted online in 2008, Obama originals are reportedly inspected by  “credible  people” behind closed doors at the discretion of Obama.


The  first factor causing doubt could be resolved immediately by Obama, if he were to  have a conversion to transparency — or if he could be forced to  produce.


The  doubts caused by foreign parentage


The  second factor will not be resolved until the High Court takes the question of  whether Obama’s legal status at birth made him a “natural born citizen.”   Instead of hiring lawyers to summarily dismiss the early lawsuits (on  technicalities) that claimed that Obama’s non-U.S. citizen father makes him  ineligible for the presidency, Obama should have welcomed a ruling by the  Supreme Court.


A  man with Obama’s background who truly respected our Constitution would not have  taken the oath of office without first having such doubts resolved one way or  the other by the country’s highest Court.


The  Supreme Court case Minor  v. Happersett (1875) was cited in the recent Georgia ballot challenge  hearing.  Many jurists agree that it provides the exclusive  definition for the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause, which is a  requirement for the presidency.


Unfortunately,  Georgia’s administrative law judge, Michael Malihi, missed the significance of Minor and removed not a shred of doubt concerning Obama.  The  judge made reference to an inconsequential Indiana case, Ankeny  v. Governor, in which the petitioners attempted to persuade the  governor to determine Obama’s eligibility.  In his decision, Malihi  points to some misguided dicta from Ankeny and concludes that “a  person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States  because he became a United States citizen at birth.”


Judge  Malihi avoided the substantive distinctions among a naturalized citizen, a  native-born 14th-Amendment citizen, and the constitutional safeguard  for the presidency: the requirement of natural born citizen  status.


The  Supreme Court in Minor was asked to decide whether the “privileges or  immunities” of citizenship guarded by the 14th Amendment gave  Virginia Minor the right to vote in spite of Missouri’s male suffrage  laws.


The  Court ruled that Ms. Minor did not need the 14th Amendment for her  citizenship (and that the right of citizenship never came with an automatic  privilege of suffrage).  Minor’s type of citizenship preceded the amendment  passed (by Republicans over Democrat protest) to protect the former  slaves.


The  Court held that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen.  Though Missouri  law denied her the vote, she could have become president.  She was born  with a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States.


For  legal thinkers of that day, citizenship was primarily about allegiance and  protection.


The  very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association  of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. … He owes it allegiance  and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this  connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other;  allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.


The  quote directly above is from Minor.  And Chief Justice Waite goes  on to say:


The  Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort  must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of  which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that  all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became  themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born  citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.


According  to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one scenario which yields complete  confidence.  No Supreme Court case declares anyone to be a natural born  citizen whose allegiances were conflicting at birth.


“Some  authorities go further,” the Court notes, “and include as citizens children born  within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the  purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”  Virginia  Minor was born to U.S. citizen parents and had an unbroken chain of natural  allegiance to the United States.  There were no doubts to  solve.


To  the class of Barack Obama, however, it is necessary “to solve these doubts”  inasmuch as Obama holds the presidency and seeks another term.


In  former times, there would have been doubts as to whether Obama would even be a  citizen without a formal renouncing of foreign allegiance. But based on wayward  interpretations of the 14th Amendment, if we believe Obama was  Hawaii-born, we must conclude that he is at least a U.S. citizen — regardless  of his British/Kenyan allegiance at birth and his adoption in Islamic  Indonesia.


But  a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.   Contrary to 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, the requirement of  sole allegiance to the United States from birth onward has never been stricken  from the Constitution’s eligibility clause.


The  Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause remains intact and unmolested by  any controlling precedent.


An  undisputed fact is that Obama was not born into the status of having a natural,  undivided allegiance to the United States.


Unfortunately,  concerning Obama and presidential eligibility, reasonable doubt does remain.   Doubts remain because of the unwarranted secrecy of Obama in guarding the  ordinary records of his background.  And doubts will remain until the  Supreme Court squares the Constitution’s requirements with the facts of Obama’s  parentage and conflicting allegiances at birth.

Read more:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s