A blog about Religion & Faith, Politics, and News.
|
Campaign cash used to defend presidency eligibility suits? Let there be Orly (Hebrew for "light") on Obama's eligibility Yo', man ... where da party at? Eligibility lawyer: President should be deported Soldier questions president's eligibility It's one thing for a schmoe like me to call out ... "It's a double standard from bizarro world" North Dakota House bans abortion Soetoro/Obama a despot? "We're not a monarchy" November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Message for Obama: "Silence can only be equated with fraud ... "
A most thought-provoking article (emphases are mine, with my thoughts in parentheses) by The Bulletin, a Philadelphia paper:
Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy
Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation. According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records. Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject. Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time. "Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath. Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated. "He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on xecutive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped." Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered. "Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it." Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis. "If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him, 'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr. Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so]." Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case. "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading," the ruling reads. "We cannot condone this shocking conduct ... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button. "[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there," said Mr. Vieira. "What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?" (I can see it all now: Obama offers Hawaii to the Russians provided that the KGB guards his birth certificate around the clock and places roses on his dear grandmother's grave at least twice a week). Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office. "If you don't produce it, you think it's going to go away," he said. "There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing." Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration. "Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. (Way to go, Joe Schmoe!) And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' " Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court. Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document's veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration. (Indeedy!) "I can't believe I'm the only lawyer who would think of this," said Mr. Vieira (and I can't believe I'm one of the few citizens who think the same). "I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, 'yes, there it is.' And therefore they're caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying 'no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail' then that's the end of the Obama administration's legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it's not there, then that's really the end of the administration's legitimacy." Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court. A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. (tick, tock, tick, tock ... ) Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court. 25 comments from 13 users
1
posted by
middlepath
on Dec 2, 2008 at 03:26 AM
The magnitude of the issue ensures the birth certificate produced will be amazingly valid, so no need to worry one way or another. posted by
saberhagen
on Dec 2, 2008 at 06:08 AM
The fact is, the state of Hawaii says it has the official original record of Obama's birth on file. There is no reason to suspect the state is being untruthful or a party to some Machiavellian scam. It is most likely that the certifying document on file was produced by the state from information provided by a county or municipality within the state based on hospital records officially authenticating a live birth witnessed and attested by an attending physician. Meanwhile, the records are sealed, protected by privacy laws and copies available only to Obama himself or by court order. It is highly unlikely that Obama's mother or father created and forged a phony document and somehow slipped it into state records, or that Obama himself was able to do it years later. Conspiracy theorists have numerous outlandish notions ranging from the belief that Obama was spawned by aliens from another planet and sent here to pave the way for invasion, to the fear that he is the Antichrist who will lead the world to Armageddon. It's great fodder for movie entertainment.
posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 2, 2008 at 07:56 AM
It would seem that Obama has a much greater respect for privacy rights than Shrub ever did... A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. (tick, tock, tick, tock ... ) Once again, $50 says it's denied cert on the 5th. It's already been turned down once. If I'm wrong, the money goes to the Homeless Center. posted by
Ray_Harwick
on Dec 2, 2008 at 09:49 AM
The urban legend of the Obama birth certificate continues... ...and the Republicans scratch their heads and wonder why they lost the election. Now that Sioux has an identical twin, I wonder what they'll come up with next. posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 2, 2008 at 10:03 AM
...and the Republicans scratch their heads and wonder why they lost the election. It''s because they weren't deferential enough to the And nothing at all to do with the fact that they nominated the political equivalent of Tonya Harding to be the next-in-line to a septuagenarian presidential candidate. posted by
TSM
on Dec 2, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Wait, you mean you guys didn't know Obama's family had a time machine? http://www.americablog.com/...
Obama's birth certificate and birth announcement in the local Hawaiian newspaper: http://www.snopes.com/polit...
posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 2, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Facts again, TSM? You know about them facts and their liberal bias. posted by
antiextremism
on Dec 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Infowar, Infowar...is there no end to your conspiracy theories? posted by
Ppopgun
on Dec 2, 2008 at 08:19 PM
I did check out the Snopes article a while back. It doesn't even begin to answer all the questions about this case. I find it unbelievable that the media that was such an attack dog on Bush all of a sudden is being a lap dog for Obama. Why am I having to turn to the right-wing sites to get some answers to some basic, hard questions since the mainstream media doesn't seem to be the least bit suspicious about Obama hiring three law FIRMS and spending a million bucks to keep his birth certificate a secret? Don't you smell a rat here? One with grave constitutional implications? Obama seriously needs to quit playing games and level with us. P.S. Randomfactor, keep the change. I don't gamble. Enough satisfaction will come from coming back here to say "I told you so." posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:02 PM
find it unbelievable that the media that was such an attack dog on Bush I assume *THIS* is the part that inspired the laughter, bakommafan? . P.S. Randomfactor, keep the change. I don't gamble. Enough satisfaction will come from coming back here to say "I told you so." Yes, I plan on enjoying that particular satisfaction tomorrow. posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:06 PM
an ad that just ran in the Chicago Tribune, I get ads in my e-mail all the time for various sexual enhancers. Should responsible journalists be taking note of them, too? The proper response to the ad you cite (your link's broken, by the way) is a two-word phrase, the second word being the second-person-possessive pronoun. I respectfully request that the neocons simply accept that their little neo-con game is over. posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:08 PM
And pray tell, what is a Democrat doing filing a motion to stop Obama from taking office? Proving that a small minority of Democrats are capable of as much stupidity as your mainstream Republicans? posted by
NancyII
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:10 PM
No one ever thought Obama could turn the country around in the short time he claimed he would. It only took the election for him and his to start backpedaling and fessing up as to their lack of that ability. It was all election talk and the great "hope" you all voted for is just another person BSing his way into office. What's interesting to watch is how all you who voted for him rant to the rest of us how Obama was going to "fix" Bushes mess. YOU said it. Now you're saying no one can do that in the short period of time you and he claimed it would be done. I'm a realist...you folks are dreamers. And I never said McCain could fix it either. I just thought we stood a better chance with him. posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:15 PM
No one ever thought Obama could turn the country around in the short time he claimed he would. Nancy, he's hiring intelligent people instead of the losers Shrub picked. That's a pretty good start. Once again, if you could persuade the idiot currently squatting in the Oval Office to leave a bit early, we'll *SEE* what Obama can do. You might have overlooked the fact that Obama isn't actually *IN* office yet... posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Now you're saying no one can do that in the short period of time you and he claimed it would be done. What exactly did he claim, Nancy? I'm going to ask for links. Did he, in fact, say he'd have things fixed *BEFORE* taking office? posted by
NancyII
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:25 PM
I'm not talking about what he can and can't do right now..and I never said that. I'm talking about what he can and can't do when he gets in office. I'm talking about the the backpedaling saying well it may not get done (whatever the issue is) in the first few years. As for what he said, no, I'm not providing any links because we're having a discussion here and not a class. He first said he would bring the troops home..he can't do that out of hand. What IS it with you people and links? You must be a lot of fun at a dinner asking people in a discussion to run out and get links. I believe I addressed that very subject on another blog. posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 4, 2008 at 03:54 PM
What, exactly, did he promise? Not what Sarah "Tonya" Palin said he'd do, not what Rush "Oxycodone" Limbaugh said. You're claiming he's backpedaling on promises. *WHAT* did he promise? On the troops, it's pretty easy to find (that's why we ask for links): Obama said, "We should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." http://www.ontheissues.org/... Now, Shrub has just signed a tentative pact with Iraq (he painted himself into a corner) that imposes a slightly different timetable on Obama than the initial 16 months. We can, of course, simply say "Shrub had no authority to do that without Congress, so screw that timetable." But I think the quotation above is still accurate: in 16 months to reduce our combat troops there (significantly, I add.) We've got 18 months to go until you can judge if he did it or not. We'll find out at the same time, let's meet back here and compare notes. The only "backpedaling" I see is on eliminating Shrub's tax-credits for the people who least need them. Again, what did he say? A: I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. And what I have said is, I will institute a middle-class tax cut. So, if you're making $75,000, if you're making $50,000 a year, you will see an extra $1,000 a year offsetting on your payroll tax. He's currently (apparently) leaning towards just letting them expire, while keeping his promise to cut middle-class rates--a significant difference from McBush's position. Is it a change from what he said above? Did he, for example, say "on day one I'll remove the tax cuts for those above $250,000? Obama is being blamed for things Bush is doing right now. Well, get the Texas idiot back to the National Laboratory for Bad Government and let Obama have the chance already. Let's *SEE* what he does.
posted by
thegrumpyskeptic
on Dec 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Wow, all I can really say is C'mon. Do you really think it's a forged document? The probability if very remote that a conspiracy of that magnitude would go on, without president elect Obama, having to prove he was born in the U.S.A. These conspiracy mongers are just using the same tactics as the 911 conspiracy theorist's use. Finding small anomaly's and declaring that's a grand conspiracy, well just glad we have the enlightened ones to shine the way........ugggg no wonder I'm so grumpy, LOL Happy Holidays posted by
NancyII
on Dec 6, 2008 at 01:30 PM
There must be a problem with reading or paying attention on these blogs. I dont know how many time I have to repeat that I rarely listen to ANY talk radio since I'm not in the car all that much and only use my radio by my bed for an alarm clock. You seem to think that I am incapable of reading, watching news programs from all channels, or thinking for myself. You are SADLY mistaken. I disagree with 99% of the liberal talk on here and in your eyes that makes me an uninformed sheep. That is not only highly insulting but is also dead wrong. I'm also a little sick of using a person past problems as a continual insult. If you want to talk Rush and his oxycodone addiction issues then be DAMNED sure you bring Obama's cocaine and marijuana habit into the discussion as well. One's as illegal and as damaging as the other. You need to also be very sure you have nothing in your past you regret or are ashamed of before you start slinging arrows like that. The election is OVER ! If or when Palin becomes an issue in the future try your hateful lies about her then. AND all your made up stories about her. Until then you need to let it go..you seem obsessed with her and I have to wonder why. And yes, this time I AM pissed off. Juvenile litlte jabs with people names is past being old, it's ridiculous! And just for the record.....YOU need to get out of that liberal lockstep you seem to think liberals don't have. posted by
ALICEN
on Dec 6, 2008 at 05:18 PM
NancyII: I have only one thing to say: BRAVO! Okay, make it two. BRAVO!
posted by
randomfactor
on Dec 8, 2008 at 08:02 AM
UPDATE: The Supreme Court tossed out the request for a stay. No word on how long it took for the laughter to die down. posted by
nkoby3
on Dec 14, 2008 at 06:12 PM
Oh man, you right wing jerkoffs sure are funny. You are all so desperate to bring Obama down before he starts repairing the country that your idol George W. Bush destroyed. Let's examine the Constitution, shall we? The Constitution states that the President must be a "natural born citizen." This means that upon birth, Obama must be an American citizen. Let's just assume for a second that he was born in Kenya. The fact that his mother is an American citizen automatically makes him an American citizen. In other words, one does not need to be born on U.S. soil in order to be a natural born citizen. No matter where he was born, by virtue of the fact that his mother was an American makes him a "natural born citizen." I'm sure you know people who were born here but their parents were from another country. If they are born in the U.S., they are American citizens as well as citizens of the country from which their parents come. Individual countries determine their own citizenship laws, and the United States bestows citizenship to those born to American citizens. Case closed. posted by
NancyII
on Dec 14, 2008 at 06:44 PM
" Jerkoffs" Now there's an intelligent and adult way to start a comment. Not to mention I believe that is against TOS. posted by
Rickldo
on Dec 14, 2008 at 07:00 PM
You can also read it from the bathroom. posted by
drilnliftcrude
on Dec 14, 2008 at 07:34 PM
"You can also read it from the bathroom." LOL! Yeah, even from the one in the house across the street! BTW, wouldn't a violation of TOS in large font be more serious than in normal font? Kinda like the difference between whispering and shouting fire in a theatre?
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
