SITREP Obama Citizenship Nov 15 `08 -- Obama Cannot Be President [UPDATE]

By DemocracyRules
Please welcome this guest post by an expert who studies human reasoning and logic.  By popular request, he has updated and extended his piece to better explain why Obama's eligibility must be public.  He also refers to a new case brought in California by Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., and Markham Robinson.

_________________________________________

SUMMARY
The US Constitution specifies that the US President must meet certain eligibility criteria to take office.  Many Americans have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, usually expressed as, “I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  To honorably defend this oath, the eligibility of the President-elect must be known to the individuals who have sworn this oath.  Once the eligibility of the President-elect has become known to the individuals who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, this information has become public.

This leads to a form of deductive logic called a Categorical Syllogism, which reads as follows: (1) To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be public. (2) Obama's eligibility is not public.  (3) Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.  This syllogism is written in the present tense, and as time moves forward, the meaning of the syllogism moves with it.  On January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, this syllogism will disqualify Obama from becoming POTUS.

The Syllogism is based on the rules of nature, not of mankind.  It responds only to the rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action.  If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true.  There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of  law for them to be enforceable.  The rules of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority.  No human is empowered to alter,  rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the Universe.  Therefore, so long as the premises of the syllogism remain true, Obama is not POTUS.
________________________________________________________

THE SYLLOGISM

(1)  At the time of the November 4 election, Obama' eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate.  That is, the majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).

Furthermore Obama's eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it (see Notes 1 & 2). When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence.  Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know (Note 2).

(2) According to the requirements of the US Constitution., the candidates’ eligibility must be public (see Note 1).  The evidence is as follows.  According to Article. II, Section 1, “Before [The President] 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.’”

But Article. II, Section 1 also states, “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.”

(3) If the President is to  preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, he must know whether or not the President- elect is eligible to the Office of President.  Otherwise, the President may fail to uphold the Constitution because he or she may permit an ineligible candidate to assume the Presidency, which would violate Article. II, Section 1.

Furthermore, on the same grounds, every American who has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” must also know whether or not the President-elect is eligible to take office as President.  Otherwise, that individual may fail in their duty, because he or she may permit an ineligible candidate to assume the Presidency.  It is not just the President who must uphold the Constitution, it is the collective duty of Americans to uphold it (e.g., see Note 3).

(4) The failure of an individual to uphold their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is punishable by law under various laws and statues within the USA (see Note 3).  But punishment of a person who has been denied knowledge of the eligibility of the President-elect would be unfair and unconstitutional.

The Constitution protects the people from unfair punishment. According to the Fourteenth Amendment,  “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Therefore, the eligibility of the President-elect must be known to all Americans who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Once it is known to those individuals, this information has become public (see Note 1).

(5) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College

To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS.  They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.

(6)  The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit very large amounts of information each day.  However, to the best of my knowledge, the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (see Note 2).

(7) Until the eligibility is publicly known, there is a method of formal logic which applies to this situation.  It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (“Prior Analytics”, 24b18-20).  Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here.  A syllogism has two premises and a conclusion. The major premise is from the US Constitution, requiring that every President-elect must be eligible to take office.           

(8) Thus we can construct the following syllogism:

Major Premise:

To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be public.

Minor Premise:

Obama's eligibility is not public.

Conclusion:

Therefore Obama is not POTUS.

(9) How Categorical Syllogisms work

When we learn logic in school, the categorical syllogism is often taught like this.  It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

(10) This method of deductive logic is more than 2,000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (“Prior Analytics”, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable.  It is not subject to debate.  These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known Universe.  At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.

Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe.  If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4.  The syllogism above would also be true.  If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true.  If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct.  If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4.  The syllogism would also be true.  These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.

The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy.  There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true.  The conclusion must be true.

(11) The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.

As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS.  Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama is not President, he is the President-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense.  Thus, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward.  As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true:  Obama is not POTUS.  At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.

(12) Obama has ample time to act.  The minor premise states "Obama's eligibility is not public".  Obama could invalidate this premise by making his eligibility publicly known.  But until then, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20. 

If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS.  If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS.  Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.

(13) The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time.  So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it's form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention. 

If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS.  If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS.  For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS.  No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS.  It is not possible to change the past.  Obama never was POTUS.

None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS.  Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid.  Nothing.

If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy.  Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS.  POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama.  If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for failing to uphold the Constitution, and they may be charged with military crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS.  Because of the way military law is structured, there is no middle ground.  The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.  If there is no POTUS, they still must uphold the Constitution.

(14) There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and they go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism.  They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and  (b)  American citizens may be empowered (or required) to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama.

(15) If the US Constitution was changed before January 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change.  Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid.  Obama might be eligible to be POTUS.  But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009.  If an effort is made to change the Constitution after January 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS.  Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the constitutional change into law. 

Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President.  The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to.  However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law.  It would be up to his or her discretion.  Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no simple constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be able to re-assume the position of POTUS.

(16) This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proved in any court.  The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly .  These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them.  No legislature can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism.  Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.

Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or by any human authority.  These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this.  Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS.  However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.

Therefore, so long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS.  If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS.  Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic.  Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.

(17) CONCLUSION

Major Premise:

To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be public.

Minor Premise:

Obama's eligibility is not public.

This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action.  If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true.  There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable.  The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority.  No human is empowered to alter,  rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.

___________________________________________

NOTES

Note 1.  Once the eligibility of the President-elect has become known to the individuals who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, this information has become public.

Public – Function: adjective. Etymology: Middle English publique, from Anglo-French, from Latin publicus; akin to Latin populus people. Date: 14th century.

1 a: exposed to general view : open b: well-known , prominent c: perceptible, material 2 a: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b: of or relating to a government c: of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation 3 a: of or relating to people in general : universal b: general, popular 4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social 5: devoted to the general or national welfare: humanitarian 6 a: accessible to or shared by all members of the community b: capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market -- often used with go 7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <public television> – – Webster’s

Note 2.  The unknown status of Obama's eligibility is typified in a current court case in California.  Download Final_writ_keyes_v_bowen . (Click to enlarge)

It is the case of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., and Markham Robinson,  versus the California Secretary of State, Debra Brown, et al. In the case the Plaintiffs claim that it is the duty of  Debra Brown, as Secretary of State for the State of California, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state: (Click to enlarge)

Note 3. Failure of an individual to uphold their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is punishable by law under various laws and statues within the USA.  For example, in the case referred to in Note 2, the Plaintiffs argue: (Click to enlarge)

____________________________________________________

Comments

[Irving M. Copi fan]

@ DemocracyRules, November 15, 2008 5:02 PM
"(1) To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be public. (2) Obama's eligibility is not public. (3) Therefore, Obama is not POTUS."

The major (1) and minor (2) terms and the conclusion (3) have to be true in order for the argument to be valid.

Your argument, democracyrules (or is it Gina Cobb?) is INVALID. And I will tell you why:

IGNORATIO ELENCHI.

The conclusion of your argument is irrelevant. It is a Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion.

Your argument is irrelevant to the outstanding issue of whether Obama is eligible to be POTUS. The contention is not whether he is POTUS, is not POTUS, or wants to be POTUS. The contention is whether Obama is or is not eligible to be POTUS. And your conclusion does NOT address that issue.

You have tried to supplant the question of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS with your conclusion that he is not POTUS. Nice try. You failed.

Your argument is fallacious, invalid, and irrelevant. To put it bluntly, in Irving M. Copi's words, your argument's "premises are directed toward a conclusion different from the one that is supposed to be established by them."

Enough said.

(Never mind the fact that both of your argument's premises are FALSE. You have confused Obama's birth credentials with his eligibility to be POTUS. They are not one and the same.)
_____________________________________
{From DR -- Well thank you for your comment! It's very interesting. The syllogism piece was actually written by a guest, but I think I can address your points.

(1) The IGNORATIO ELENCHI issue. Yes. I and several others had this problem with the original argument. The original syllogism was fine, by itself, and true, but IF and ONLY IF the premises were true, AND it was necessary for the eligibility to be publicly known.

However, the original piece did not compellingly prove that the eligibility actually had to be publicly known. Our guest author responded with the updated version you see here.

He made it more clear that it is the syllogism itself which is governed by the rules of deductive logic. The premises cannot be seen that way, because they are not compelled by some other deductive argument. The premises are derived by induction.

He also added a section at the beginning about why the eligibility must be publicly known. He explains what he means by "public" in Note 1. He uses the wording of the Constitution itself to demonstrate that only public eligibility would fulfill the criteria demanded in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

He does this deductively but it can be challenged, since the Constitution has some ambiguity in it, and deductive logic hates ambiguity. However, the arguments are clearly laid out, and at least the author has clarified what he means by "must be public".

(2) I encourage you to read the piece again, including the footnotes. I can see why you would worry about the possibility of false interpretations of the syllogism. A person who simply skimmed the piece might think that it compels the reader to conclude that Obama is not POPTUS, and shall never be POTUS.

But actually if you read it carefully again, I think you will see that the author allows for situations in which Obama might be POTUS, especially if one or both premises were untrue.

(3) You are certainly entitled to think that one or both premises are untrue. And you may also dispense with the "public" idea. If you did, the conclusion would not be true.

(4) However, I wanted this piece to be digestible by a causal blog reader, and this is what the author wrote. Every reader is completely capable of reading this piece and making up their own minds about the premises and the "public" issue.

(5) However, if the reader concludes the "must be public" arguments are valid, and the two premises are valid, then the conclusion is valid. There is no logical sleight of hand here. The arguments are all exposed for anyone to see and evaluate themselves.

-- Pro Patria}

[rlitzen]

However, if no federal judge rules anytime soon, will the immunity given the Presidential Office prevent any further action or does this become an Original action in the US Supreme Court- which is ridden with Bush appointees.
__________________________________
{From DR -- No, there would be no immunity from further action if Obama takes office. I believe the lawsuits could continue, because they relate to actions Obama did before he took office.

Also, a presidential candidate who claimed to be eligible, but who was not eligible, might be charged with fraud. If convicted, I think the person could be removed from office, physically, if necessary.

Some form of impeachment might also be possible.

Finally, if Obama left office and was later proved to be ineligible, he may be deemed to have never been the President, and all bills, orders, decisions and statements made by Obama might be rendered invalid.

Pro Patria}