Supreme Court Declines Birth Certificate Case, But Issue Still Unresolved

Story here.

This denial of certiorari will be misunderstood as a ruling by the highest court in the land that the merits of Obama's qualification to hold the presidency have been resolved in his favor. 

No federal court has yet required Obama to produce a birth certificate that would be admissible in court:  the original birth certificate or a certified copy. A digital image of a birth certificate posted on the internet is not proof of anything.  No lawyer can rely on such evidence in court. 

Every court faced with this political hot potato has thus far found a procedural way to avoid the issue, and Obama's lawyers have not put the issue to bed by simply presenting a certified copy of the birth certificate to any of these courts.

The federal courts have thus far failed to enforce the constitutional requirement that a president be a natural born citizen. 

While the constitution does not spell out how a president's eligibility must be proven, showing a birth certificate would seem to be a simple and minimal requirement to enforce the constitutional requirement.  Federal courts are experts at finding ways to enforce constitutional mandates, even where the constitution spells out no specific mechanism.  Entire professions, agencies, procedures, and industries, from public defenders to Miranda warnings to school busing, have sprung out of perceived constitutional mandates.  And yet the constitutional requirement designed to ensure the undivided loyalty of the president of the United States is suddenly a constitutional orphan, with no court in the land thus far willing or able to find a way to enforce it.

Many fallacies are operating unchallenged here.  One is that the election is over and that courts cannot overturn the will of tens of millions of voters.  It's a practical concern but it is legally irrelevant.  We have three branches of government for a reason.  Ours is a system of checks and balances.  The role of the courts is to enforce the constitution regardless of whose ox is being gored.  Besides, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a challenge to a president's qualifications must be dropped once the people have voted.  Closure is psychologically satisfying, but not helpful if the constitution is being ignored.

I recognize the political realities.  The popular vote counts for something, and might often makes right.  But don't confuse political expediency with constitutionality, and don't attempt to dismiss legitimate constitutional questions with ad populum fallacies and ad hominem attacks (it's true because everyone thinks it's true; it's true because you are "deranged" to raise the issue).

Of course it's satisfying to side with the majority on any issue.  Of course it's much simpler to take an internet birth certificate at face value (and an internet news clipping of a birth report, which is incredibly easy to make up, by the way -- have you heard of the newspaper clipping generator?)  As a lawyer, though, I can't go to court and offer internet images of documents in evidence.  When an issue is contested, document examiners need to see original documents, not digital images. 

I am disappointed with my peers who treat internet images of documents, the originals of which no court has ever seen, as if the digital images were conclusive proof of anything. 

Let's consider another fact here:  Obama is not a competent witness to the circumstances of his own birth.  Obviously, he was an infant at the time.  His mother and father are both dead, so they can't testify either.  The only way to prove that Obama is qualified to be president is for him to produce the original or a certified copy of his birth certificate, and he has not produced that to any court or challenger.  Posting a digital image on the internet after supposedly having showing some form of the document to hand-picked allies doesn't count.

Let's not be afraid of the facts, and let's not be afraid to demand that original or certified copy to be shown to at least one court. 

Is Obama a natural born citizen?  I don't know.  He might be.  Or not.  The reality is that you don't know either -- even if you think you know -- because Obama has chosen not to produce admissible evidence to any court that has addressed the issue.  Instead, in each case, he has relied on procedural objections and motions to dismiss based on standing and other technical problems.  In a circumstance where he could have simply eliminated the issue by providing the proof, he's avoiding the issue and trying to run out the clock. 

Obama's behavior suggests that he has something to hide.  Even his "Office of the President Elect" narcissism and his phony presidential seal may be part of a calculated campaign designed to brush aside the eligibility question.  

Secondhand internet images are not proof.  You're not on any moral or intellectual high ground if you accept internet images as proof on this issue.  You're just taking a leap of faith about the authenticity of the original documents that have only been presented as internet images.

Some are so eager for closure on this issue that they argue that we should simply dispense with the constitutional requirement that the president be a natural born citizen.  That is simply an evasion, however.  The constitution is what it is.  If America decides to amend it, fine.  In the meantime, if we fail to enforce it, we will rapidly decline from a nation of laws into a nation of men, and a nation of power grabs.

Comments

[eConsultant]

Obama vs McCain was 69+ million vs 59+ million (wikipedia) ; 65+ million vs 57+ million (fox news) ... the National Review Article, that you link to, uses the figure of 64 million ... it's surely more than 52 million as you have used in the hyperlink.

[Gina Cobb responds: Sorry - you're right -- I confused 52% with the vote total. Will correct it. Thanks for your comment.]

[beth]

I wonder what it would cost to have the Department of Health for the State of Hawai'i mail out certified (notarized) copies (obviously they would have to be copies, there is only one "original")of Obama's proof of birth/citizenship to every single registered voter in the US? (Remembering, of course, the laws about citizenship in regards people born in the Territory (now State) of Hawai'i.) All things considered, it probably would be a good investment...

Even then, though, I suspect there would still be those who would insist he was pulling some (more) shenanigans and just _claiming_ to be meet the requirements of Article II of the 14th Amendment, when he was/is _really_ (take your pick from the following) Indonesian, British, Kenyan, and/or Canadian. (I may have left a nation or two out...) And/or, that he's not qualified to be POTUS because he's _really_ a naturalized citizen - any and all proof to the contrary, be damned.

Actually, I think, we should all probably be greatly relieved (and thankful) SCOTUS is a dignified, deliberative body that is aware of/knows the laws of the land; that it does not allow itself to give credence to rumors, innuendoes, and conjectures presented as "fact"; and that it is able to distinguish between what is credible support for a lawsuit (and/or _any_ argument) and that which is not.

On second thought...maybe they, too, are all in cahoots with Obama (the low-down, sneaky, natural-born US-citizen imposter...trying to destroy our Constitution and all). Since the SCOTUS've declined to hear the case(s) brought before them on the issue, they _must_ be. Sure; makes totally logical sense to me. [/sarcasm]