I have followed with interest the controversy over Pres. Obama’s alleged failure to meet the requirements of Article II § 1 of the Constitution of the United States. This alleged failure involves Pres. Obama’s unwillingness to demonstrate his birth in the United States. Art. II §1 requires that our President be a naturalized citizen.
One can serve in the Congress without being a naturalized citizen, but the Presidency is reserved for naturalized citizens, only.
The issue raised about Pres. Obama’s place of birth is of great importance. If we are a nation which prides itself in being a nation of law, with the Constitution held as the ultimate authority, then Art. II §1 cannot be ignored. If it so ignored in this case, then the specter of a selective interpretation of the Bill of Rights comes into focus. No article can be said to be unimportant or “outmoded” or “outdated”.
I believe that we all realize that the Constitution presents at times an inconvenient and troublesome bar to the goals of the party in power. Hence, the continued selection of judiciary that continually tries to reinterpret and reinvent the Constitution with legal artifice that is designed to serve a political ideology rather than recognize the preeminence of the Constitution as our supreme law of the land.
Recently, a young man who is a long time friend of my son stated to me that the issue of Obama’s birth was moot, as “we had voted (Pres.) Obama into office.
This young man, like those who voted for Obama, feels that his election is a fait accompli by virtue of the outcome of the Electoral College and the popular vote.
In spite of many court challenges to disclose such information, no State has yet disclosed that Pres. Obama made any demonstration of his qualification under the Constitution to the Electors for that State.
Pres. Obama has an obligation to those who voted for him to demonstrate that he is truly qualified. To date, he has adamantly refused to do so, going so far as to spend over $1,000,000 in legal fees to prevent any disclosure of his birth records, his college entrance documentation, and records of his entry into Indonesia at a time when U.S. citizens were barred entry by the State Dept.
By contrast, Gov. Sarah Palin was subjected to the most humiliating and demeaning sort of examination by the press in their demand that she demonstrate her motherhood of her latest progeny. The affront was outrageous, but our Governor complied with that insulting, demeaning, and egregious demand.
Yet, in the case of Obama’s constitutional qualifications, the press has been silent or outright scornful in their comments.
Paradoxically, our President, the guy who promised “change,” has refused to simply stand up at a press conference, hold up his true birth certificate, and say “here it is, now shut up about this!”. Instead, the legal interference continues.
Our forefathers recognized that the rule of law cannot be suborned to party ideology; otherwise, our republic will deteriorate into a rule of whim, no better than the meanest oligarchy or dictatorship. Our rights would then exist by whim of the party in power, and subject to that party’s interpretation.
To answer my son’s friend, the popular vote cannot supersede the Constitution’s requirement of naturalized citizenship. The mob cannot rule. We are a nation of law, and that law is the Constitution. Pres. Obama is subject to that law, not an exception to it.
Every judge, federal official, congressman, federal law enforcement official, and every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine, both officer and enlisted, swear an oath to uphold and to defend . . . the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
It is this imperative that requires the current President to demonstrate that he meant to uphold his oath by publically providing proof of his qualification to hold the office of the Presidency. He owes this to every American, whether they voted for him or not.
Gov. Sarah Palin stepped up under the most egregious and demeaning of circumstances, especially since she literally had no legal obligation to comply with the outrageous demand on the part of the press.
Why cannot Pres. Obama stand up and present his birth certificate demonstrating his qualification under the Constitution to hold the office of President, and thereby end this controversy about his place of birth?